Does Logic break down when it interacts with Non-Existance? · 5:49am Aug 6th, 2019
I read this story, and hoo boy did it lead me down a rabbithole.
https://www.fimfiction.net/story/405018/discord-teaches-philosophy
You see, it really got me thinking about pure epistemology again. Over the course of the last year, I have focused more on metaphysics, morality, and the Philosophy of self, but this fic lead to me re-examining the nature of doubt, consciousness, and logic itself.
I have went through many epistemological stages in my life. At age 9 I became an Epistomological Nihilist - at age 12, I realized that self-defeating arguments are bad and became a Pyrrhonist (basically the same thing but logically consistant) then a Postmodern Radical Subjectivist at 14 - and finally, at age 16, a Phenomenologist.
Throughout all of these ideological transformations, one thing stayed true - I believed in the self-consistency of logic...
That idea really got tested in this discussion I had with a friend on a 4chan discord server (yep... 
)
I was talking about the subject of this fic, primarily the nature of Cartisian Doubt, and how you can doubt logic itself - when, out of the blue, my postmodernist friend stated that I was actually incorrect in my statement about the law of noncontradiction...
We were in the middle of talking about The Nature of non-existant objects, when he said that he could prove that there are certain thought-objects that break-down the fundamental laws of logic.
I, of course, was highly skeptical of his claim - how could I, after all my study of this subject, have missed something so fundamental as a violation of the laws of logic.
He responded with something he learned from an Ancient Eastern Math book known as "Lokavibhaga":
0 is non existance
0 exists
Therefor non-existance exists
Thus violating the law of non-contradiction, 0 both exists and doesn't.
This seemed like total BS to me, I countered that -
"non-existance" only "exists" as a semantic aspect of out language...
Therefor, there is no contradiction
This he quickly refuted by stating that there are genuine, observable effects of non-existence - as existence itself is only defined relative to non-existance.
This banter continued on for hours, I would bring up a point, and he would poke holes in it until the counterargument fell.
After many, many hours exploring the philosophy of math, truth, existence, and set-theory (specifically the difference between a
0-set and a null-set) He had me in a corner. I could see no way to defeat this monster, looming over logic.
You see, logic can easily deal with non-existence when contained within systems,
ie. "I have zero apples" or "Zero is simply a place on the Number Line" etc.
the problem arises when you try to describe the concept itself, outside of all systems, the logic simply
falls apart when it tries to deal with this abstract.
Thoroughly discouraged, I decided to halt the conversation because it was 5am and I needed to sleep.
That night (morning, day, whatever) was spent pondering this logical black-hole that is nothing (aka non-existence).
Over the course of the next day, I started from the basics, and broke down the problem through multiple different theories of consciousness, until it hit me! I found the problem with the argument!
I quickly ran over to my Laptop and wrote the solution to this logical anomaly
"Ideas cannot exist outside of systems."
I know, I know, this revelation seems kinda stupidly simple now that I tell you, however I had no papers, and no academic starting point, as I could find NOTHING on the entire internet about this, so this took a lot of examination before it became obvious.
He tried to countered this claim by trying to argue that ideas exist on their own, outside of definitions and such - however it was at this point the conversation shifted, HE was now the one providing counter-arguements, and I was the one playing defense.
Finally, after an hour of this, he conceded that yes, my theory was indeed a good solution to this problem, and one he hadn't thought of.
It solves the entire dilemma, and ties it up quite nicely with a bow on top.
Just wanted to share this cause it was fun :3
peace yall
- Nil
Of course zero exists. However zero is matter of perspective. If I have ten apples and you have seven apples, and we stop having this long ass discussion and eat our fucking fruit, and have zero apples, does that mean that apples no longer exist? No, it means that unless you knowingly at the last apple in existence rather then, you know, planting a tree, that there weren't zero apples, you merely didn't have any on hand.
A is A, as it were. If something exists, then it exists, even if it is beyond our perspective.
5175699
Your defining 0 within a system, specifically the system of the amount of apples, the disagreement here is whether 0 itself exists outside of systems.
You can have 0 apples, but can you conceptualize of a nothing that's not defined relative to anything else.
0 fruits
0 candy
0 numbers
VS
*non existence itself*
5176040
But isn't non existence something of a misnomer? If something is non existant then it is defined is it not? In short, there is no answer. Only absurdity.
5176045
Its a paradox of definitions, as adressed above there are a couple solutions to this problem.
You can see the effects of non-existance has on systems, and, at least from the hindu background that this guy was referring to, existence and reality itself is a product of non-existance, so just claiming that the problem is just syntax is not a satisfactory solution.
(1) Something has to exist before it can directly affect the world
(2) Non-existance directly affects the world
(∴) Non-existance must exist
5176064
But then we come to the problem of non existance of one concieving an idea. Does something exist because we percieve it? No, it exists despite our perception, to wit, A is A. And if something does not exist, IE not real, then it is non existant. So, if an idea is real, then it is not an idea, it is something one has merely not learned of yet.
Of all things, I'm suddenly reminded of a Dilbert episode where Dogbert says dinosaurs are still around, they're just hiding
5176110
lol I think your confusing metaphysics and epistemology
We were referring to abstract systems of thought, not the nature or perception.
Its like if I say 2-2=0 and you say "I can still imagine 1"
5176587
Nah, I just went on a tangent
Also
5176594
lmao thats great
5177317
But I think you see my point though.
Also veganism is a religion and a philosophy now.
A philosophy.
A philosophy