Logic and god

[Eise]

Hmm, yes....

 

A Cheese Sandwich is better than Nothing.

Nothing is better than God.

Conclusion: A Cheese Sandwich is better than God.

 

Or:

 

Anything is greater than Nothing.

Nothing is greater than God

So: Anything is greater than God.

[PeterJ]

Ha. That's actually quite funny. It goes to show how careful we have to be with language in metaphysics to avoid this sort of thing.

[Robittybob1]

Hmm, yes....

 

A Cheese Sandwich is better than Nothing.

Nothing is better than God.

Conclusion: A Cheese Sandwich is better than God.

 

Or:

 

Anything is greater than Nothing.

Nothing is greater than God

So: Anything is greater than God.

Is this due to different meanings of "nothing"?

[MigL]

Hmm...cheese sandwich !

[Robittybob1]

Hmm...cheese sandwich !

I know a cheese sandwich can be pretty darn good.

[Eise]

Hmm...cheese sandwich !

 

Yep.

 

Nothing is better than a Cheese Sandwich.

[PeterJ]

Damn. I keep being caught getting serious, and it never works here.

[swansont]

Is this due to different meanings of "nothing"?

 

 

Yes

[Eise]

Is this due to different meanings of "nothing"?

 

 

Yes

 

Why do you think so? What are the two different meanings?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Eise

[PeterJ]

Saying that there is 'nothing' in cupboard is a different use of the term than saying that the world began with 'nothing'. One is an everyday convenient word meaning 'nothing of relevance', the other is an absolute metaphysical concept. If there really were nothing in your cupboard then physics would have to rewritten.

[Eise]

But these are both not the meanings in my 'syllogisms'. So what is it that makes my logical derivations invalid?

[swansont]

Why do you think so? What are the two different meanings?

 

It's your example. Does the logic work for you, or does it fail because of equivocation?

 

"A Cheese Sandwich is better than Nothing" Nothing here refers to the null set. Having a cheese sandwich is better than having the empty set. Literally, no thing.

 

"Nothing is better than God" Nothing in this case refers to all things — of every thing that exists, you can't identify one that is better. It's an idiomatic rephrasing of "God is greater than all things".

[Eise]

It's your example. Does the logic work for you, or does it fail because of equivocation?

 

No, of course it is wrong. I reacted on PeterJ's posting of 'Nothing' to be a metaphysically empty concept. I agree with that, and wanted to show what great 'logical' constructs you can build using 'Nothing'.

 

My position why the 'derivations' are wrong is because 'Nothing' has no referent. 'Greater than', or 'better than' only work when the objects are real referents. But the essence of 'Nothing' is that one means there is no referent.

 

Say I put all existing objects on an ordered scale from 'better'. Past the worst there is nothing, put past the best there is also nothing. By saying 'A Cheese Sandwich is better than Nothing' is express that it is not the worst to have. By saying 'Nothing is better than God' I express that everything is less good as God. So both 'Nothings' refer to the empty set. But the empty set does not always works the same in argumentations, a bit similar why 0 does not always yield correct results when used in mathematics (division by 0, 0⁰, etc).

 

(As an aside:

Say I have [math]x[/math] and [math]y[/math] so that:

[math]x^2 - y^2 = x^2 - xy[/math]

[math](x -y)(x+ y) = x(x - y)[/math]

[math]x + y = x[/math]

Now e.g. take [math]x = y = 1[/math] (That fits the original equation).

Then I get:

[math]1 = 0[/math]

End of aside)

 

'Nothing' referring to 'everything' seems a bit of overstretching of the usual meaning of 'nothing'.

[PeterJ]

Hang on. I did not suggest that 'Nothing' is a metaphysically empty concept. Quite the opposite.

[swansont]

 

By saying 'Nothing is better than God' I express that everything is less good as God.

 

 

...

 

 

'Nothing' referring to 'everything' seems a bit of overstretching of the usual meaning of 'nothing'.

 

Which you end up using. As I said, it's an idiomatic expression. IOW, it's not the usual meaning.

[Eise]

Which you end up using.

 

No. The sentences:

• Nothing is greater than God.
• Everything is less than God.

may express the same fact, but their connotation is different. I just say the same as you say with the empty set:

you say:

• Having a cheese sandwich is better than having the empty set

I say:

• The set of objects greater than God is empty.

So we have:

 

[math] \emptyset \Rightarrow Cheese Sandwich \Rightarrow God \Rightarrow \emptyset[/math]

 

AFAIK there is only one empty set.

 

What do you prefer? A Cheese Sandwich without cheese, or a Marmalade Sandwich without marmalade? In which do the 'emptinesses' of both sandwiches differ?

 

So my point is still: one cannot build such logical derivations with 'Nothing', because it does not refer to anything.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Eise

[swansont]

Which is the problem with trying to express math with words. And then throw an idiom into the mix.

 

But, tell me again how you didn't use "nothing" to refer to "everything" (Not really. I'm being rhetorical)

 

(emphasis added)

 

By saying 'Nothing is better than God' I express that everything is less good as God.

