The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[warpspeedpetey]

The mathematical experience by Davis and Hersh is a very good book. I liked it better than What is Mathematics? by Courant and Robbins.

when i get the other book ill let you know, i dont know the exact title or author, but it may give me more insight.

 

[Spock]

The forces explain how things move, but they don’t explain why moving things exist.

What do you mean? The forces are “built in” into the STEM. They are integral part of it.

The law of conservation is a physical law, not a logical law. The fact that we exist doesn’t mean we have to exist, since it logically may have been the case that STEM never existed.

How do you know that it is possible that nothing would exist? Nothing is not an entity. To say: “it is possible that ‘nothing’ would exist” would be a self-contradiction - it would state that something that “can not exist - can exist”. And there is your logical necessity why STEM exists.

STEM is the material cause of motion. We still have to consider things like efficient cause and explanation.

Explanation again? Let me ask you this. Do you think that asking “why is a circle round?” is a valid question? When I reply: “because it is the built-property of the circle”. And then to ask: “what is the explanation for the roundness? It is possible that a circle would not be round, so what made the circle round?”. Do you **really **consider these **valid **questions? You could ask why is there space and time? Why is water wet? Why is there up and down? Why is there nothing to the north from the North Pole? You cannot just ask: “who made it sure that the dierction of north at the North Pole cannot be defined”. These questions are completely meaningless.

Things composed of both potentiality and actuality must move as a result of moving something else. Pure Act, on the other hand, eternally wills the motion of things, so there needn’t be a before and after.

“Eternally wills” is just another meaningless phrase.

 

[Spock]

yes, STEM needs an explanation. the only ontologically necessary foundation is “existence” itself.

Existence is just another concept not an ontologically existing object.

as Copleston said, the universe is nothing more than the sum of its contingent parts, there is no “universe” as a whole apart from them. the reason that we “assert” that everything needs an explanation called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the very basis of the scientific method, by ignoring the PSR, whatever the reason, one is actually denying the very basis of the sciences, when atheists do it, it is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. if your a scientifically minded person, one cant really then stop at SYEM, as though it just hangs in the air, as above, the only ontologically necessary foundation is existence itself.

See above. We must stop somewhere. The infinite regress of causes does not lead anywhere. With STEM we have all the explanation we ever need. STEM is existence in reality. And does not have any “unexplained” parts (metaphysically speaking of course). Physically there are many. But that is another matter.

You wish to go one step beyond STEM, and say that God is “existence”. And when I would ask you about those “magical” properties of God (creating something out of nothing, moving stuff without moving, acting without before and after, the list goeas on endlessly), you would assert that those totally unimaginable properties are “built-in” into God, and they do not require any further explanation - thereby refuting your own PSR.

why does perfection need some aim? perfection in our view is aristotelian, and Aquinan, as in the summa theologica

And I reject those views.

as to maximally small, that would be a perdition, of size, making it imperfect and not then a maximal quality. it would simply be another lack, in this case of size.

Nonsense. “Small” is not a lack of “size”. “Black” is not a lack of “white”.

 

[Oreoracle]

why does perfection need some aim?

Spock’s criticism is a valid one. In order for something to be perfect, it has to fulfill a set of requirements (just like all adjectives). A perfect test paper is one in which all questions are answered and all of the answers are correct and, if need be, are optimally presented (the answer was given in its best form, which would require the satisfaction of other criteria…). The same goes for a perfect dive, or a perfect/ideal temperature of one’s body. All are considered perfect because they satisfy preconceived standards.

The problem is that Christians never give a satisfactory definition of “metaphysical perfection”; that is to say, they never list the criteria that God must satisfy in order to be considered perfect. And this leads us to the finisher: why are these criteria not arbitrary? Why is existence better than non-existence? Why is goodness better than badness? Why is truth better than falsity? Are these not just our biases speaking? Is it anything short of nonsensical to say that one quality is “better” than another without applying subjectivity?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Existence is just another concept not an ontologically existing object.

what? existence is just a concept? i dare you then to remove it from any object and see what happens! there is nothing more ontologically concrete than the mere fact of existence. no object can be without it. a concept it is not, it is indeed a necessity that it be real, that existence is no mere idea, it is matter of fact.

See above. We must stop somewhere. The infinite regress of causes does not lead anywhere.

actually it leads to the base state of existence, an ICR is a problem for amateurs, it was disposed of decades ago, per Copleston. even an infinite chain of causes doesnt account for its own existence. unless you ignore the PSR.

