Greetings again Eja

""Anything is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than Jah.
Therefore, anything is better than Jah"

The above is a product of linear thinking. Linear thinking is not all bad, but it cannot be applied to all things."

Isnt logic itself linear? This is where the logicians fall short of certain overstandings beyond the physical. I merely presented that to show how illogical (not following the laws of logic) the Icept of zero can be.

"I would never say that any thing is better than no thing. Because, any thing includes the knife in the gut. Any thing could also be a cancer cell."

I concur with that logic

"The line of reasoning that I am following is very simple. 0 is the source of all. Jah is the source of all."

I BELIEVE this as well. I am just saying that it is philosophical Icept and not a metaphysical one.

"So, I would never say that no thing is better than Jah since the existence of no things - according to the classification I gave in the previous post - does not preclude the existence of the POTENTIAL for any/all things."

Potentiality is the inherent capacity for something coming into being. It is not "being" which can be repesented by the smallest particle or unit (1).

"The void, as I have said before on another thread, is full to the brim. I have never bought into the perception of the void as being 'empty'. That specification of it's nature came from the wastern mind. The void is full to the brim, so full that it overflows. In fact, it is this overflow, that leads to the existence of things. "

Wouldnt this go back to my reasoning that there is no such thing as "NO thing"? And can anything ever really be "full to the brim" (approach infinity)?

"I am not presenting here the product of my own 'egotistic' ponderings on the nature of things. The line of reasoning that I have followed up to this point was brought foward long before I was born."

I think the problem is that we are trying to reason on a Icept that cannot be subjected to experimentation. The Icept of no-thing cannot be proven mathematically or scientifically. As I said before, even vacuums (which have no air) still has some-thing within them.

"In Yoruba, the word for zero is also the word for a spring. A spring is the SOURCE of fresh water and water is the source of life (on Earth). The ancestors who constructed the lesson in those words, in my opinion, have not being bettered by anything presented by 'modern' physics. And they imparted thier lesson with a lot more economy."

Give thanks on the Yoruba reference. Even a spring has a source whether it is a bigger body of water or units (1) of hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water and the energy needed for them to bond.

"When you speak of a vacuums and of the certainty that vacuums contain objects, you are not speaking (mathematically) about 0. You are speaking about 0.000000001 (perhaps to the power of -100). Just as some would be stuck at 0.999recurring while in pursuit of 1, so others can become stuck at 0.000001 to the power of -100 when seeking to percieve the icept represented by 0. But it is very simple."

I agree. This goes back to my reasoning that mathematically zero cant be proven. In math they call these limits. It approaches zero but never reaches it. There is always a unit (1) left. If you take the inverse of zero, you get infinity which is approached but can never be ascertained. There is alway a unit (1) which can always be applied.

"Finally, can you tell me if in your opinion, there is such a thing as infinity. If you answer "yes", then I would ask how infinity can exist if there is no 0. If "no", then what is the largest number you know of?"

The Icept of infinity is real just as the icept of zero is real. I am merely stating that it cannot be proven metaphysically.

If we are speaking of an actual thing, then it should be able to be proven mathematically. If we are discussing ideas and philosophies then they cant be necessarily.

It is like trying to prove the existence of God.

A very difficult one indeed.

Give thanks for the brain food.