/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11363402]

>for something to exist, it's negation must also exist

Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.11363406]

this is the book board fag

[Anonymous No.11363409]

>>11363402
This is not philosophy board. Philosophers should die in a fire.

[Anonymous No.11363423]

negations don't exist

[Anonymous No.11363426]

>>11363402
If OP is a faggot, there must be a good version of him somewhere.

Oh wait, that's me.

[Anonymous No.11363440]

Being

[Anonymous No.11363451]

>>11363402
Yeah. Matter and antimatter and whatnot. Just don't tell that to the pre-socratics. If your claim is true, existence and non-existence both exist, which is what drove them insane.

[Anonymous No.11363461]

>>11363440
this

[Anonymous No.11363463]

>>11363451
antimatter isn't negation of matter

it is just that the atoms that make antimatter have their polarities reversed (antimatter is sort of like inside out matter)

[Anonymous No.11363471]

>>11363463
>antimatter isn't negation of matter
>antimatter is a negation of matter
Make your mind up

[Anonymous No.11363472]

>>11363402
possibility

[Anonymous No.11363473]

The negation of something is nothing, nothing don't exist. So fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11363477]

>>11363402
reality

[Anonymous No.11363478]

>>11363473
>nothing doesn't exist
Seems like you know much about this something that doesn't exist. Please, teach us.

[Anonymous No.11363479]

>>11363402
>>for something to exist, it's negation must also exist
Demonstrate a case where this must be true.

[Anonymous No.11363483]

>>11363402
the universe

[Anonymous No.11363485]

>>11363479
For wetness to exist, not being wet must also exist.

[Anonymous No.11363488]

>>11363479
In order to be alive, you must be able to die. In order to be able to die, you must first be alive.
Also, for a normal human to exist, niggers must also exist.

[Anonymous No.11363489]

>>11363471
if i flipped your insides and your outsides, would you become a negation of yourself?

[Anonymous No.11363490]

>>11363402
not my diary desu

[Anonymous No.11363491]

>>11363471
Anti-matter isn't a negation of matter, you colossal retard. A pure vacuum isn't even a negation of matter. Matter is an expression of energy levels within the quantum fabric of reality.

Negating matter requires its destruction or dissipation from reality.

Negating matter is fundamentally impossible.

[Anonymous No.11363494]

>>11363402
does a non-apple even exist ?

[Anonymous No.11363502]

>>11363489
That's not how antimatter works. It annihilates itself and matter when it comes to contact with matter. Energy is preserved, but that's just a law of physics at work. Negative energy matter aka. energy value of matter being flipped, can't exist because energy is always preserved. The only thing that could be non-energy is simply nothing, but there's no negative energy, as far as we know.

[Anonymous No.11363503]

>>11363494
It’s called an orange.

[Anonymous No.11363506]

>>11363402
I don't care about proving you wrong or not.
If I exist my negation doesn't exist until I am no longer existing. Before I existed I couldn't be negated because there was no concept of me (who knows and debatable). If 1 exists then negation would only be abstract or process yet not realized or applied. If we speak of concepts in our heads then something must exist first before being a negation. In reality if something is not existing it's negation can't exist if you do not count the hypothetical negate the negation so it becomes existing. If we count that as acceptable and even all the concepts of reality and of ideas in our minds then we could say that everything exist and not at the same time if we don't care about anything/anyone acknowledging something possible to exist or not like human mind or some other entity. I would ask that question to scientists not here. And I believe the more abstract, holistic and universal you go with that argument the more linguistic it becomes which in the end you will probably not find any satisfactory answer that could apply to every area of our current knowledge.

[Anonymous No.11363516]

>>11363491
It's quite literally a negative solution to an equation. Check out the Dirac sea model. It's what predicted antimatter. Also, I know non-energy doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11363520]

>>11363516
No, it's an inversion.

Not a negation.