[Eise]

Which is the problem with trying to express math with words. And then throw an idiom into the mix.

 

I completely agree with that.

 

I just think you choose your different meanings just as you please. E.g. I can rephrase your:

• Having a cheese sandwich is better than having the empty set

to:

• Not everything is worse than a Cheese Sandwich

Now I also refer to everything, of course with a negation (of course, in the worst case above sentence refers to the empty set).

 

 

By saying 'Nothing is better than God' I express that everything is less good as God.

(emphasis added)

 

 

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. The facts expressed are the same, but their connotations are not. (E.g. It is a fact that the evening star and the morning star are the same object, Venus, but their connotation is different: you will never see the evening star in the morning, per definition.)

[overtone]

One of the sources of confusion here is the mixup of logical nothing - the null set - with existential non-presence of a logical something (logically the category "things better than God" exists, which is the source of meaning for the assertion that no{such}thing is present - the category is empty).

 

The null set is not better than God. A cheese sandwich is not better than the absence of any other existential possibility.

Edited December 30, 2014 by overtone

[Eise]

One of the sources of confusion here is the mixup of logical nothing - the null set - with existential non-presence of a logical something (logically the category "things better than God" exists, which is the source of meaning for the assertion that no{such}thing is present - the category is empty).

 

The null set is not better than God. A cheese sandwich is not better than the absence of any other existential possibility.

 

I like it. Isn't that close to my interpretation that 'Nothing' has no referen?

Hang on. I did not suggest that 'Nothing' is a metaphysically empty concept. Quite the opposite.

 

O sorry, I interpreted you this way, because of the phrases I made bold..

 

Something and Nothing are conceptual constructs. This is not an issue in everyday life where these are useful relative terms, but it is a fundamental issue in metaphysics where these are supposed to be absolute terms.

[ajb]

AFAIK there is only one empty set.

This is true, at least in standard set theory as described by the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms. The axiom of extensionality establishes the uniqueness of the empty set.

[jajrussel]

Who would have thought that a discussion about nothing could be so entertaining.

 

It seems to me that logic is based on analogy, and in oder for it to work well one should assume that there are two possible choices. If there is only one choice do I need logic?

 

If there are two choices and I feel I need to use logic. Then logic being analogous suggest that the difference between the two choices is somewhat small.

 

When you say nothing is equal to zero. Then you say that something is equal to one. Then present these statements as the base for a logical argument. You start out with a problem, actually what seems to me to be a large problem. The difference between zero and one is infinite, well at least I believe it is, and though what I believe often turns out to be wrong, sometimes what I believe turns out to be right.

 

Actually I am really terrible with logic and should refrain from using it. I just can not help myself sometime.

Edited December 31, 2014 by jajrussel

[DevilSolution]

Hmm, yes....

 

A Cheese Sandwich is better than Nothing.

Nothing is better than God.

Conclusion: A Cheese Sandwich is better than God.

 

Or:

 

Anything is greater than Nothing.

Nothing is greater than God

So: Anything is greater than God.

The only logical falacy here is that "Nothings greater than god", hower the prefix "There is" is missed out which from a ourely mathematical perspective clears things up.

 

1 (anything) > 0 (nothing)

0 (nothing) > ? (god) so

 

1 > 0 > ?

 

Realistically the expression is:

1 > 0

(There is) 1 != ? (God)

Hence ? > 1 soo

 

? > 1 > 0

[jajrussel]

The only logical falacy here is that "Nothings greater than god", hower the prefix "There is" is missed out which from a ourely mathematical perspective clears things up.

1 (anything) > 0 (nothing)

0 (nothing) > ? (god) so

1 > 0 > ?

Realistically the expression is:

1 > 0

(There is) 1 != ? (God)

Hence ? > 1 soo

? > 1 > 0

I am not sure what you want to prove. Your statements however do not seen to be true to me. Nothing has no value. Zero has value. To say that zero and nothing are the same is a rhetorical statement, one that is not true.

 

Scripture says that faith is everything, it also says God is faith. Which rhetorically translates to God is infinite, or God is everything.

 

But (God is infinite), or (God is everything), is missing from the logic progression, and in its place is what I assume is the preferred substitute.

 

Math is only true so long as it's values are truly represented. A logical argument asks, which proof is better, and does not require (truth) for anything more than an argument. Math is not more logical it is more true. The equations presented seem to be lacking truth.

 

 

Personally, I would choose the cheese sandwich, but I will always want more.

Edited January 1, 2015 by jajrussel

[Eise]

My logical joke is getting a life of its own.

OK, here we go.

Let's take this one:

Anything is greater than Nothing. (1)
Nothing is greater than God (2)
So: Anything is greater than God.

 

Translate it to correct logical language:

1. [math]\forall x: x > Nothing [/math] (1)

2. [math]\neg \exists x: x > God [/math] (2)

 

Instead of (2) we can write:

[math]\forall x: God > x [/math] (2a)

 

So:

[math]God > Nothing[/math] (3)

 

So when you leave out 'Nothing' of (2), and re-write it as 'not exists', the 'problem' disappears. Is this the solution you meant, overtone?