0 ≠ 1 = Unity
Nothing is not equal to one.
=> Nothing differs from Unity.
This is the very basis of modern science and philosophy.
But, Why do people tend to reject the basic principle - NOTHING DIFFERS FROM UNITY?
Explain what you mean by unity.
Do you mean that the fundamental constituents of nature are essentially just one thing? Like an irreducable particle? Or ether? Or energy? I can see how when you think in terms of a universe, that all things might be in some sense identical to everything else and that that everything at least by virtue of some property or another might be part of the “one” that you mean. It could be seen as a category mistake to talk about anything which isn’t part of the one, but saying that everything equals one is a different story. It’s hard to think or write in the sort of terms that you’re using because we need distinctions to categorize objects which seem different from one another even if we’re putting them into the same category!!
It’s hard to make progress without a point of reference, and since all things constantly change we have to postulate constants in order to measure that change. The way that you’re putting it, it seems like you’re a honest to god universalist. The problem is that when we observe nature, while we may be able to boil all matter down to abstractions such as atoms, it isn’t the atoms that really make up the objects. There aren’t really tiny little atoms in your computer screen, that’s just the best way to describe what we can’t see. We have to think in those terms for things to make any sense. Alot of things seems so compellingly different that we don’t see how we could believe that they’re the same. Likewise, some things seem as identical as identical can be, but there’s always at the very least a lack of identity when you think in terms or location in space and time. That’s when we retreat into abstractions and start talking about universals and individuals and tropes and atoms and those sorts of things.
It seems to me as if this may tell us more about the limitations of our perception than it does about the thing in itself, whether it be an individual object or a non spatio temporal universal.
The universe is a mystery. We have compelling evidence for almost every account of it that’s been given. Who says 1=1? Who says it doesn’t? Are either of them right all the time? I don’t think so.
Here’s a shorter answer. Within the context of observation, there is a necessity for a distinction between 1 and 0. If we make this distinction for purposes of scientific observation, then it’s ok because we’re not claiming absolute truth. If you’re saying that it’s a category mistake to acknowlege that 0 exists, because it’s part of a universe, which is “one”, then I just don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think anyone knows the stuff about the universe that you’d have to know to make that claim with absolute certainty.
Nothing is you if you cannot be one
stellamonika,
Smears gives you an exceptionally concise and rather well argued point and this tripe is all you can say? If you don’t understand what he is saying - ask - he seems to enjoy talking so take advantage of that and further the depths of your understanding.
Smears,
Awesome short answer. You should (re)join the discussion on the existence of Absolute Truths. Currently I am trying to get a consensus on the definition of an Absolute Truth (link) and just posited a proposition that is bound to get me lambasted into oblivion (link).
stellamonika,
After thinking about it you should look up Monism because what you are saying sounds very similar to it’s main tenets. In short a Monist would say that though each of the many things in the universe appear to have a fixed and definite nature, the universe instead as a whole is a single unity which has a fixed and definite nature, and to try and separate one of the many things from the unitary whole is an error.