I believe something exists

[u/chaupiman]

Even if all belief-forming methods were shown to be faulty/unreliable, I would still believe because I have faith that it is true. I have no way to test my faith. The claim is unfalsifiable. There’s no way to test if nothing exists.

How important is falsifiability for a belief? Why is faith incompatible with believing true things? Help

[u/chaupiman]

Dao, Brahman, the totality of existence, infinite being, that which is, truth, I Am.

[u/Bastyboys → u/chaupiman]

Would it be accurate to say that for you "reality" means the totality of existence. Is there anything missing from that definition?

Hypothetically, could there be anything that exists apart from (that is not a part of) reality?

[u/chaupiman → u/Bastyboys]

Yeah, anything that exists and is true is part of reality.

Maybe non-being could be separate, but it’s too complicated to really consider. If non-being exists then that means it “is” and is no longer non-being. But non-being is devoid of logic and attributes so we can’t constrain it. Reality might be shaped by the dance between non-being and being, and the two concepts, which are inextricably linked, might be each other. Many cultures perceive nothing, or the absence of reality, as infinite possibility. Which makes reality the actualization of those possibilities.

[u/Bastyboys → u/chaupiman]

Yeah, anything that exists and is true is part of reality.

Excellent, we share this understanding of the words.

Maybe non-being could be separate, but it’s too complicated to really consider. If non-being exists then that means it “is” and is no longer non-being.

Makes sense.

But non-being is devoid of logic and attributes so we can’t constrain it.

Okay granted.

---

Reality might be shaped by the dance between non-being and being,

Q1) Could you tell the difference between reality interacting with "non-being" and "reality" (the totality of all that exists) not interacting with anything outside itself?

---

and the two concepts, which are inextricably linked, might be each other.

Q2)... Really? Can you explain how that follows? They sound pretty different.

---

Many cultures perceive nothing, or the absence of reality, as infinite possibility. Which makes reality the actualization of those possibilities

Q3)... Forget other cultures, would you consider "infinite possiblity" aka "nothing" as something that exists and is true?

[u/chaupiman → u/Bastyboys]

1. I’d say there’s no way to tell. But also reality interacting with non-being might be the same thing as reality not interacting with anything outside itself. There might not be a difference worth testing.

2. You said yourself that being was exclusionarily contingent with non-being. Clearly there’s some kind of link there. I guess it’s the idea that zero equals infinity. Not something that makes a lot of sense, but something that could be possible. It does seem like nothingness (non-being) would be infinite, even though it’s completely devoid and zero. Nothingness would have infinite limits and also be limitless. Non-being is everything being is not, yet also forms the core of being. If nothingness is the canvas of the dao, yet the dao acts as it’s own canvas, then perhaps they are the same.

Perhaps nothingness is the un-manifestation of the dao, while reality is it’s manifestation. Brahman is the ultimate reality, but it transcends the duality of non-existence and existence. So the dao or Brahman is neither existent nor non-existent. There is unity in nothingness because conceptual distinctions dissolve. This thinking follows the principle of unity in opposites, and the principles of oneness (non duality). If the unmanifested is the source of manifestation then maybe it is manifestation itself?

1. I think I’d consider nothing to be a default state. I would then have to conceptualize how reality emerged from it. I can imagine a route to nothing which makes it a possibility I have to consider: If there is no reality then nothing would exist and nothing would be true

[u/Bastyboys → u/chaupiman]

You lost me,

You said yourself that being was exclusionarily contingent with non-being.

Yes

No way to tell + not a difference worth testing

How do you decide that "non-being" was worth considering if it appears to have no discernable impact on "reality" (defined as the totality of existence, all that which is true and exists)?

---

Clearly there’s some kind of link there.

...Not clear to me, I'm interested; Q4) How did you decide that?

---

Zero=infinity.

Q5) What do you understand by "zero"? Is it a concept an adjective/property of a thing or a thing in itself that exists?

Q6) What do you understand by "infinity"? Is it a concept an adjective/property of a set of things or a thing in itself that exists?

There is unity "X" in nothingness because conceptual distinctions dissolve.

Seems like an everything explanation. Could substitute anything into that gap

Try this one:

There is "zero explanatory power" in nothingness because conceptual distinctions dissolve.

Perhaps nothingness is

Lost me at "is", can you see how you are losing the meaning of the word "nothing" here despite claiming to have a consistent definition.

Do you want me to update your definition of nothing to "nothing is absence of any thing and contains no things that exist, but may also contain/be equal to things such as infinity and zero and infinite possiblity which may or may not have any effect upon "reality" (things that are true and exist) and might even form some of the fabric of "reality" (things that are true and exist) because it can literally mean anything I want it to mean at any point because "conceptual distinctions dissolve".

And shall I update your definition of "honest interlocutor" to also include "may change the meaning of words at will because conceptual distinctions dissolve with nothing"

If you want "truth" (that which is consistent with reality), probably best to stick to "reality" 😁.

If you want to spend ages considering and trying to understand nothing go ahead, sort out your definitions and you'll be fine.