With STEM we have all the explanation we ever need. STEM is existence in reality.

thats just ignoring the PSR, denying the scientific method, and the ability to have knowledge at all. its saying that STEM is logically necessary, when there is no necessity to STEM, why could the universe not be entirely non-physical, or some form inbetween, or something entirely alien to our concepts of STEM? why must it be space, time, energy, and matter? why could it not be spirit, the color mauve, and the three stooges? i can see no reason that a STEM universe is anymore necessary than a universe composed of none of the normal things we expect. im afraid that even physicists look for an explanation for STEM, that idea just doesnt carry water for several reasons.

You wish to go one step beyond STEM, and say that God is “existence”. And when I would ask you about those “magical” properties of God (creating something out of nothing, moving stuff without moving, acting without before and after, the list goeas on endlessly), you would assert that those totally unimaginable properties are “built-in” into God, and they do not require any further explanation - thereby refuting your own PSR.

that actually wouldnt be my answer, or the correct meaning of the PSR. there are no “magical” properties, i would say they are inherent in the nature of the maximal state of being as we have discussed for a while now, you are stuck on this indefensible idea that STEM is a necessary being. you find it strange that G-d violates the laws of physics as you know them, yet all those laws are contingent on existence, and therefore on G-d as the maximal state of being. i see no problem with something transcendant of this physical universe, not needing to abide by those laws. in a similar way federal laws supersede state laws.

if what you actually want to know is how does G-ds existence not violate the PSR. id be happy to address that too.

And I reject those views.

on what basis? thats like me rejecting some part of mathematics, becaiuse i dont like its implications. you have no choice in the matter, any more than i do in mathematical axioms. it is defined that way and has been so since the Greeks.

Nonsense. “Small” is not a lack of “size”. “Black” is not a lack of “white”.

yes, maximally small would be a lack from maximally big, and black is a lack of white. basic grade school art class, black is a lack of any color, white is all the colors.

 

[wussup]

Nevertheless, what I understand of it so far doesn’t suggest to me that these electrons are absolutely identical. The only implication is that they cannot be distinguished. We may not be able to predict when or why exactly one electron switches positions with another, but it doesn’t follow from this that they are identical. The term, “identical,” is being used in an equivocal sense.

I do not know what Just Lurking was referencing, but I have studied an experiment IBM did at its Switzerland research facility (and is still doing). In this experiment IBM separated two paired electrons (electrons with same ‘spin’, making them exactly identical the way Just Lurking described). These electrons were separated by several miles. They then rotated (or changed the spin, I do not recall) one of the electrons, to the wonderment and amazement of all the other electron changed its ‘form’ to match the triggering electron at exactly the same time, with no interval of time between the two (causalities). For all intents and purposes, this has the effect of ‘transporting’ one electron from one location to another. This new discovery is being currently used in what is called quantum communications. (‘Used’ is used with kindness, as far as any one knows, the actual ability is not quite ready for prime time). There are significant ramification philosophically and ontologically to this.

I do not know what, if any, ramifications this has on the ‘Thomistic Cosmological Argument’ other than to suggest the ‘real’ world is an awful complex place we do not know much about.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Spock’s criticism is a valid one. In order for something to be perfect, it has to fulfill a set of requirements (just like all adjectives). A perfect test paper is one in which all questions are answered and all of the answers are correct and, if need be, are optimally presented (the answer was given in its best form, which would require the satisfaction of other criteria…). The same goes for a perfect dive, or a perfect/ideal temperature of one’s body. All are considered perfect because they satisfy preconceived standards.

that isnt the metaphysical definition of perfect. its to be complete, not to satisfy some set of standards. perfection in the simplest metaphysical sense means completeness.

The problem is that Christians never give a satisfactory definition of “metaphysical perfection”; that is to say, they never list the criteria that God must satisfy in order to be considered perfect.

because there are no such criteria, thats not the meaning of metaphysical perfection.

And this leads us to the finisher: why are these criteria not arbitrary?

because they are inherent to what metaphysical perfection is.

Why is existence better than non-existence?

because there is no such thing as non-existence. or “nothing” its just an artifact of language.

Why is goodness better than badness? Why is truth better than falsity? Are these not just our biases speaking? Is it anything short of nonsensical to say that one quality is “better” than another without applying subjectivity?

because these are all lacks in perfection.

