On Oct 5, 11:13 am, Osmium  wrote:

<snip repost>

> I may have left out Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal as a law---or
> maybe it's just an attribute of the rule that there are no laws.

Physics can distinguish between a "principle" and a "law." Evidently
you cannot. You are insufficiently eloquent for discussions of the
hyperfine structures of ontology.

> Another way to put it would be to say, "There is nothing and it is
> chaotic."

Chaotic? What other attributes do you attach to "nothingness?"

> BTW the rest of you are just playing word games---sure "mandate" means
> a "law"---but I really meant to use the phrase, "results in" or "adds
> up to".  

Words can be a lot of fun to play with, but in philosophical
discussions such as ontology (the nature of existence), the ability to
communicate a precisely defined and unambiguous concept requires the
strictest avoidance of equivocation. Your ambiguous expressions
violate this principle.

> Oh, I see the problem remains.  Our language is not
> sufficient for my intellect.

To put it more accurately, the universe is not sufficient for your
ego.

> The " " mean that I am not using the word in it's usual sense and I
> realize the contradiction---so when you see " " don't make sophmoric
> adolescent rejoinders

I took no exception to any of the single words you placed in double
quotes. I object strenuously and irrevocably to your statement:
"Nothing exists; including that no laws exist, ie there are no laws
making this nothiningness finite."

The entire statement presumes the existence of the statement-maker. It
thereby proves itself to be in error.
It is an assertion of the existence of a universal nihilism, a null
argument that is even more inane than solipsism.

If nothing exists, then there cannot be a valid argument for the
condition in which nothing exists. Merely trying to argue the premise
is sufficient to disprove it.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA