what pure logical tautologies can deduce

[HumbleBeauty]

the empty set exists


proof; (|- ∃{})

Assuming nothing (i.e. having no non-logical axioms), it follows that there is an assuming, or thinking;

And this particular thinking, having no content, amounts to the existence of the empty set!

Note; This is purer than Descartes' cognito ergo sum.


nothing is nothing

proof; ({} ≡ {})

This is the law of identity with respects the empty set.

Victor Hugo first said "nothing is nothing"

proof; ({} = {})∧({} ⇒ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (1); nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing AND nothing has the property of nothing AND nothing exists as nothing

Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;

Corollary (1); nothing equals nothing; {} = {}

Corollary (2); nothing implies nothing; {} ⇒ {}

Corollary (3); nothing has the property of nothing; id{}:{} → {}

Corollary (4); nothing exists as nothing; ∃{} → ∃{}


something is self-causal

proof; ({} = {})∧({} ⇒ {})

Logical Tautology (2); nothing equals nothing and nothing implies nothing

ergo nothing is not implicated with something

Note; "nothing is not...", is the contraposition of "everything is..."

ergo everything is implicated with something

Note; Two or more things that are in a way implicated with each other can be understood as one thing implicated with itself. e.g. If a group of cells (such as the ones that make up your body) are in a way implicated with each other, they can be understood as one thing (namely your body) implicated with itself i.e. you are cybernetic.

ergo something is self-implicated

Note; Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since everything is implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables for this correlation. Therefore this correlation is causation.

ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.

Note; "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness.


something is self-descriptive

proof; ({} = {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (3); nothing equals nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive.

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation.


something has the particular characteristics of existence

proof; ({} = {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (4); nothing equals nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing is nonexistence. - Something has the particular characteristics of existence.


everything is made of something

proof; ({} ⇒ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (5); nothing implies nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something.


everything causes something

proof; ({} ⇒ {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (6); nothing implies nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing causes nothing. - everything causes something.


something has always existed everywhere

proof; (id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (7); nothing has the property of nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere.


Monism panpsychism; One thing is self-causal and has the particular characteristics of existence.

Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses how many individuals of the defined thing exist. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist. This cause of existence must either be contained in the particular characteristics and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individuals of a particular thing exist, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the particular characteristics of something, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal and has the particular characteristics of existence. Q.E.D.

[adaptation from the end of Note II, PROP. VIII, Of God, Spinoza's Ethics] [3]

.
Reality has the particular characteristics of existence (which is one thing that is also self-causal). But self-causal means self-deterministic. In other words, it is consciousness. Therefore reality is a monism panpsychism.

Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. Therefore this one thing has always existed everywhere.

Nothing causes nothing. - everything causes something. Every cause (and every effect) of reality is part of the self-causal aspect of reality. Therefore the monism panpsychism (that is eternal and omnipresent) is also omnipotent.


The eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent consciousness has the same properties as the Divine. By the identity of indescernibles .this one thing is the Divine. Therefore the Divine necessarily exists. QED.

[Dānu]

You have assumed properties of time that are neither a priori nor identifiable properties of existence. Ergo, you are making shit up.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

the empty set exists


proof; (|- ∃{})

Assuming nothing (i.e. having no non-logical axioms), it follows that there is an assuming, or thinking;

And this particular thinking, having no content, amounts to the existence of the empty set!

Note; This is purer than Descartes' cognito ergo sum.


nothing is nothing

proof; ({} ≡ {})

This is the law of identity with respects the empty set.

Victor Hugo first said "nothing is nothing"

proof; ({} = {})∧({} ⇒ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (1); nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing AND nothing has the property of nothing AND nothing exists as nothing

Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;

Corollary (1); nothing equals nothing; {} = {}

Corollary (2); nothing implies nothing; {} ⇒ {}

Corollary (3); nothing has the property of nothing; id{}:{} → {}

Corollary (4); nothing exists as nothing; ∃{} → ∃{}


something is self-causal

proof; ({} = {})∧({} ⇒ {})

Logical Tautology (2); nothing equals nothing and nothing implies nothing

ergo nothing is not implicated with something

Note; "nothing is not...", is the contraposition of "everything is..."

ergo everything is implicated with something

Note; Two or more things that are in a way implicated with each other can be understood as one thing implicated with itself. e.g. If a group of cells (such as the ones that make up your body) are in a way implicated with each other, they can be understood as one thing (namely your body) implicated with itself i.e. you are cybernetic.

ergo something is self-implicated

Note; Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since everything is implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables for this correlation. Therefore this correlation is causation.

ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.

Note; "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness.


something is self-descriptive

proof; ({} = {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (3); nothing equals nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive.

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation.


something has the particular characteristics of existence

proof; ({} = {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (4); nothing equals nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing is nonexistence. - Something has the particular characteristics of existence.


everything is made of something

proof; ({} ⇒ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (5); nothing implies nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something.


everything causes something

proof; ({} ⇒ {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (6); nothing implies nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing causes nothing. - everything causes something.


something has always existed everywhere

proof; (id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (7); nothing has the property of nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere.


Monism panpsychism; One thing is self-causal and has the particular characteristics of existence.

Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses how many individuals of the defined thing exist. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist. This cause of existence must either be contained in the particular characteristics and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individuals of a particular thing exist, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the particular characteristics of something, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal and has the particular characteristics of existence. Q.E.D.

[adaptation from the end of Note II, PROP. VIII, Of God, Spinoza's Ethics] [3]

.
Reality has the particular characteristics of existence (which is one thing that is also self-causal). But self-causal means self-deterministic. In other words, it is consciousness. Therefore reality is a monism panpsychism.

Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. Therefore this one thing has always existed everywhere.

Nothing causes nothing. - everything causes something. Every cause (and every effect) of reality is part of the self-causal aspect of reality. Therefore the monism panpsychism (that is eternal and omnipresent) is also omnipotent.


The eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent consciousness has the same properties as the Divine. By the identity of indescernibles .this one thing is the Divine. Therefore the Divine necessarily exists. QED.

No one here is impressed with the volume, the quality, or the pure stink of your bullshit, even if you are.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can define a lot of things. The fact that I can define something doesn't mean that thing exists. Existence may be a property, but it is not a requirement.

Warmed-over Anselm, rewrite and resubmit. F.

[Paleophyte]

Assuming nothing...

Except you clearly are. This should be obvious, because you can't get anything out of a tautology. That's what they are. A ---> A doesn't even tell you anything about the truth of A. It's entirely possible that A is false. So clearly you've assumed something or you couldn't get anywhere. The fact that you don't seem to understand that about tautologies leaves me in doubt about your reasoning capacities. Here are just a few of your assumptions, and if you follow them it's pretty clear where you inserted god by mistake:

1. Logic is valid and applies to this line of reasoning. If you don't have this then you can't even state your tautology, much less reason about it.
   
2. Something exists. Probably a safe assumption, but a lot more than the nothing that you claim.
   
3. Everything requires a cause (Hmm... This smells familiar).
   
4. Except for the First Cause (Yup, very familiar).
   • Which we'll either define as Uncaused or Self-Caused
     
   • And in doing so violate either 1 or 3 above
     
   • Cool story bro, needs more dragons
     

So all you've managed to do is reinvent The Prime Mover with extra steps. It simply demonstrates that any epistemic system has to treat the root cause specially, which is long-winded philobabble for "If you ask 'Why?' enough you run into problems." Religion has typically solved this by forbidding the question. "God" is little more than the placeholder for "Thou Shalt Not Ask!"

[SYZ]

...The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses how many individuals of the defined thing exist. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist. This cause of existence must either be contained in the particular characteristics and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individuals of a particular thing exist, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the particular characteristics of something, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal and has the particular characteristics of existence. Q.E.D.

What a load of meaningless, unmitigated verbiage.      

                     

[c172]

That's a rather criminalistic looking avatar, there, bub.

Have a Quaker Dipp bar.

[HumbleBeauty]

Assuming nothing...