 

[Spock]

what? existence is just a concept? i dare you then to remove it from any object and see what happens! there is nothing more ontologically concrete than the mere fact of existence. no object can be without it. a concept it is not, it is indeed a necessity that it be real, that existence is no mere idea, it is matter of fact.

Existence is a concept, which describes the very basics of everything that “exists”. The tautology cannot be avoided. There is no “concrete existence”. There is no object that is “existence”.

actually it leads to the base state of existence, an ICR is a problem for amateurs, it was disposed of decades ago, per Copleston. even an infinite chain of causes doesnt account for its own existence. unless you ignore the PSR.

“Accounts for” or “explains itself” are just euphemisms, and unfortunate ones at that. We, thinking beings attempt to find reasons for all sorts of things. We try to explain (reduce to something more fundamental) the phenomena we encounter. “Things” do not “account” for anything. “Things” do not “explain” anything.

thats just ignoring the PSR, denying the scientific method, and the ability to have knowledge at all. its saying that STEM is logically necessary, when there is no necessity to STEM, why could the universe not be entirely non-physical, or some form inbetween, or something entirely alien to our concepts of STEM? why must it be space, time, energy, and matter? why could it not be spirit, the color mauve, and the three stooges? i can see no reason that a STEM universe is anymore necessary than a universe composed of none of the normal things we expect. im afraid that even physicists look for an explanation for STEM, that idea just doesnt carry water for several reasons.

Changing goalposts? This has nothing to do with allegedly needing a “prime mover”. The existence of STEM is not subject to negotiations, it is a given. The discussion at hand revolves around the “necessity” of an “external mover”, nothing else. Movement is an integral part of STEM, which cannot be separated from it. To argue for the contrary would be something like arguing for some “non-material walking”, which is needed to be imposed “externally” just to move our feet.

that actually wouldnt be my answer, or the correct meaning of the PSR. there are no “magical” properties, i would say they are inherent in the nature of the maximal state of being as we have discussed for a while now, you are stuck on this indefensible idea that STEM is a necessary being. you find it strange that G-d violates the laws of physics as you know them, yet all those laws are contingent on existence, and therefore on G-d as the maximal state of being. i see no problem with something transcendant of this physical universe, not needing to abide by those laws. in a similar way federal laws supersede state laws.

I do. First, you never established that STEM is deficient. Movement (as singled out by the Thomistic argument) is incorrectly separated as something “externally imposed”. Up until you can do that, the specifics of this hypothetical “mover” is not on the table. And mentally snapping its imaginary fingers to bring forth something out of nothing is the quintessential “magic” - which violates the principle of conservaton of matter-energy-momentum.

on what basis? thats like me rejecting some part of mathematics, becaiuse i dont like its implications. you have no choice in the matter, any more than i do in mathematical axioms. it is defined that way and has been so since the Greeks.

On the ground that this “perfection” is undefined and cannot be meaningfully defined.

yes, maximally small would be a lack from maximally big, and black is a lack of white. basic grade school art class, black is a lack of any color, white is all the colors.

And being “maximally mild” is just the privation of “maximally ferocious”? To be “maximally bald” is the privation of being “maximally hairy”? To be “maximally sick” is just the privation of being “maximally healthy”. Ot is it the opposite? To be “maximally healthy” is just the absence of “maximally sick”? One can argue both ways, and neither one is sensible. Come on, get serious.

 

[Oreoracle]

And being “maximally mild” is just the privation of “maximally ferocious”? To be “maximally bald” is the privation of being “maximally hairy”? To be “maximally sick” is just the privation of being “maximally healthy”. Ot is it the opposite? To be “maximally healthy” is just the absence of “maximally sick”? One can argue both ways, and neither one is sensible. Come on, get serious.

Exactly. I’m trying to get him to tell us why he prefers one extreme over another, but he isn’t attempting to define “perfect” or “complete” at all.

 

[Oreoracle]

that isnt the metaphysical definition of perfect. its to be complete, not to satisfy some set of standards. perfection in the simplest metaphysical sense means completeness.

Alrighty then. What standards does something have to satisfy in order to be considered “complete?” I can’t help but feel that you’re evading the question by equating perfection to an equally vague term.

If one doesn’t have to satisfy any standards in order to be complete, then your concept of “completeness” is meaningless. Similarly, if something doesn’t have to satisfy any standards to be the tallest object of a group of objects, then every object of that group can be the tallest. It’s common sense. You need a definition that will tell you how to use the adjective. In this case, you need to know if something is complete or not. How would you go about doing that?

because there is no such thing as non-existence. or “nothing” its just an artifact of language.

