foundations of reality from six logical tautologies

Nowhere have I said that.

Damn, I’ve been deceived again - back to being an atheist.

Sounds interesting… looking forward to your thoughts.

Wonderful! I’ve been taken off your foe list! You know what this says to me?

You’re bored and starving for attention.

Yes, excuse me, you said that the biblical explanation that the earth being only a few thousand years old was ‘much more reasonable’ than whatever age others were talking about.

I notice you don’t deny the other psychotic things I listed about you.

Here’s some more: that black people were confused as a punishment from god, that you have ESP and that this ability has allowed you to have spoken with Jesus, God, and Satan.

I fail to see how any of those statements are self contained tautologies

How about the first one;

“nothing is nothing”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

Because nothing and nothing mean two different things. Word games /= deep philosophical truths.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. If there was a significant amount of water in the thermosphere acting as a radiation shield the radiation flux reaching the earth would be significantly reduced. Thus, radio dating methods would be confused for any date before the flood if they assume constant radiation flux over time. It would only take 30,000 years for carbon 14 to be in equilibrium given the current radiation flux assuming it is relatively constant over that time. However, radio carbon 14 is still not in equilibrium… so any radio dating that assumes constant radiation flux is simply baseless.

Also, what the “much more reasonable” was actually referring to was the fact that we have T. Rex blood cells, blood vessels, and connective tissue. To claim all of that is 65 MILLION years old is ludicrous.

Are you denying that the law of identity is a logical tautology?

Do you have any idea what that much water in the atmosphere would be like? If it were significant enough to block cosmic radiation it would also block sunlight.

I’m denying that nothing and nothing are the same word as you’re using it.

Nope To quote it in full:

Nothing is nothing. - Nothing is nonexistence
(a) (b)

The first bit has no meaning in that nothing is not a thing and cannot be self referential. However both my response and the original statement require metaphysical backings and are therefore not self contained, therefore not useful.

Furthermore, Part A does not entail Part B, and neither entail are predicated Leibniz’s law since that talks about instantiated particulars not non existent entities. The difference between A and B is simple. A takes the form of ‘an object is the same as itself’ although it is false. B says the referent (nothing) does not take the form of any other instantiated particular, or A is not BCDE or A =/= n minus A, since A in this case (presupposing a false existence) is nothing, it becomes Not A = Not N

You cannot derive Not A = Not N from Not A = Not A, they are not deductive.

Furthermore, everything I’ve just said is meaningless

Yes.

So, everyone, mars also believes that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time.

Water in the thermosphere would be gas and only block a specific spectrum of radiation.

What are the two definitions of the words nothing and nothing that I am using so that they are not the same?

It seems you don’t like the corollary… “Nothing is nonexistence” which just so happens to be a definitional synonym.

The tautology that makes explicit the law of identity is;

“nothing is nothing”.

This is the thing you need to concede is the tautology. We can deal with whether I am allowed to infer the corollary afterwards.

Uh-huh. And by what method would the water stay in the thermosphere? How would it stay water vapor? How would it stay in the thermosphere?

You’re using the first nothing as ‘no thing’ and the second as ‘nonexistence’. What you’re saying is that you can’t point to any thing and say that it does not exist. That may be true, but it’s not the same word, so it doesn’t fit in with the law of identity.

The thermosphere is thousands of degrees and near vacuum. If you look on a thermodynamics chart for water under these conditions you will find that water is in the gaseous or plasma (ion) phase.

Yes, you’re absolutely right.

However, the escape velocity at that altitude is less than the average velocity of gaseous water at that temperature.

What now?

You missed a bit. Purely looking at nothing is nothing, the law of identity only applies to concrete particulars, in which the operand word ‘is’ has a meaningful reference point. There is no nothing for nothing to point to, so is meaningless within the structure of the law of identity

Well we could interpret it a few ways I suppose;

  1. “no thing” is “nonexistence”

  2. “nonexistence” is “no thing”

  3. “no thing” is “no thing”

  4. “nonexistence” is “nonexistent”

Your interpretation of “nothing is nothing” forces you to use all the synonyms of equivalence to infer the ramifications of the tautology. (3) and (4) make the law of identity explicit and are just fine for my purposes of interpretation.

But I will claim that we can infer (1) and (2) from (3) and (4).

Nonexistence IS? Are you kidding me? It can’t ‘is’, it can’t be, it doesn’t exist!

So, about the escape velocity of gasses…