James, I have been knowing your ontology for a long time, but I don’t know all of its details. So if I want to know more about the details of your ontology, I have to ask you by “coming” from outside of your ontology or by playing a role, for eaxmple the “uninformed informer” (I didn’t play that role) or so. The first problem we two got was the word “existence”. Many philosophers, especially the existence philosophers, have been being very engaged in the word “existence”.
However, “existence” is a word. How came the meaning of something like the word “nothingness” into the mind of the early human beings? Because of the meaning of something like the word “existence”? Or was it reverse? It was because of something like the word “existence”. Human beings perceive, notice, make experience with their ambience, environment; they become more intelligent by using more words and thoughts and by improvements and reforms of the older experiences with their ambience, environment; it is a spiralic development. Linguistically something ( ) like “nothing” or even “nothingness” has been derived from something like “existence” in the early times of human beings. So now we can also derive “existence” from “nothingness”. But should we do that?
What does a mathematician do with the word “nothingness”? Mathematically “nothingness” is “0”. But do mathematicians say that “0” is not a number because it is “nothing”? No, they do not.
Black means “no light/color” Zero means “no quantity” Nothing means “no-thing” Existence means “thingness” No-existence means “no-thingness”.
and thus, Nothingness means no-existence.
Does your “nothingness” have affect upon anything?
If not, how would you know it was there?
The subset “A” could be your ontology. The set “B” could be all ontologies.
Please look at the next following Venn diagram:
The intersecting set (red) betwen two sets could be the common definition of “existence” of two different ontologies. It could also be the common definition of “nothingness” of two different ontologies. It could also be the number “0” between the positive numbers and the negative numbers.
You can also say (for exampe):
“The color of my pullover is black.”
“Zero means not the pure quantity, but quantity or not quantity in the sense of a special case.”
“Existence doesn’t merely mean thingness, but being, namely both real being and ideal being.”
That’s not my “nothingness” because I have not any.
All jokes beside:
I don’t know whether nothingness is there or not, so I also don’t know whether it has an affect or not. So I can’t say both “it is there” and “it is not there” because I just don’t know it. But to some philosophers nothing and something have to come together in order that being can become, or to other philosophers being is nothingness and nothingness is being …
We can think the “nothingness”, so it is possible that nothingness exists. But I don’t say that “it exists” or that “it doesn’t exist”. In that case I am as agnostic as a scientist.
That is why one must choose his language and stick with it. Do not use one language if the other person is using the same words for a different language. What language is chosen is arbitrary as long as all parties agree to use the same meanings for the associated words. Be consistent. And a language is merely an arbitrary set of chosen definitions.
That is Your language.
In my language;
Thus a “Lack of Consequence” is a Lack of Affect (or Effect).
How would you know?
If you are a “Nothingness Agnostic”, then you cannot say that “nothingness” represents something that you believe exists and yet has no affect (that would be a “Nothingness Theist”). That was the question that started all of this, "Name something that you believe exists, yet has absolutely no affect".
In the long run, you discover that the very idea of nothingness is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a word or phrase that is contrary to itself, such as; “square-circle” or “round-square”, “intelligent-liberal”, or “good-socialist”. An oxymoron is an incoherent thought. An oxymorononic entity has no opportunity to exist even as a coherent idea. And it turns out that “nothingness” is such an idea, lacking any opportunity to exist as a coherent thought.
No, that’s the English language in a philosophy dictionary.
That’s okay, if the language convention is accepted, and it is accepted.
That was a joke! My correct answer is: I don’t know whether it is my “nothingness” or not.
I am not saying that, but I am saying: “I don’t know whether nothingness represents something that I believe exists and yet has no affect”, and therefore I can say: “Maybe or maybe not that nothingness represents something that I believe exists and yet has no affect”.
I find it funny how it has never been facts that have had the greatest effect on mankind, but the evolution of a system of beliefs. Beliefs have always been stronger than fact. Nobody won a battle by having the facts presented to them; they won because they believed fully that they could and they didn’t get in their own way.
That, with the other things mentioned, is why it is rational to accept the definition of existence being “that which has affect”.
The next question is about the possibility of absolute homogeneity of affect. For absolute homogeneity of affect to be the state of the universe, the affectance would have to be infinitely identical in all locations. What is preventing that?
3 goals in 3 minutes, 4 goals in 6 minutes, 5 goals in 18 minutes … Great!
Have you seen it?
Another answer could be:
The affectance is not “infinitely identical” in all locations of the universe because if something is “homogeneous” it does not mean that it is “identical”.
If you have the phenomenons “A” and “B”, then “A” can be “homogeneous” or “similar” to “B”, but not identical to “B” (because “A” can merely be identical to “A”). In German the words “(der/die/das)selbe” and “(der/die/das) gleiche” stand for the English word “(the) same”, but the former means “identical”, “same in an identical way”, and the latter means “homgeneous”, “equal”, “similar”, “same in a homogeneous way”.
I believe that you are misinterpreting the English.
When I say, “the two things are identical”, I mean that there are two separate things that have all of the same properties and to the same degree. I do not mean that the two things are one and the same thing (“same identity”).
Homogeneity involves many locations of similar substance. At each location there is a “different identity” of substance, but the properties of the substance are “identical”, meaning that you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart except for their location. And “infinitely identical”, means that there truly is absolutely no distinction to be found between the two locations within the substance, but the locations are still a different “identity”.
I know the meaning of the English „identical“, but in this case I interpreted it as „self“ („selbst“ in German because the German word „identisch“ and the English word „identical“ have exactly the same meaning and can be interpreted as „self“ and as „same“), although I know that it also can be interpreted as „same“ (for example: of two or more things). But you shouldn’t change the word „identical“ because in the English language it is not possible to have one of those two meanings in merely one word. It is possible in the German language but not in the English language. In English one has always to decide whether „x“ or „y“ is meant (because both can be meant), in German one can use the word „selbig“ or „selbst“ (cp. the English „self“, although it can’t be used in this way) for the meaning of „x“, and the word „gleich“ (cp. the English „same“, although it is used in both ways) for the meaning of „y“. Whereat „x“ means „same of one thing“ and „y“ means „same of two things or of one thing, if this one thing has changed very much" (cp. the ship of Theseus).
Well, that being the case, I think that in German, I mean “gleich” referring to each thing having the very same properties and to the same degree as each other = “homogeneous”.
So if that is correct, my question is still, “Why can’t each point in space have the exact same properties to the exact same degree as all others?”
) like “nothing” or even “nothingness” has been derived from something like “existence” in the early times of human beings. So now we can also derive “existence” from “nothingness”. But should we do that?