To ask the age-old question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Why is this reality better than the alternative of nothingness (no reality)? Again, you’re evading the question by appealing to semantics. You know exactly what I mean by the question.

 

[James_S_Saint]

that isnt the metaphysical definition of perfect. its to be complete, not to satisfy some set of standards. perfection in the simplest metaphysical sense means completeness.

“Perfect” is actually a comparative term. It means that something exactly matches something else’s need or exactly matches a known concept. Without clarity of what that other thing is, there is a lack of perfection in communication while using the word “perfect”.

 

[James_S_Saint]

To ask the age-old question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Why is this reality better than the alternative of nothingness (no reality)? Again, you’re evading the question by appealing to semantics. You know exactly what I mean by the question.

Hear! Hear!

As I struggled with him on that topic, I realized that he has a mental “knee-jerk” response that evades the question, “There is always something because ‘nothing’ would be something.”

This is the result of a typical presumption on someone’s part (probably an errant philosopher/teacher). But in a defensive mode, most people find it difficult to slow down enough to catch the subtle errors of former teachings especially if there is additional logic to immediately add into the defense.

But as to that question, there actually is logic to dictate that it is impossible for Reality to have ever been simply nothingness.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Existence is a concept, which describes the very basics of everything that “exists”. The tautology cannot be avoided. There is no “concrete existence”. There is no object that is “existence”.

sure there is, existence itself is an object. nothing can be without existence. but existence requires nothing to be. water exists whether there be fish in it or not, but the fish cannot exist without the water, so to speak. water, in a similar way to existence is an object transcendent of the fish, could a fish claim that water is just a concept? obviously not.

“Accounts for” or “explains itself” are just euphemisms, and unfortunate ones at that. We, thinking beings attempt to find reasons for all sorts of things. We try to explain (reduce to something more fundamental) the phenomena we encounter. “Things” do not “account” for anything. “Things” do not “explain” anything.

if your going to deny the PSR, then your denying the scientific method as well, as the ability to have any knowledge at all. if things happen for no reason than all our previous experience is for naught, no?

Changing goalposts? This has nothing to do with allegedly needing a “prime mover”. **The existence of STEM is not subject to negotiations, it is a given. **The discussion at hand revolves around the “necessity” of an “external mover”, nothing else. Movement is an integral part of STEM, which cannot be separated from it. To argue for the contrary would be something like arguing for some “non-material walking”, which is needed to be imposed “externally” just to move our feet.

im only responding to things youve said that imply the necessity of STEM. though your claim here that movement cannot be seperated from STEM is as incongruous a the argument that existence isnt an object. to use the same fish and water analogy, even if there are no fish, the water can still move, no? so how then is movement integral to STEM? it would seem that STEM doesnt need to be for there to be motion, and as it cant move itself, any more than it can cause its own exstence. shouldnt we question where its movement originated?

I do.

why do you? what is so strange about that? surely you dont think scientific theories of pre-BB environments are strange. physicists themselves dont stop with STEM as we observe it to be here, why do you? i know that it is simply speculation, but assuredly the PSR drives on theoretical physics, why should you then be satisfied soely at STEM?

First, you never established that STEM is deficient.

easily done, it might not have been. STEM has no necessity that i cannot assign to some non-STEM universe.

Movement (as singled out by the Thomistic argument) is incorrectly separated as something “externally imposed”. Up until you can do that, the specifics of this hypothetical “mover” is not on the table.

i think ive done a decent job so far of showing both why movement is not contained solely to STEM, and why STEM itself is defiecient. in the response immediately above. it might not have been.

And mentally snapping its imaginary fingers to bring forth something out of nothing is the quintessential “magic” - which violates the principle of conservaton of matter-energy-momentum.

suppose we lived in a different universe and were constructed according to some other set of rules, would not the conservation of mass and energy seem like magic? as someone once said, any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic. further, your attempting to apply rules that we only know exist within STEM, to an entity upon which STEM is contingent. one who could author such rules, seems completely capable of bypassing them. after all if i create a universe in my mind with a certain set of laws, i could just as easily, break them, couldnt i?

On the ground that this “perfection” is undefined and cannot be meaningfully defined.

we have defined it for you several times now, the simplest metaphysical definition is to be complete, to not lack. so i assume you mean that it is not defined to a level you find suitable. what then would be your criteria for a meaningful definition?

