Chris' Free Lunch, can you understand this, 'cause I can't?

Question

1. Non-existence, by definition alone, rules itself out as a possible alternative to existence. If non-existence cannot exist then existence must exist. Existence at this stage would not differentiate between physical and non-physical existence. –A free lunch must exist in one form or another.

2. A series of events are cyclical only when each stage of the event has happened previously and will happen again, until such time as a non-cyclical series of events collides with it, in which case it will lose its cyclicality through the exchange of products and mechanisms. A cyclical series of events cannot create non-cyclical sub-events. If a cyclical series of events cannot be affected by an external event yet involves sub-events which are not wholly recyclable, then it cannot be cyclical and must possess both a beginning and an end. Therefore, a fully independent cyclical series of events can only be possible if nothing is ever gained or lost from that closed system (Universe/Multiverse). –If our reality is ruled by a predetermined fate, and if your destiny has bestowed upon you a free lunch, then you will have had that exact same lunch previously and will have it again.

3. Although something cannot, under any circumstances, be produced from nothing; ‘nothingness’ cannot exist without being something, but neither can it be non-existent as non-existence cannot exist. If something; it would be semantic information, and information is, in itself, something. Therefore; nothingness, like non-existence, cannot exist as anything more than a human concept, meaning that something must always exist. –Despite its being free, a free lunch must still consist of something, whether edible or not.

4. Unless something else exists, existence must exist as a form of semantic information [existence exists]. Otherwise existence fails to exist, which is impossible. –In order to obtain a free lunch, you must first be entirely without lunch.

Answer 1

The exact comments regarding "free lunch" I don't understand entirely.... but the rest is fairly self-explanatory.

#1. I disagree with the opening statement. Non-existence doesn't "exist" persay, but it is still a valid concept for the unknown and unknowable which results when the value of existence is removed. Just because it doesn't "exist" as we know it doesn't mean it is not to be considered, as without it existence itself wouldn't make sense (it would be a completely solid omniblock... i.e. total whiteout). All we know of non-existence by definition is that it IS the opposite of existence, and that by which existence is defined and becomes nonsensical without.
Basically... "Chris" falls into the semantical trap of assuming that existence is all-defining, and that non-existence can simply be entirely negated from the mind ... which implies that one remakes non-existence by confining itself TO it.
Even if a free lunch exists.... it might only be a figment of the imagination.

#2. Agreement here. Events can, at the simplest, only be cyclical or finite, to the best of our determination. Cyclical time will perpetually repeat without change and has always perpetually repeated without change. The concept of finite time is one where there is never any repetition... and thus must allow for limits where it cannot exist (i.e. when all possibilities have been exhausted).

#3. He slightly changes his tune from #1 by allowing nothingness (which IS non-existence, essentially) to become a concept that one could, in theory, refer to.... which I have reason to believe he was disimplying originally in some form or other. In any case... the general theme of #1 is simply repeated again.... once again failing to account for the necessity that existence have some outside frame of reference in order to be defined in any way.
Nothingness might be non-existant, but that is no reason to just forget about it. It has influence of a sort, even if it doesn't have existence.
Given that the "free lunch" concept need only exist as no more than that: a concept.... that can essentially put it on par with non-existence: something that can influence but need not actually exist as we know it.

#4. Yes... existence necessarily can take the form of semantic information... for that is the root of the very concept of existence. What this has to do with his closing statement about a free lunch coming from nothing though is indeterminate.




Essentially..... the silly human in question is making many words but saying very little.... and missing a fundamental concept that somewhat destroys the point of what he is trying to say: If nothingness can be no more than semantic knowledge, and a free lunch can be no less than semantic knowledge..... then both can be the same and a free lunch CAN equate to nothingness. Simple.

Answer 2

“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
- Albert Einstein

Whoever assembled those long swaths of words you posted did so in a particularly artless way. That person seems to want to mean things, but can't go more than a sentance or two without making all kinds of statements that are not backed up or explained.

That leads to a couple theories about what that stuff says:
- It is confusing because it is meant to be. The author is trying to sound smart but really knows nothing.
- It is confusing because the author is confused. There are ideas zinging around in there but they're not anchored to anything.
- It is confusing because it is a summary of something discussed at much more length elsewhere. The author assumes that you've followed all the other arguments so he can use a kind of shorthand in talking now.

Bottom line: we could try and untangle this mish-mash, but I don't think it's worth the effort unless you HAVE to or something. Even if we extracted some of his arguments, it wouldn't be hard to dispute any or all of them. Take the very first sentance - Whose definition is he talking about here? What definition? Why must there be an alternative? How can that which is not even have a definition? And that's just the FIRST sentance!

Answer 3

Then by its very existence of non-existence the two must cancel themselves out. However, If non-existence actually exists, then so should existence.

As for a free lunch, has no-one been to a drop in centre/soup kitchen for the homeless?

Answer 4

I see said the blind man, ,of course only if what you just said actually exist!

Answer 5

Yes.

Answer 6

there is no such thing as free lunches, only free punches

Answer 7

What the guy above me said!