. . .
I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.
. . .
. . .
Quote from: name withheld
limx→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0
Quote from: name withheld
S₁ = kBln 0 = kBln e−(−0) = kB(−(−0)) = −(−0)
Quote from: name withheld
S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂
Quote from: name withheld
S₂ = −0 = kBln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ kB = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e−0 = −0 = Ω
. . .
I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.
How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?
We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").
Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.
In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.
In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent. And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.
If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity? Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"
. . .
As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.
So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?
As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.
So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?
Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:
Code:
∀x Microstate-of(x, Existence) ∧ Mezostate-of(f(x), Existence) ⇒ x ≔ f(x)
Yeah. I need to learn more about notation. Any way you could take that mathematical statement and phrase it in English? I should be able to reverse model it back to your notation.
It's predicate logic.
Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:
Quote
For all x, if x is a microstate of existence and f(x) is a mezostate of existence then x is defined to be another name for f(x).
. 
