- 842
- 511
It's not that it existing is a contradiction it's that the fact that it's logically contradictory means it doesn't exist cause that implies contradictions can truly be truth apt which contradicts logicif possible and impossible be taken as "possible to exist" and "not possible to exist", an "impossible world" that does in fact exist (physically/materialized/actualized) would be by definition a contradiction.
It's similar bohms Implicate Order and wholeness book because it also tries to investigate the relationship between the consciousness and reality but still different, you should read that book it's pretty interesting on the side note I wonder if we'll ever find out about the true nature of our consciousness. I remember even chalmer posits the consciousness to be ineffable in itself with his "hard problem".The second part of your post somewhat reminds me of Kant's thing-in-itself. The very fact we are not only separate, but only capable of perceiving anything that is not our own consciousness by process that necessarily affect the way we perceive things, implies anything we know outside of said consciousness is an image of that thing.
TrueBut I would argue we do not comprehend "Absolute Infinity", we comprehend what the person is trying to convey through the evocation of such a concept, which would be very different. We as humans have enormous diffulty even understanding the idea of something some orders of magnetude larger, to say we can comprehend infinity would be awkward. I would even argue we can only conceive Infinite as a "process that is never ending" or something of the sort, and that is not Infinite in itself, merely something continuous. To comprehend something Infinite we would have ourselfs to be in someway Infinite, I would say
Yeah but you should probably hold off in making any Nasuverse threads, there have been dozens gotta relax and plan shit properly now.It's actually legit.
There have been proposals for things above negative theology, the closest one is pataphysics actually but it also isn't legit when you try to argue that.I mean, we thought omnipotence was the highest and nothing could be above it, and then we got Negative theology which is >omnipotence. In the future we will get something above negative theology.
Also you can somewhat treat negative theology as another form of omnipotence, in ontology there are many ways posited for God being omnipotent (relationships between finite and infinite beings, pure and impure beings, absolute and contingent beings and so forth).
Gonna be a hard task for the poor person, the only way to argue negative theology being below something is by making a book that's like a critique on negative theology, then from there you successfully limit it one way or another then you can present another theory above it.Never, unless someone open another philosophy book and cook it with math