Adhanom Andemicael

A slightly different argument: Let us consider the following statements: A. All things are absent. B. Statement A is true. C. A situation exists in which statement B is true. D. A situation exists. E. "Something" exists. F. It is not the case that "all things are absent." G. Statement A can never be true. *** I claim that statement G is true. *** Proof: If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.1 If C is true, D is true.2,3 If D is true, E is true.4 If E is true, F is true.5 If F is true, A is false.6 Therefore, if A is true, A is false!7 (Contradiction!) Clearly, A can never be true. Since A can never be true, it follows that G is true.8,9 *** Notes: 1. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.) 2. A "situation" is a "state of affairs." 3. If a "situation" exists, a "state of affairs" exists. 4. A "situation" is a "thing." 5. Suppose "something" exists. Then it is not the case that "all things are absent." 6. Suppose it is not the case that "all things are absent." Then the statement "all things are absent" is false. 7. The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "A is false.") 8. It can never be the case that "all things are absent." 9. "Something" must always exist. Adhanom Andemicael

Let us consider the following statements: A. All things are absent. B. It is the case that "all things are absent." C. A situation exists. D. "Something" exists. E. It is not the case that "all things are absent." F. Statement A can never be true. *** I claim that statement F is true. *** Proof: If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.1,2,3 If C is true, D is true.4 If D is true, E is true.5 If E is true, A is false.6 Therefore, if A is true, A is false!7 (Contradiction!) Clearly, A can never be true. Since A can never be true, it follows that F is true.8,9 *** Notes: 1. The phrase "it is the case that" indicates that a situation exists. 2. A "situation" is a "state of affairs." 3. If a "situation" exists, a "state of affairs" exists. 4. A "situation" is a "thing." 5. Suppose "something" exists. Then it is not the case that "all things are absent." 6. Suppose it is not the case that "all things are absent." Then the statement "all things are absent" is false. 7. The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "A is false.") 8. It can never be the case that "all things are absent." 9. "Something" must always exist. Adhanom Andemicael

Thank you for your response! *** Thank you for the two references (i.e., the two books you mentioned)! *** I do not believe the concepts I'm discussing are "ill defined." I'm sorry I didn't mention that. (I should have mentioned it!) *** You asked: "What is nothing?" "Nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent. "Nothing" can also be defined as a "state of affairs." It is a state of affairs in which all things are absent. *** A state of affairs in which "all things are absent" cannot persist. Such a state of affairs can persist for at most zero seconds. *** I'm being very careful to follow the forum rules (i.e., the posting guidelines). I thought I was following the guidelines. (I'm assuming the forum rules don't require list-members to reply to all comments that they receive.) I've responded to some comments/messages in this thread... And I very much appreciate the dialogue! I appreciate all list-members. You said I ignored what list-members said about my proposals. I appreciate you telling me this. Please let me know if you feel I'm not following the forum rules! (I'm being very careful to follow the rules! I greatly appreciate this site!) *** Re: "Nothing": I presented an argument in my last post. Here's the same argument, with slightly different wording: Let us consider the following statements: S1. Time flow occurs. S2. All things are absent. S3. It is the case that "all things are absent."1 S4. It continues to be the case that "all things are absent." *** Can statement S4 be true? A necessary condition for S4 to be true is the following: S1 and S2 must both be true.2 Note however: S1 and S2 cannot both be true.3 The answer to the question posed above is therefore "no." We must conclude that S4 cannot be true.4 *** Notes: 1. The phrase "it is the case that" indicates that a situation exists. 2. The phrase "it continues to be the case that" indicates that time flow occurs. 3. If time flow occurs, time is not absent. If time is not absent, it is not the case that "all things are absent." 4. It is not possible for statement S4 to be true. Adhanom Andemicael

Re: "Nothing": Let us consider the following statements: S1. Time flow occurs. S2. All things are absent. S3. It is the case that "all things are absent."1 S4. It remains the case that "all things are absent." *** Can statement S4 be true? A necessary condition for S4 to be true is the following: S1 and S2 must both be true.2 Note however: S1 and S2 cannot both be true.3 The answer to the question posed above is therefore "no." We must conclude that S4 cannot be true.4 *** Notes: 1. The phrase "it is the case that" indicates that a situation exists. 2. The phrase "it remains the case that" indicates that time flow occurs. 3. If time flow occurs, time is not absent. If time is not absent, it is not the case that "all things are absent." 4. It is not possible for statement S4 to be true. Adhanom Andemicael