And being “maximally mild” is just the privation of “maximally ferocious”? To be “maximally bald” is the privation of being “maximally hairy”?To be “maximally sick” is just the privation of being “maximally healthy”. Ot is it the opposite? To be “maximally healthy” is just the absence of “maximally sick”? One can argue both ways, and neither one is sensible. Come on, get serious.

can one be perfectly mild? yes. can one be perfectly ferocious? yes. one can see both in every person. can one be perfectly bald and perfectly hairy? no. one excludes the other. can one be perfectly healthy? yes, can one be perfectly sick? no, thats called being dead. again mutually exclusive qualities. your mixing metaphors here. some of tyour examples have compatible traits, some are mutually exclusive. one cannot argue it both ways.

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

What do you mean? The forces are “built in” into the STEM. They are integral part of it.

Right, and no set of physical objects is self-sufficient. We saw this in the example of acorns and oak trees.

How do you know that it is possible that nothing would exist? Nothing is not an entity. To say: “it is possible that ‘nothing’ would exist” would be a self-contradiction - it would state that something that “can not exist - can exist”. And there is your logical necessity why STEM exists.

I agree with you that nothingness is a logically impossible state of affairs. However, it begs the question to say that since something must exist, that that something is STEM.

Explanation again? Let me ask you this. Do you think that asking “why is a circle round?” is a valid question? When I reply: “because it is the built-property of the circle”. And then to ask: “what is the explanation for the roundness? It is possible that a circle would not be round, so what made the circle round?”. Do you **really **consider these **valid **questions? You could ask why is there space and time? Why is water wet? Why is there up and down? Why is there nothing to the north from the North Pole? You cannot just ask: “who made it sure that the dierction of north at the North Pole cannot be defined”. These questions are completely meaningless.

I don’t see the parity between my question and those questions. We can demonstrate the circularity of any attempt to ground a necessary explanation in a physical object. Asking for an explanation for the physical realm of things isn’t like asking what’s north of the North Pole. The latter question is meaningless, since it’s impossible for anything to be north of the North Pole. But, asking what explains the universe may very well (and I contend that it is) be answered by positing an external, transcendent, personal mind.

“Eternally wills” is just another meaningless phrase.

To be honest, it always saddens me when I see this approach taken. Calling something meaningless without even asking for clarification is a non-starter to any serious inquiry. There is meaning to both “eternal” and “will,” correct? Why do you contend that the conjunction of the two must be meaningless?

 

[Oreoracle]

But as to that question, there actually is logic to dictate that it is impossible for Reality to have ever been simply nothingness.

…Is the argument sound, or just valid? (Anybody can make a valid metaphysical argument…)

Anyway, that wouldn’t actually answer the question. When I asked Pete, “Why …] ?” I was referring to intentions. Otherwise, I might have asked, “How is it that there is something other than nothing?”

My point is that, if we assume there are underlying intentions that control the processes of the universe, and that the aim of these intentions is perfect, then the criteria for this “perfection” are surely subjective, just as all intentions are. If goodness is designed to prevail over evil, then that would only be God expressing his own desires. It doesn’t follow from this that goodness is more important than evil. It only follows that God happens to prefer goodness over evil, just as I prefer chocolate bars over raisins. You wouldn’t say, for instance, that this implies in any way that chocolate bars are objectively more important than raisins, would you?

 

[punkforchrist]

I do not know what Just Lurking was referencing, but I have studied an experiment IBM did at its Switzerland research facility (and is still doing). In this experiment IBM separated two paired electrons (electrons with same ‘spin’, making them exactly identical the way Just Lurking described). These electrons were separated by several miles. They then rotated (or changed the spin, I do not recall) one of the electrons, to the wonderment and amazement of all the other electron changed its ‘form’ to match the triggering electron at exactly the same time, with no interval of time between the two (causalities). For all intents and purposes, this has the effect of ‘transporting’ one electron from one location to another. This new discovery is being currently used in what is called quantum communications. (‘Used’ is used with kindness, as far as any one knows, the actual ability is not quite ready for prime time). There are significant ramification philosophically and ontologically to this.

I do not know what, if any, ramifications this has on the ‘Thomistic Cosmological Argument’ other than to suggest the ‘real’ world is an awful complex place we do not know much about.

That’s interesting stuff. I don’t think it has any effect on the TCA, though. Allow me to put it another way.

Pure Being itself (existence) can only be one, since if there were more than one Pure Being, whatever differed would be not-Pure Being. Electrons exist, but none of them are existence itself.

