On Oct 5, 1:28�pm, tadchem  wrote:
> 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

Mr. Davidson, You have not read this NG for long enough.  I am a self
confessed troll who did not qualify for "pre physics" at LA High.  I
usually troll just for Uncle Al---I've told him of my power over him
and his inability not to bite.  But he bites so quickly now;---a
physicist with an advanced degree---still, I throw him back quickly.

But now a more interesting fish has bitten who might give a little
fight before I throw him (you) back.

Your last paragraph does illustrate a better understanding than Al's
and does show that language cannot express the profound understanding
in my brain and is not useful on this topic.  All there is to say is
"Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."