Granted, the OPs argument is about language. I was referring to the real arguments.
Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Time is the measure of relative change. The physical universe is made exclusively of the changing. And space is merely the amount of changing. Einstein’s ontology of warped space, GRT, is merely referring to the amount of the changing involved in gravitational fields causing distance to measure shorter as more changing (stronger gravitation) is present.
I’m afraid that it actually does. I proved that nonexistence is an irrational concept, not really any different than a square circle (why can’t there be a square circle?). And that means that it is impossible for there to be no existence. That is WHY it is there. It can’t not be there … ever.
Since there can never be a nonexistence, there can never be anything preceding it … including nothingness.
The “reason” is in the conceptual realm, not the physical realm (made exclusively of the changing. The reason doesn’t change).
It is logically impossible that such would be logically impossible.
Again, existence includes “conceptual realm” as part of existence.
You are including space and time as outside of existence in your “proof” in the statement " Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space"… meaning you already have a premise of time and space included as a reason as to how space is homogeneous. Not that it matters as to why existence exists.
Why can’t there be a square circle isn’t anywhere near comparable to the question why does existence exist. Your claim that non existence is impossible, is just a claim, backed by flawed “proofs” that aren’t coming close to answering question.
“It is logically impossible that such would be logically impossible.” - doesn’t make any sense again.
I allowed for infinite time and space. If you reduce the time or space in the proof, homogeneity becomes even more impossible. I showed that it is impossible EVEN WITH infinite time and space.
Yet you point out no “flaws”, but rather merely complaints.
Absolute nothingness of all, as I said earlier, cannot possibly exist… It isn’t there, it isn’t anywhere.
People say they refute my argument by pointing out that non existence is the lack of identity and non identity, but they make my argument for me …
If it can’t be anywhere, than it isn’t anywhere, thus non existence as a global term isn’t actually there or anywhere - it never has been and never will be.
You can simply call it a language game if you want, but it uses reference and identity correctly.
That’s why existence exists - because non existence doesn’t exist … James’ argument is delusional to me . Sorry James
Non existence cannot exist, that is, it cannot be the identity of existence.
However, if non-existence, did not exist, then it would be a non-world of non-existence, a non-place of negation. And then in that non-place, existence could not exist, for existence to exist it would have to be in a place.
Therefore, non-existence is not a proof of existence being inherent, because non-existence does not exist, and it’s non-existence is it natural habitat, and is separate from existence, which is a distinct identity.
You’re totally refuting yourself, making my argument for me and then concluding you refuted it.
Non existence isn’t there, it never has been and never will be, it doesn’t exist or non exist. It simply isn’t. And since it never is, we have what’s left; a necessarily self generating existence.
I knew anything involving math would be. Yet you just summed up my proof: “That’s why existence exists - because non existence can’t exist”. Unlike the others, my proof has nothing to do with semantics or presumptions other than logic/math.
That is your word game, not mine. Mine has nothing to do with specific words. And just to show you what your mind is doing (as a very small example); I didn’t say that you, or anyone, wasn’t using logic. Can you read and understand the difference in what I said and what your mind lied to you about?
Your argument for “existence exists” relies on word games that blur things.
My argument is non-existence is a different identity than existence. Non-existence, could not-exist. Not-existence is it’s condition of “existence”, which is non-existence.
They are conditional objects, Non-existence is true on all conditions. Non-existence exists if it doesn’t exist or does exist. But existence is true only on one condition, if existence exists.
Existence could exist, but non-existence could also exist at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive conditions. Non-existence and existence are not the same thing.
I read your post wrong … At the beginning you said mathematical ( which is by definition an appeal to logical argument ) and at the end used math and logic together, implying through logical inference that I use(d) neither and you used both .
But we need not get too pedantic here , I see what you actually meant .
You don’t get it. The condition non-existence is true if it doesn’t exist. The condition of existence is true only if it exists. Your theory relies on word trickery, around the word “exists” which are actually two different references.
The condition non-existence is true if it exists(1) or doesn’t exist(1).
Existence(2) is true if it exists(1).
You see, I labelled them different numbers because they are really two different identities. (1) refers to a reference of the condition’s “existence” in the sense of whether the condition is true, and (2) refers to the existence and presence of reality in the real world.
Non existence is default true on two occassions, if it exists or doesnt exist, but not all occasions (when existence is true, nonexistence is not true.) Stop looking at this with limitations of the english language. Non existence is the first priority on the heirarchy, therefor its truth must be analyzed first in relation to existence, which is the second order on the heirarchy. Non-existence is the root of the heirarchy. Because all it takes is for existence to stop existing and the truth of non-existence will be (un)known.
These aren’t limitations of the English language, any language can state that the non existence of all existents isn’t - wasn’t - cannot – that’s why we exist