 

[JDaniel]

Spockmeister:

Eternity is undefined. If you mean “eternal” in the sense that it existed “thoughout all time”, then STEM fulfills this requirement - since time is an unseparable part it. And again: causation is not defined for STEM.

Just a point: what is the logic for the position that STEM fulfills the requirement that “eternal” means “existed throughout all time?” How can time be an inseparable part of STEM - despite being included in the acronym?

Why is there a need for non-physical (divine) attributes? “Movement” as you say is also inseparable from STEM. It is a dynamic system, not a static one.

Does this statement not beg the question?

Eternal - as defined above is already an attribute of STEM. It did not “come” into existence, and it cannot “cease” to exist. I see no reason for “changlessness”. A change does not have to entail “cessation” of existence.

They all did, it would appear, based upon the “standard model”.

Both “omnipotent” and “omniscient” are undefined in a rigorous manner. And even if they could be defined, there is no reason to assume that any one entity can even theoretically possess either one or both of them.

Theoretically, one would not only be praying long and hard, should something “in” our cosmos be “all powerful”, but, we’d be working extraordinarily hard NOT to offend Him/Her/It, wouldn’t we?

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Alrighty then. What standards does something have to satisfy in order to be considered “complete?” I can’t help but feel that you’re evading the question by equating perfection to an equally vague term.

you refuse to read the the summa previously, it limits the way i can explain things to you.
so, im not equating words randomly, im giving you the simplest metaphysical definition. which is to be complete. how is that evasion? its the definition. so what is wrong with that?

however as you are not the only person in the conversation here is Aquinas

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect#Ontology_and_theology

The Scholastic, Thomas Aquinas, indicating that he was following Aristotle, defined a perfect thing as one that “possesses that of which, by its nature, it is capable.” Also (Summa Theologiae): “That is perfect, which lacks nothing of the perfection proper to it.”

see what i mean now? “complete” is the simplest way to describe it to you. you should do your own research.

If one doesn’t have to satisfy any standards in order to be complete, then your concept of “completeness” is meaningless. Similarly, if something doesn’t have to satisfy any standards to be the tallest object of a group of objects, then every object of that group can be the tallest. It’s common sense. You need a definition that will tell you how to use the adjective. In this case, you need to know if something is complete or not. How would you go about doing that?

because it does not lack anything. thats how you know something is complete. what other standard can there be? something is either complete or it is not. anything lacking any degree of completeness is not then complete. do you need to know how many pieces a pizza has to know if it is complete? no, you dont, you need only see that a piece is missing to know that it is not complete, but if you see no piece missing? then it is complete. maybe the pizza should be bigger? G-ds pizza is existence, and therefore everything, all the toppings. so there can be no bigger pizza than existence itself.

To ask the age-old question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Why is this reality better than the alternative of nothingness (no reality)? Again, you’re evading the question by appealing to semantics. You know exactly what I mean by the question.

yes, i know exactly what you mean. the semantics are incidental to the answer, there is no such thing as nothing or nothingness. you can only make it something by the very semantics you decry here. nothing is a word that indicates a concept that cannot have any form. you may be thinking to yourself something like “i can concieve of nothing”, if so, no you cant, in your conceiving, nothing becomes something. its not just semantics, its the nature of “nothing”

you may think there is some alternative to “something” but it is only a function of language. it is fooling you into the belief that there is an actual thing, called “nothing” or “nothingness”. as though there are 2 possible states, “something” and “nothing” when in fact there is only 1 possible state “something” because apart from the artifact of language, there is no such thing as “nothing”.

p.s. are you still a communist? we dropped the subject, but a prof sent me some more stuff, frankly the memorial to the victims of communism should have turned you off, but if not google “cuba hunger” on youtube, they just locked up some guy for a couple years for complaining that they dont have enough food. they were out of toilet paper last month. command economies are horribly ineffecient.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Perfect” is actually a comparative term. It means that something exactly matches something else’s need or exactly matches a known concept. Without clarity of what that other thing is, there is a lack of perfection in communication while using the word “perfect”.

cute, but we are talking about metaphysics, so lets use the metaphysical definitions of the terms, if we were discussing electrical engineering, then the apropriate usage of terms in that field would be good.

p.s.

any idea where i can get nickel/nickel chromium wire?

 

[JDaniel]

Ugh! Well, I never read his stuff, so I came up independantly with the phrase. And STEM sounds so much better that MEST, don’t you think?

Absolutely.

jd