[Anonymous No.11363530]

>>11363473
>negation of something is nothing
Pseud

[Anonymous No.11363558]

>>11363520
That's a synonyms in this context. Negation is P into not-P. Inverse is P-->Q into not-P---->not-Q

[Anonymous No.11363610]

>>11363502
I was refering to how the atomic cloud and atomic nucleus have different polarities, but the atoms for matter (positive charge in the nucleus and negative charge in the cloud) and the atoms for antimatter (positive outise negative inside) have inverted polarities. Obviously flesh doesn't work like that, but there are really any good similes to go around.

[Anonymous No.11363618]

>>11363610
I think you're looking at antimatter as if it's a mirror image, which is kinda true. The difference is that this mirror image annihilates the original like 1-1=0(with energy being preserved). I also think you might be equating matter with existence which itself has a few issues.

[Anonymous No.11363724]

>>11363473
>nothing doesnt exist
therefore it does

[Anonymous No.11364618]

>Existence exists
>This would mean that non-existence must also exist
>The defining feature of non-existence is not existing, which contradicts the previous sentences.
>Therefore existence doesn't exist
>There's neither existence nor non-existence
Read Parmenides

[Anonymous No.11364631]

>>11363402
What would you consider the negation of yourself?

[Anonymous No.11364638]

The infinite, taken strictly and etymologically, refers to that which has no limits whatsoever (in = not, finite = limited). The existence of the inifnite therefore cannot be limited by or dependant upon the existence of the finite, by definition, without contradiction. The existence of the infinite does not depend on the existence of its negation.

[Anonymous No.11364642]

Tell me something new OP.

[Anonymous No.11364646]

>no gf
>no version of me with gf exists in any possible universe
>therefore my negation does not exist

[Anonymous No.11364651]

>>11363402
"Negation" is a logical operation on sentences. There is no such thing as the negation of an object (what would, for example, be the "negation of my computer"?). This is the kind of dumb language-hypostasizing philosophy that should die a horrible a death.

[Anonymous No.11364659]

>>11364651
>what would, for example, be the "negation of my computer"?

You actually having a life.

[Anonymous No.11364667]

>>11364659
But that's not true, anon's addiction to his computer is caused by his autism not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.11364785]

>>11363503
Not really, sweetie. A non-apple, by the very meanings of the words "non" and "apple", would be every object in the universe that is *not* an apple, including your anime body pillow and cumrags.

[Anonymous No.11364837]

>>11363402
>it's
kill you're are self

[Anonymous No.11365448]

>>11364642
>inventing electricity and eletrecution
Lol

[Anonymous No.11365513]

>>11364618
>There's neither existence nor non-existence
r-read Parmenides?
>One path only is left for us to
>speak of, namely, that It is. In it are very many tokens that
>what is, is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete,
>immovable and without end[...]
>I shall not let thee say nor
>think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be
>thought nor uttered that what is not is. And, if it came from
>nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than
>sooner ? Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at all.

[Anonymous No.11365553]

>>11364642
>Post-modernists think that shipwrecks and electrocution negate the existence of ships and electricity
No wonder nobody takes them seriously except for each other.

[Anonymous No.11365610]

>>11363473
>t. Parmenides

[Anonymous No.11366502]

>>11363402
Anything that takes up space exists :) science answers this not philosophy! Name one thing that doesn't take up space but exists, or its inverse. You can't, which means that if it takes up space=existence.

[Anonymous No.11366531]

>>11363402
aluminium foil
checkmate

[Anonymous No.11366578]

>ITT retards not realizing the negation of something linguistically is just to say something that is "not-X"

[Anonymous No.11366609]

>>11363402
Very funny.

[Anonymous No.11367497]

>>11363409
>t. too stupid to get 99.59 atar to get into Philosophy

[Anonymous No.11367541]

show me the existence of the opposite of something

[Anonymous No.11367603]

>>11367541
show me the words of the perfect man

[Anonymous No.11367623]

>>11367603
I've been meaning to read Vico for a while, how is he?