A "situation" is a "state of affairs." *** "Nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent. *** "Nothing" can also be defined as a "state of affairs."1 It is a state of affairs in which all things are absent. *** A state of affairs in which "all things are absent" cannot persist. Such a state of affairs can persist for at most zero seconds. *** Notes: 1. By "time flow," I mean "temporal passage" (i.e., the "passage of time"). *** Re: Existence: Suppose an entity exists for zero seconds. Then the entity never exists. *** I present a detailed argument in the following article: A material entity can certainly exist. However, in order to exist, it has to endure for a length of time greater than zero. In the big bang description of the origin of time, time exists at all moments after the Big Bang but not at the Big Bang itself. (I refer to this moment of the Big Bang as T-0.) Consequently, there is no first moment of time in this description: Every moment of time is preceded by an infinite number of other moments that are still closer to T-0. Similarly, a material entity cannot have a first moment of existence, since it has a total lifetime of only zero seconds at that initial moment. (A total lifetime of zero seconds means no lifetime at all, and implies non-existence.) However, the entity can be said to exist at all subsequent moments after the initial one. (I refer to this initial moment as t-0.) At these subsequent moments the entity has a lifetime greater than zero seconds. As in the big bang description, every moment of existence is preceded by an infinite number of other moments of existence; and these moments get closer and closer to t-0. As indicated above, however, t-0 cannot be considered a moment of existence (the entity does not exist at the time t-0). Let us choose any moment after t-0 and call that moment "now." The entity persists over an infinite number of moments between t-0 and "now." It exists "now" as a result of this persistence--as a result of having endured until "now." Existence "now" is therefore preceded by an earlier process of persistence. I wish to stress that our treatment of "existence" as a notion distinct from "persistence" is based on an erroneous assumption. The assumption is that existence is in some sense more fundamental than persistence. In this view, an entity that currently persists must have existed earlier; but an entity that currently exists need not have persisted earlier. An entity may exist "now" without having persisted prior to "now." In effect, in this view, the initial moment, t-0, is treated as a moment of existence: Existence is assumed possible at t-0 as well as at all subsequent moments. As explained above, however, existence cannot be defined at the initial moment, t-0. The traditional view maintains that existence is more fundamental than persistence. We now know, however, that every "now" (after t-0) is preceded by a process of persistence. One could just as easily argue, therefore, that it is persistence which is more fundamental than existence. Clearly, existence is not possible without persistence: An entity cannot exist if it does not endure. Persistence is therefore essential for existence--and it is just as fundamental as existence. In addition, existence "now" implies both prior existence and prior persistence. There is only one explanation that accounts for these facts in a self-consistent manner. Existence must be a process--the process of persisting. Adhanom Andemicael In my last post, I make reference to the moment "now." "Now" refers to any one of the infinite number of "nows"/"moments" that come after t-0. List-members should note that there are an infinite number of points ("nows") in the continuum between t-0 and any given "now." This infinite series of points/"nows" is a duration greater than zero. Let us choose a particular "now" out of the infinite series of "nows" and call it "N." The entity described in my last post persists over the infinite series of "nows" between t-0 and N. Existence at "N" is therefore preceded by a process of persistence. The entity can be defined as "existing" at the "now" N (i.e., at the "moment" N)--but only if the entity has persisted for the duration between t-0 and N. (I reiterate here that "N" represents any one of the infinite number of "nows"/"moments" that are subsequent to t-0). Adhanom Andemicael