Except you clearly are. This should be obvious, because you can't get anything out of a tautology. That's what they are. A ---> A doesn't even tell you anything about the truth of A. It's entirely possible that A is false. So clearly you've assumed something or you couldn't get anywhere. The fact that you don't seem to understand that about tautologies leaves me in doubt about your reasoning capacities. Here are just a few of your assumptions, and if you follow them it's pretty clear where you inserted god by mistake:

1. Logic is valid and applies to this line of reasoning. If you don't have this then you can't even state your tautology, much less reason about it.
   
2. Something exists. Probably a safe assumption, but a lot more than the nothing that you claim.
   
3. Everything requires a cause (Hmm... This smells familiar).
   
4. Except for the First Cause (Yup, very familiar).
   • Which we'll either define as Uncaused or Self-Caused
     
   • And in doing so violate either 1 or 3 above
     
   • Cool story bro, needs more dragons
     

So all you've managed to do is reinvent The Prime Mover with extra steps. It simply demonstrates that any epistemic system has to treat the root cause specially, which is long-winded philobabble for "If you ask 'Why?' enough you run into problems." Religion has typically solved this by forbidding the question. "God" is little more than the placeholder for "Thou Shalt Not Ask!"

By "assuming nothing" I mean that "I don't use non-logical axioms"... and by assuming nothing, you are still assuming.


3. nothing causes nothing

That doesn't assume that everything requires a cause, it PROVES that everything has a cause by contraposition.

[HumbleBeauty]

That's a rather criminalistic looking avatar, there, bub.

Have a Quaker Dipp bar.

lol, that's my ugly face

[HumbleBeauty]

You have assumed properties of time that are neither a priori nor identifiable properties of existence.  Ergo, you are making shit up.

what did I assume about time?

[Paleophyte]

By "assuming nothing" I mean that "I don't use non-logical axioms"... and by assuming nothing, you are still assuming.


3. nothing causes nothing

That doesn't assume that everything requires a cause, it PROVES that everything has a cause by contraposition.

All of your axioms are nonlogical. They're based on vagaries of the English language.

You can't prove that everything has a cause starting from "nothing causes nothing", which is a nonsense statement to begin with. Nothing, that which does not exist, requires no cause. If it did, then you still wouldn't be anywhere. That's the problem with tautologies. They don't tell you anything.

[HumbleBeauty]

By "assuming nothing" I mean that "I don't use non-logical axioms"... and by assuming nothing, you are still assuming.


3. nothing causes nothing

That doesn't assume that everything requires a cause, it PROVES that everything has a cause by contraposition.

All of your axioms are nonlogical. They're based on vagaries of the English language.

You can't prove that everything has a cause starting from "nothing causes nothing", which is a nonsense statement to begin with. Nothing, that which does not exist, requires no cause. If it did, then you still wouldn't be anywhere. That's the problem with tautologies. They don't tell you anything.

What is the contraposition of "nothing causes nothing"?

[Paleophyte]

All of your axioms are nonlogical. They're based on vagaries of the English language.

You can't prove that everything has a cause starting from "nothing causes nothing", which is a nonsense statement to begin with. Nothing, that which does not exist, requires no cause. If it did, then you still wouldn't be anywhere. That's the problem with tautologies. They don't tell you anything.

What is the contraposition of "nothing causes nothing"?

What is the meaning of "nothing causes nothing"?

[Paleophyte]

The contrapositive of a tautology is a tautology.

[I am a human] therefore [I am a human]
Becomes
[I am not a human] therefore [I am not a human]

Useless. You'd think somebody that gosh darned smart would know that.

[epronovost]

How the hell did we get from tautologies like nothing is nothing to that last paragraph? It's literally going from nothing to everything in less than a syllogism.

[Paleophyte]

How the hell did we get from tautologies like nothing is nothing to that last paragraph? It's literally going from nothing to everything in less than a syllogism.

Well, it looks like he started with nothing, tried to do his thinking with it, and got nothing.

[Dānu]

You have assumed properties of time that are neither a priori nor identifiable properties of existence.  Ergo, you are making shit up.

what did I assume about time?

