What will you do if no thing has....

Anything which one can identify has: divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability.
What will you do if no thing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability?

I guess you mean, ultimately?

Thought has all of what you mention, if reallity really is that way or not, it doesn’t even matter. Experience is all that matters.

When “divisible, comparable, competitive etc.” thought ceases to be (at end of evolution), I won’t do anything anymore.

I’ll just be the Perfect One, One with God, Absolute - it will be Ultimate State of Beingness,
state of Pure Joy, Total Peace, Full Awareness, Deepest Love - Complete Experience.

But hey, that might take same darn long time, before I (my soul) reach It :wink: Unless not.

Relative life is temporary. Absolute is eternal.

And relative existence is constantly arising out of Absolute, when mixed with Nothingness.

How do I Know all of this? I don’t. I imagine it.

Only Absolute one Knows, but when Absolute, knowing doesn’t matter, only being does. (BTW, I imagine this as well.)

Forgive me for not answering the question immediately… I can’t help but to analyze the question before I attempt to answer it.

First I want to point out a difference between things and things which one can identify.

So first I ask? Is the question still: “What will you do if no thing has …” or

Should it be rephrased to state “What will you do if no thing (which one can identify) has …”

I have enough trouble with the question “What will you do?” before it is qualified

Or I could try to rewrite the question like this:

P1: No thing has divisibility, etc…(assuming logic, false premise)?
Therefore: ?

Im no philo major but…

If we look at it that way… I think the question is inconsistent with the idea of logic, the ideas of true and false require it

In all honesty i have trouble interpreting this question…

I will assume you mean ultimately as well

and assuming that… i still have trouble

Firstly lets assume that the construct of time is something that has divisibility (we seem to experience it that way… kinda)

If no thing has divisibility, there is no time… actions don’t really make sense in this domain (in my mind)… “to do” seems to require time

The question directs my brain towards imagining a state of unity…

So instead of answering the question that i dont really understand… i think i’ll just spill my stream of consciousness hopefully related by some tangent

boyan said “I’ll just be the Perfect One, One with God, etc…” … im not sure i like this idea… not that “i” could “like” “anything” in this “state” anyway

i prefer divisibility… because it is consistent with the idea of prefering, and doing

yay for dualism

Not be able to identify anything.

QED

Logic is based on axioms.
Axioms are not based on logic.

Oh lord another nothing thread ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) :laughing: This is a favorite topic that pops up about once every few months. Take a look at some of the past threads that delve into this topic. Oh and count the pages too. For my part ; even no thing is still a thing, it can fulfill the above requirements.

Good to see you, Lady K. That nothing is also a thing may be a bit too Eastern for those raised on Western philosophy. In any event, the idea of reducing all thoughts to relativism or solypsism resolves none of the basic issues or concerns we humans, of necessity, express.

Hi, My friend I am sorry I have not answered your PMs , Senility keeps setting in or or just plain dizziness forgetfulness. Its kind of like looking at something you want then forgetting you wanted it. Ever have that happen?

say that apparantly this nothing was actually something :mrgreen:

I’m saying the idea that logic is valid is itself an axiom (probably not clearly though)

i think some would/could argue that its indefeasible and inescapable

you’re probably agreeing with me but i’m gonna argue anyway cause its more fun

if you can convincingly explain to me why logic is based on axioms without assuming the validity of logic… in addition to convincing me that you haven’t assumed the validity of logic, i’ll give you a cookie

also because axioms are not based on logic, in my mind, it follows that reasoning for why an axiom is an axiom is not necessarily logical

would something like this make you feel better (clarifying some of my assumptions)

P1: Comparability requires logic
P2: No thing is comparable
C1: Therefore, no thing requires logic

(but i’ve used logic to get to this point)

P3: This argument is a thing

???

You won’t identify.

Nothing these are purely human conveniences with no overriding existence.