Consciousness Always Exists If consciousness does not exist, time flow does not occur.1 If time flow does not occur, persistence does not occur. If persistence does not occur, nothing persists. If nothing persists, nothing exists.2 Therefore, if consciousness does not exist, nothing exists.3,4 *** Suppose "nothing" persists for zero seconds.5 Then "nothing" exists for "no length of time."6 If "nothing" exists for "no length of time," "nothing" never exists. Therefore, if "nothing" persists for zero seconds, "nothing" never exists. *** Can "nothing" exist? A necessary condition for "nothing" to exist is the following: "Nothing" must persist for a duration greater than zero. Note however: "Nothing" cannot persist for a duration greater than zero.7,8,9 The answer to the question posed above is therefore "no." We must conclude that "nothing" cannot exist. *** If "nothing" does not exist, "something" must exist. "Nothing" does not exist. Therefore, "something" must exist. *** If "something" always exists, consciousness always exists. "Something" always exists. Therefore, consciousness always exists.10 *** Notes: 1. Time flow is consciousness-dependent. 2. Suppose nothing persists for a duration greater than zero seconds. Then nothing exists. 3. If consciousness is absent, nothing exists. 4. Existence is consciousness-dependent. 5. "Nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent. 6. Zero seconds is "no length of time." 7. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds. 8. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 9.]) 9. If "nothing" persists, time flow occurs. If time flow occurs, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist. 10. It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist." Adhanom Andemicael

Re: Nothing What is "nothing"? By definition, "nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent. "Nothing" Cannot Exist Let us consider the following statement: S1: Nothing exists. *** Statement S1 seems to contradict itself. *** In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist.1,2 A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.3,4 Therefore, a scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot exist.5 *** "Nothing" cannot exist. Therefore, "something" must always exist.6 Notes: 1. Suppose a situation S exists. Then S must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. (If S persists for zero seconds, S never exists.) 2. If a situation persists, a phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., a phenomenon of time flow) occurs. 3. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 4.]) 4. If "nothing" persists, time flow occurs. If time flow occurs, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist. 5. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous. 6. We know that "something" always exists. But what could this "something" be? (An eternal "mind" of some sort?) Re: Nothing If "nothing" is a "situation," we can ask the question "How long does 'nothing' persist?"1,2 Notes: 1. Suppose S is a situation. The question "How long does S persist?" is a meaningful question. 2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds. Re: Nothing (II) By definition, "nothing" is a "situation."1 However, it is a situation that cannot exist. *** Let us consider the following statement: S2: "Nothing" does not persist over time. *** Statement S2 is true.2 Notes: 1. The "absence of all things" is a "situation." (It is a "state of affairs.") 2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds. Re: Nothing (III) If nothing exists, time does not exist.1 Notes: 1. In order for time to exist, persistence has to occur for a duration greater than zero seconds. "Something" Always Exists ("Nothing" Never Exists) Part I: Let us consider the following statements: A. No "thing" exists. B. Statement A is true. C. A situation exists in which statement B is true. D. A situation exists.1 E. A "thing" exists. F. Consciousness exists. G. Statement A can never be true. *** I claim that statement G is true. *** Proof: If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.2 If C is true, D is true. If D is true, E is true.3 If E is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!) Clearly, A can never be true.4 Since A can never be true, it follows that G is true. *** If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false. If A is always false, E is always true. A is always false. Therefore, E is always true. We conclude the following: A "thing" always exists.5 Part II: Suppose a "thing" T persists for zero seconds. Then T exists for "no length of time."6 If T exists for "no length of time," T never exists. Therefore, if T persists for zero seconds, T never exists. Suppose a "thing" exists. Then the "thing" must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a "thing" persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.7 If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.8 Therefore, if a "thing" exists, consciousness must exist. *** If statement E is true, F is true. E is true. Therefore, F is true. *** If statement E is always true, F is always true. E is always true. Therefore, F is always true.9 *** We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.10 Notes: 1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous. 2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.) 3. A "situation" is a "thing." If a "situation" exists, a "thing" exists. 4. It can never be the case that statement A is true. 5. A "thing" must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no 'thing' exists.") 6. Zero seconds is "no length of time." 7. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.) 8. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. 9. If a "thing" exists, consciousness exists. 10. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.") *** Clarification: The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that A and E are both true.) The premise "E is true" does not lead to a contradiction. (It does not lead to the conclusion that E and A are both true.) Adhanom Andemicael

