I only refer to the relevance of the deduction; that several individuals must have an external cause for which they cannot have in their definition the essence of existence.
There are many kinds of infinity. Temporal infinity (eternal), spatial infinity (omnipresent), infinity is even used in calculus to calculate finite spatial and temporal relations; you can use infinity in the limit of a sum as a definite integral.
Omnipresence cannot be localized. It is non-locality by definition.
Zero-Point Energy would be most accurate.
Energy form never becomes more than the sum of zero… because of particle antiparticle pair in the creation of form.
Actually energy forms emit a field of charge and or gravity a the speed of light, off into infinity!
The main question on a prime mover is not so much whether it is all power full… but rather that it is conscious. Self-causation is consciousness. So the unified field is pure dynamic self-referential consciousness!
Nothing can happen without this prime mover… we are not separate from it in any way what so ever… so it is inherently all power full… But here is the thing… we share in it’s nature… we have the essence of self-causation (consciousness). And all the more, the more we are conscious or self-causal.
“Esse est percipi” (“To be is to be perceived”), thus seeking to negate my logical tautologies claiming their ramifications cannot be observed or verified.
However I pointed out that an infinite mind that perceives all is a logical necessity of “Esse est percipi” for which we can have no direct sensual perception… (unless one comprehends that sensual perception and reflexive logic are both types of endomorphic self perception)
Thus you cannot use a dictum that necessitates the ramifications of my logical tautologies while seeking to negate them.
You didn’t seem to comprehend this necessity nor endomorphic self perception…
So, I asked you; Does a rock or a tree exists if no one is around to perceive it? It obviously doesn’t exist if “to be is to be perceived” if there is no infinite mind to perceive it!
I didn’t say they were water vapor. Clouds happen when water vapor condenses and/or freezes.
My uninformed word on physics? Dude, I’ll take a picture of my diploma when I get it in the mail if you want. I just graduated from Penn State with a degree in mechanical engineering.
Uninformed indeed. You cleverly tried to slip in the fact that you agree that Mercury’s low gravity helps cause the lack of atmosphere, and before you were adament that escape velocity had no effect.
Here’s is what this guy is doing. He is using synonyms and analytical truths to try and prove something useful. What he, and you don’t realize is that analyticity is synonymy, which is contingent upon historical usage, which means it cannot rightly be called tautology,. Which is to say, all he has done is traced the definition of a word, and made up nonsense from it. Also realize that existence is not a predicate.
Then realize that his correlative statements are also definition games/nonsense, and that his final “something is the cuase of all things” is the result of a severe misunderstanding of quantifiers.
Everything I said also applies to your “latest work”. Your argument is abortive because it is based on a series of logical mistakes and paradoxes. The most blatant of which is you giving predicates to “nothing”, which is complete nonsense. You failed before you began.
Actually, I was referring to the little game where you tried to downplay your lack of understanding of escape velocity; that shows that I’m smarter than you on several levels. The piece of paper just demonstrates that I am ‘in the know’ as far as physics goes from a societal standpoint.
Sittlichkeit: Yes, he’s absolutely just playing word games. I don’t know why he thinks that’s significant.
Because people sit here and argue with his “tautologies” like they are coherent, instead of recognizing that they are abortive, employing several different logical mistake simultaneously, and paradoxical.
I mean, what do you say to someone who proclaims “The present king of France is bald”? You don’t sit there and say “no he’s not”, you walk away shaking your head because the person has made an abortive statement that doesn’t begin to make sense.
I told you that I didn’t agree with the bishop’s view of god or of the existence of an external watcher.
when it is not observed its existence cannot be verified.
no verification, no proof.
* ‘Socrates is’, rendered in regimented language as ‘(∃x)(Socrates = x)’. of existence
* ‘Cicero is Tully’, rendered as ‘Cicero = Tully’. of identity
* ‘Socrates is wise’, rendered as ‘Wise(Socrates)’. of predication
* ‘Man is an animal’, rendered as ‘(x)(Man(x) → Animal(x))’. of implication
Like I said “A” is not a predicate, it is an atomic sentence. “a” is a predicate, as in Xa or Pa or Ya ect.
That is nonsense. their is no such thing as a negation of a predicate(P~x), and if something is not a thing then it can have no attributes.
I don’t care to get into the problematic uses of “is” with you, it is complicated discussion full of problematic usages, and something tells me such a discussion would be plain painful. Just know that “=” isn’t a proper logical constant.
“Every propositional formula can be translated into an essentially equivalent first-order formula by replacing each propositional variable with a zero-arity predicate.”
The link for first order logic gives an example of a neg predicate of arity zero.
Do you mean I have to use the equivalence (≡) instead of equality (=) because the “ubiquitous equivalence relation is the equality (”=“) relation between elements of any set” and in first order logic “we can’t quantify over functional predicates”?
(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo) (A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence; A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity A → A “nothing involves nothing” Reflexivity of Implication idA: A → A“nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism b(A = x)[/b] “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence
(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner) (A ≡ A)∧(A → A)
(T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan) (A ≡ A)∧(idA: A → A)
(T4) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence. (Parmenides) (A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)
(T5) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides) (A → A)∧(idA: A → A)
(T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner) (A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)
(T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars) (idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)