[Anonymous No.11367643]

>>11367497
>he didn't get the 99.95 to get into Melbourne Uni
How does it feel being a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.11367651]

>>11363423
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.11367652]

>>11364618
Empty sets are witchcraft, right?

[Anonymous No.11367732]

>>11367643

[Anonymous No.11367742]

>>11367643
95 is impossible

[Anonymous No.11367750]

>>11363402
>reads Aristotle once

[Anonymous No.11367815]

>>11363423
tpbp

[Anonymous No.11367822]

In case i am doing your homework for you, theres the need for a relativitistic conundrum to require a negation so...if you encounter that a word can require that the tentative form of it, the apple is eaten and the heart beats, is only foremost, meaning it is a subject that holds i formation to be used, when it is negatably less a fact and more a forn of the information, then the only way to naturally suggest that a negation exists is by promoting the idea that the novel word promotes its own being by requiring itself to be promonotory. So that something like heaven can exist without hell is like the form of the word person existing without people and the form of the word nigger existing without the word black.
So when the apparatus that is at play means to retort that the generative stance, in this case that a word can be meaningful without requiring that it be described as doing something less particular to itself and more particular to the predicate, then a word assumes that the person, as a token, speaking on it suggests that it only relates to the terms being used by being able to exist freely without an act of promotion that means for its existence. Much like opinions and how much OP can be a fag but not know it.

So with that said if the negation of something exists then the form that prior to its mention made it noteworthy has onky thus assumed its proper point in predication by the use that a word has in itself meaning but that without a mention of it as sonething already modeled in reality as existing, your non faggot self OP, there is only the time it takes for the speaker to "negate" the spoken words by omitting them in process.

Similar to this is a star. An explosion isnt a negation to a star. its an implosion of space behind the surmise of what a cataclysm might require if the space around it to become more than just less stretchy space. Similarly, a star still ceases to be without negation that the cataclysm be what marks both the simulacrum of it and the perchance that some promonotory action of it take place, like the air around it moving where there was none prior..or if there can be no air there bc space then it would be something along the lines of a comet nearing its gravity but ceding to the process that the system is regarding rather than the pool of motion this star represents.

[Anonymous No.11367824]

ppl who unironically believe in this shit, especially physicists should be hung in public areas. we'll see what the negation of life look like faggots.

[Anonymous No.11367832]

>>11363402
There are faggot OPs, but there are no non-faggot OPs.

[Anonymous No.11367836]

and if you want to toil on philosophical ground besides the token "that doesnt exist" there is still the incumbent reasoning that unless something has the essence to remain in existence it is and without that prior abject of mention that it can be moved to a point out of parallel our own mentions, it is in spite of us existing through the ideal that some other has for the situation a promonotory gesture of it. Like a handshake to partnership or a laugh to something funny.

[Anonymous No.11368770]

>>for something to exist, it's negation must also exist

if this is true, its negation must also be true

QED faggot

[Anonymous No.11369261]

>>11363402
Let set S be the set of all things which exist.
Therefore, there exists a thing T in S.
A thing not in the set of all things (~T) is the negation of thing T.
But, no such thing ~T can exist, because if it existed, it would be in S.
Therefore, ~T cannot exist, even though T exists.
QED.

>>11368770
Not how analytic philosophy works, better luck next time.

[Anonymous No.11369284]

>>11368770
>>11363402
Please note everyone, that the negation after the existence. You cannot say something doesn't exist before it is exists, so the phrasing of this statement makes it incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11370169]

>>11369261
>A thing not in the set of all things (~T) is the negation of thing T.
Would this also be (~S), the negation of set S in theory? Or does it have a quality that makes it's 'S-ness' exist outside all things? Very interesting post btw.

[Anonymous No.11370873]

Has anyone read that Derrida paper 'How to Avoid Speaking: Denials' ?