Let us suppose the following: - O_A is a conscious observer that exists in spacetime. - O_A is the only conscious observer that exists in spacetime. - m1 is the moment "1:00 pm, Jan. 1, 2000." - m2 is the moment "2:00 pm, Jan. 1, 2000." - O_A ceases to be conscious at the moment m1. - O_A does not regain consciousness until the moment m2. - The time dimension of spacetime does not pass. - When O_A is unconscious, O_A's subjective time does not pass. *** Now let us consider the following statement: S1: Between m1 and m2, O_A is unconscious for zero seconds. *** I claim that this statement is true.1,2,3 Notes: 1. No objective time (OT) passes between the moments m1 and m2. (The total amount of OT that passes between these moments is zero seconds.) 2. O_A's subjective time (STA) does not pass between the moments m1 and m2. (The total amount of STA that passes between these moments is zero seconds.) 3. I discuss unconsciousness in considerable detail in the thread "Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness." Adhanom Andemicael

The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction. *** Let us consider the following statement: S1: If B is true, C is true.(1) *** The premise in this statement is "B is true." (Please note that "A is false" is not a premise in S1.(2)) *** Notes: 1. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.) 2. The premise "A is false" is not present at any level in my argument. Adhanom Andemicael

The premise "A is true" is problematic. It leads to the conclusion that A and D are both true. The premise "D is true" is not problematic. It does not lead to the conclusion that D and A are both true. *** The premise "D is true" does not lead to the conclusion "D is false." *** Suppose we start out assuming that "A is true." Then "A is true" is the premise. The premise "A is true" leads to the conclusion "D is true." Here's the argument: If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true. If C is true, D is true. Therefore, if A is true, D is true. *** Let's extend this argument a little: If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true. If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false. *** The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction.(1) *** Suppose we start out assuming that "D is true." Then "D is true" is the premise. The premise "D is true" leads directly to the conclusion "A is false." Here's the argument: If D is true, A is false.(2),(3) *** Notes: 1. The premise "A is true" leads to the conclusion "A is false." 2. The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction. 3. The premise "D is true" does not lead to the conclusion "D is false." Adhanom Andemicael

It seems to me that the argument is valid. ("D is false" is just another way of saying that "A is true.") *** Please note that the premise "D is false" leads to a contradiction.(1) (It leads to the conclusion that "D is true.") *** Let us consider the following statements: S1: If A is true, D is false. S2: If A is true, D is true. I think you are claiming that statement S1 is true. I agree that S1 is true. Note however that S2 is also true. Since S1 and S2 are both true, a contradiction arises. *** I don't believe that there is a "flaw" in the "later logic." Notes: 1. The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction. Adhanom Andemicael

When I say "consciousness exists," I mean the following: "One or more conscious experiences occur." Adhanom Andemicael What precisely is the "flaw" in the argument? *** What are the "singleton statements" associated with statement A? Adhanom Andemicael

Thank you for your questions. Several readers asked questions requiring long, detailed answers. The best way for me to address these questions is to do the following: - Post the text of my paper "Temporal Passage" in this forum. - Upload the pdf version of the paper to this forum so that readers can view the three (simple) line-diagrams that appear in the text/paper. - Post some additional clarifying text. *** I'd like to post this material in this forum. *** May I post this material? (The forum rules seem to allow it.) Adhanom Andemicael

I refer to the "fourth dimension of spacetime" as "Einstein's time," "physical time," "objective time," and "time." (I use these terms interchangeably.) Dates (e.g., Jan. 1, Jan. 2, etc.) are points in the fourth dimension of spacetime. (They are points in Einstein's time.) Einstein's time exists. However, it does not pass. (It is static.) Einstein's time isn't the only type of time that exists. A second type of time exists: Subjective (mental) time. Unlike Einstein's time, subjective (mental) time passes (flows). By "time flow" and "temporal passage," I mean the "flow of subjective (mental) time." Adhanom Andemicael

Physical time cannot pass. *** Dates (e.g., Jan. 1, Jan. 2, etc.) are simply locations in time. Dates do not move through time. And as we know, time itself does not "move" or "go" anywhere. It is conceivable that consciousness somehow flows relative to physical time. However, physical time itself cannot flow or pass. I suggest a model for time flow in my paper "Temporal Passage." Adhanom Andemicael