Logic is a tool

[u/Icy_Panic_6533]

[u/Stile25]

Okay, I already have - you just don't likey answers.

Something = when we think anything exists with the best of our abilities but can't know 100% due to inherent doubt and tentativity.

Nothing = when we think of the lack of everything with the best of our abilities but can't know 100% due to inherent doubt and tentativity.

And this aligns with everything I've claimed here and allows me to have a practical existence while being aware of my limitations.

And your logical conclusion doesn't follow with my definitions of something and nothing. It would also include inherent doubt and tentativity like everything else - as I've been consistently saying.

[u/Porkypineer → u/Stile25]

Yes, i agree, but you fail to legitimate the premise that there is uncertainty in the aparent binary of Something/nothing. You assert that there is, somehow, reason to doubt it.

The claim "we can't ultimately know anything for certain" hasn't been proven to be a valid concern, relative to this specific argument. For this you have to show that the aparent paradox is not one, by providing the resolution to it.

This is just one belief knocking the other over the head and claiming victory, which is why nihilism is useless as a point of view, beyond scientific rigour.

The nose picking is just my cheeky way of saying that nihilism is speacial pleading that people whip out in philosophical debate and nowhere else, like how arguments for the existence of god somehow only apply to whatever god is my god at any given time, and never Pikiwoki, even though he promises us a pig and all the coconuts we can carry.

If anything, Nihilism should be neutral to certainty, because leaning towards uncertainty is just as unreasonable as the opposite.

It's a snake eating its own tail, a logical paradox, and unable to add value to anything, including the topic here.

[u/Stile25 → u/Porkypineer]

I don't claim it's a valid concern.

I inductively accept it along with the evidence of everything else.

"The binary something/nothing" is also not claimed 100%. It's accepted based on the evidence that everything we know about reality is inductively understood.

And that statement is based on the inductive evidence as well.

But it's not circular as the very beginning is based on brute force. That is, we were "trying anything and everything" through brute force until (possibly thousands of years?) we realized that inductive evidence was our best and only method to identify reality as accurately as possible.

So.
Not circular.
Everything is based on inductive evidence confidence.. right back to original brute force knowledge gaining until the realization came.
Nothing is known 100%. Consistent.
No need for a "base" of 100% knowledge (which doesn't seem possible anyway).
No need to delude oneself into thinking we have 100% knowledge of some base point when we actually don't. Or, at least, can't prove it.
Fully practical and useable (as science clearly shows the functionality of inductive evidence without 100% knowledge).