[Anonymous No.11371006]

>>11370169
>Would this also be (~S), the negation of set S in theory?

Depending on what kind of notation you use, yeah. If we say that ~S is the set of all things not in S (that is: the set of all things that don't exist), then ~T is in ~S. Sets are constructed by defining them, so you can have ~S be whatever you want, as long as you're consistent throughout the paper/argument/discussion/etc.

It's worth remembering that you can't really negate a set (or a number, or an object, or anything "noun-ish"). We negate truth values (e.g. "not true" is "false") or statements which yield truth values (e.g. "not greater than" is "less than or equal to"), but there's a different term for getting the opposite of something.

In the example we're working with, ~S, we've actually negated the "predicate" of S, or the statement that determines membership in S. We've gone from "Thing X exists" to "Thing X does not exist."

If this is the kind of thing you find interesting, I'd recommend a discrete mathematics textbook. It'll introduce you to several flavors of logic, most of which have immediate practical applications.

>Or does it have a quality that makes it's 'S-ness' exist outside all things?

This depends on who you ask. There's 2 main schools of thought — the mathematical realists, who believe mathematical objects "exist" in some sense, and the anti-realists, who think of math more like a useful story we tell ourselves. I lean more towards the anti-realist position, because people often literally "make new math up," but a realist would counter by saying that they're actually "discovering" that math.

The realist would say that because S exists, the fact that an object is in S is intrinsic to it, in the same way that location in space is.

The anti-realist would say that S is just a way to describe lots of things at once, and a thing is only "in" S because we say so.

I wouldn't worry too much about this question —it's the kind of thing that can't really be solved, or even argued about all that convincingly. What's more interesting to most analytics are questions like the one I responded to, where a bit of simple math lets us demonstrate something controversial in an uncontroversial way.

Another interesting example of the power of simple math (this time in moral philosophy) is illustrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBl50TREHU..

[Anonymous No.11371251]

>>11363402
How can op exist if there is no heterosexual op then?

[Anonymous No.11371452]

>>11371251
this is excellent and sound reasoning

[Anonymous No.11371887]

>>11371251
>>11371452
Someone post the socrates pasta

[Anonymous No.11371888]

>>11371006
Thank you for the detailed response anon, i will check this out.

[Anonymous No.11371891]

>>11363402
A double-negation is an affirmation

[Anonymous No.11372985]

>>11369261
>Let set S be the set of all things which exist
>Therefore, there exists a thing T in S.
How do you prove that S exists?

[Anonymous No.11373166]

>>11363402
One

[Anonymous No.11373552]

>>11371888
Don't. >>11371006 is either trolling or gravely misinformed.
>Sets are constructed by defining them
No, they're not. Construction and definition are two different concepts. You can't even construct a set of 'all X that satisfy Y' - see Russel's paradox.
>I'd recommend a discrete mathematics textbook
What? Discrete math isn't logic or set theory. You want a book about the latter, Kuratowski & Mostowski is a pretty good start.

[Anonymous No.11373867]

>>11373166
Two

[Anonymous No.11373879]

>>11364642
Wouldn't the negation of a ship be a ship filled with water on dry land?

[Anonymous No.11373889]

>>11369261
Your "proof" shows that NO negation can exist which is obviously false.

[Anonymous No.11374114]

>>11372985
See >>11371006. Whether or not S exists, we can use it to describe something which exists and cannot be negated.

>>11373552
I don't know about your discrete math program, but we had to learn elementary set theory, boolean algebra, and predicate logic as part of ours.

I did misuse the term "constructed," though. It's been a few years since I used all this vocabulary.

>>11373889
No it doesn't. It shows that there exists a thing T whose description we cannot negate. There are other elements in S (e.g. thing B, which is the color blue) whose "negations" (e.g. thing ~B, which is not the color blue) are also in S, so long as both exist.