Presentism and block time (also known as eternalism) are two contrasting philosophical views on the nature of time. Presentism posits that only the present moment exists, while block time (eternalism) suggests that all moments in time, past, present, and future, are equally real. You assumed presentism. Neither can be known a priori, and neither has been determined a posteriori.

[HumbleBeauty]

what did I assume about time?

Presentism and block time (also known as eternalism) are two contrasting philosophical views on the nature of time. Presentism posits that only the present moment exists, while block time (eternalism) suggests that all moments in time, past, present, and future, are equally real.   You assumed presentism.  Neither can be known a priori, and neither has been determined a posteriori.

what makes you believe I believe in presentism?

I believe in an infinite past, and the present, and computations of future possibilities.

[HumbleBeauty]

What is the contraposition of "nothing causes nothing"?

What is the meaning of "nothing causes nothing"?

nothing has no cause, nothing doesn't cause anything, and everything has a cause

[Paleophyte]

What is the meaning of "nothing causes nothing"?

nothing has no cause, nothing doesn't cause anything, and everything has a cause

That's a fine recitation. The statement "nothing causes nothing" is without meaning. "Nothing" neither causes nor requires a cause. Using "nothing" as both the cause and effect is as meaningful as wondering how much hockey raspberry sherbet can play. You take this erroneous little jingle and then try to invert it, committing the logical equivalent of a mugging in the process. From this delerious confusion of reason you deduce god.

[HumbleBeauty]

nothing has no cause, nothing doesn't cause anything, and everything has a cause

That's a fine recitation. The statement "nothing causes nothing" is without meaning. "Nothing" neither causes nor requires a cause. Using "nothing" as both the cause and effect is as meaningful as wondering how much hockey raspberry sherbet can play. You take this erroneous little jingle and then try to invert it, committing the logical equivalent of a mugging in the process. From this delerious confusion of reason you deduce god.

Your right nothing neither causes nor requires a cause.

I missed a step though;

nothing causes nothing; (1) nothing has no cause, (2) nothing doesn't cause anything, (3) something causes everything

3 is a contraposition of 2

the negation of "nothing" is "something"

the negation of "doesn't cause anything" is "causes everything"

therefore the contraposition of "nothing doesn't cause anything" is "something causes everything"

[brewerb]

nothing is a subset of something and everything

[Paleophyte]

That's a fine recitation. The statement "nothing causes nothing" is without meaning. "Nothing" neither causes nor requires a cause. Using "nothing" as both the cause and effect is as meaningful as wondering how much hockey raspberry sherbet can play. You take this erroneous little jingle and then try to invert it, committing the logical equivalent of a mugging in the process. From this delerious confusion of reason you deduce god.

Your right nothing neither causes nor requires a cause.

I missed a step though;

nothing causes nothing; (1) nothing has no cause, (2) nothing doesn't cause anything, (3) something causes everything

3 is a contraposition of 2

the negation of "nothing" is "something"

the negation of "doesn't cause anything" is "causes everything"

therefore the contraposition of "nothing doesn't cause anything" is "something causes everything"

Your second negation is in error. The negation of "doesn't cause anything" is simply "does cause anything". So, your contraposition gets you "something causes anything." Amazing, you've conclusively demonstrated that the universe contains at least one instance of causality. 

Sadly for your Grand Thesis of Shit Happens, your initial premise is unsupported and your reasoning is circular. When you say that "nothing doesn't cause anything" you haven't actually observed that "nothing" never causing anything. To do so would be absurd. Instead, you're beginning with causality, using a hidden common sense contraposition to arrive at "nothing doesn't cause anything", formally stating that as a premise, inverting it yet again, and getting right back to where you started. What you're actually starting with is "Everything requires a cause" which is basic Prime Mover stuff from Philosophy 101.

Amazingly, by assuming causality, you were able to demonstrate causality. I'm underwowed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and at this point we're back to special pleading. What causes the Prime Mover?

[Mancunian]

What is the meaning of "nothing causes nothing"?

nothing has no cause, nothing doesn't cause anything, and everything has a cause

Congratulations, you just summed up god.