Ok, never mind.

I'd say pot calling the kettle black.

Could it be your model of infinities is based on a mathematical concept and Philosopher19's model is based on a different mathematical concept and both are correct within their own frameworks. In a general sense I think that is very much in the realm of possibility and as a matter of good practice you shouldn't discount a different concept because it differs from your own standard methods.

An example:

Banno takes infinity minus one million and gets infinity.

You say you can't subtract from infinity.

I say an infinite set of integers minus the first million integers is a set with the first million integers removed and I could list them.

1, 2, 3, 4......

Banno humor...

The words in parentheses = these are all things.

The pattern... Brain; (mental content as listed)

I think I'm stating the obvious but it has its uses.
Do you disagree?

It looks like that to me too. Normally these are all things done with our brains but we don't formalize it. If we recognize the pattern we have a tool to troubleshoot new problems that have the same form.

To make it useful try to think of how the words are intertwined as you use your brain and you start to see that 'what the brain supports' is common to all these words. More of a single function as it exists than the commonly defined words.

I'm still working on a good ways to explain it.
The examples given were things that came up in discussion like time perseption.

That's helpful.

Okay these are really just mental abstractions and it looks like your framework really is arbitrary.
I'm sure it's standardized academically but there are still problems.

If you take away a million from any set there are a million less elements. That has priority over abstract infinity. Maybe that has been my issue not addressed.

So infinity minus one million is defined?
No it is not defined.

If you start with a set of integers 1 to a million and another set of integers one to infinity and pair one to one up to a million then the set of infinity unpaired is infinity minus one million which is meaningless and undefined.

That is still an issue not answered. Can logic apply to an undefined set.

I'm rusty at this but does someone know?

I think that's good advice for me. Seems like the direction of the discussion and the actual math departed ways.

I read your work.
I can't give an opinion but you have put some work into it to your credit.

I think my issue is in mapping an infinity to a known finite. A one to one mapping will use up the finite and end. The unmapped trailing infinity becomes a useless appendage.

And there is the issue of logic working for the finite but failing in the infinite.

Interesting to see other people's opinions.

I might be thinking mapping an infinity to a larger infinity also leaves this useless appendage....not sure, just my instinct not real math. Still...parameters are arbitrary.

There are real world problems that involve mapping infinities to finite physical resources.

A couple examples,

Central banks where a potential infinite supply of currency is mapped to a populations finite physical resources.

Zelenski-ism where infinite military wants are mapped to a coalitions finite resource base.

Okay. Just giving another perspective.

A lot of interesting math in the subject.

I agree the abstractions should conform to the subject matter.

What I'm saying is that applying logic to infinities is akin to dividing by zero. Something off limits.

Well, what you call truths I call Abstractions and the parameters can be anything we choose. Again, no physical basis so variation in opinion is expected.

Actually, I think you have the better grasp of this problem being that the extended nature of infinities is off limits to logic.

My understanding is that infinities are undefined. They can not be defined by equations but are a mental concept. So the idea of using logic of some kind on them has problems.

Generally the problem physically exists in this form,

Brain; (Abstraction)

More specifically,

Brain; (Abstraction 1, infinite set 1)
Brain; (Abstraction 2, infinite set 2)

And a relation,

Brain; (Abstraction 3, the relation of sets)

The problem I see is that any element of an infinite set is a finite number and can be reached by finite means. So those numbers that are finite can be subject to logic because they are defined.
Infinity as undefined is off limits to logic.

If you introduce infinities into the elements then again you are using undefined terms.

I do see some logic in the OP arguments.

It seems possible to map a smaller infinity, one to one, on a larger infinity simply by freezing the larger infinity and letting the smaller one catch up.

Since we set imaginary parameters anything goes. This is not based on anything physical at all.

Take it any way that works for you.
For me it gradually became useful as a general principle.

As far as the big bang theory goes, it's a method of working things backwards. The universe is expanding so if you go backwards the universe would reduce to a point. Something like that.

At that point things are left to our imaginations.
Is it really a point? Do the laws of physics still apply? Like I said, I don't know. Difficult to find a handle.

You might be dealing with abstractions here. You just make a vague non-physical have a set relation to an unknown physical we don't have access to. Why would any framework of logic apply?

Brain; (abstraction 1)
Brain; (abstraction 2)

Do you see the problem with applying logic?

It's like we are being asked to run a number line backwards to zero. Math can do that but what are the physics? And how can logic work if we don't know the physics to begin with.

I've always had problems with this problem.

I can visualize a sphere reducing to a point and vanishing... or not existing then appearing but how does it happen physically?

The big bang theory is usually presented with a time component of 13.8 billion years but is time really a physical component or just a derived measure of physical matter. Probably just derived so it's not fundamental.

That's as far as I get. At a loss for a solution.
And the expert opinions seems to change.

I never drove in Boston only to and from the airport. I did walk the freedom trail as a kid which is downtown Boston, Boston Common and maybe some in the Beacon Hill area. And I walked some of the Back Bay or Fenway areas just because we got on a wrong transit line and were getting around on foot. I didn't mind walking. A lot to see in Boston.

Harvard Square is one of those places I am glad I visited when I did. 1990's. We walked onto campus in a gap between buildings and into Harvard Yard and took a look around Widener Library that had just had a major renovation. One of the nicest libraries I have ever been in. You would need to pay for a tour now just to see Harvard Yard. Lots more fencing and gates everywhere from Google Earth images from Harvard Square.

I remember in the 1960's someone tried to give our family a fake freedom trail tour and collect a donation. Some young kids who maybe needed some money.

No, I remembered the fake freedom trail tour wrong. It was more a political motivation about crooked Boston bankers in the early days. Conspiracy theory stuff.

For those going in different directions on this question I suspect the OP wasn't in the proper form to begin with as he calls it oxymoronic and contradictory. So something is wrong here from the start.

If I were writing the title I would call it,

Absolute Nothingness is only possible from the perspective of something'.

The something being the perspective of our brains.

The issue here needs to deal with dualism in some form. The OP states that the problem is oxymoronic. Absolute Nothingness would be true and untrue at the same time, a contradiction.

Introducing a dualist form will resolve this:

Physical brain; (Absolute Nothingness)

So physically and conceptually we have two categories. The physical is what we observe as something and Absolute Nothingness (as mental content) is a concept.

If you don't like dualism don't worry. In this form the dualism is just an expansion of physicalism.

The subject of MBTA, Boston transit came up last week and I remembered my experience.

BC knows about it and gave a video about how some of it is in bad shape these days. That's too bad. I really liked it when I was there.

So this is just a story of little things that can go wrong on public transit....

A group of us were in Boston for a wedding and a day before met at the airport and decided to do some sight seeing and take the subway line out to Harvard University. We got on the Blue line that goes to downtown and got off and looked for a Harvard connection. The Green line had a stop at Harvard Street so we got on that one. It was a mistake because the stop was in Boston Back Bay, not Cambridge. Back Bay is on the way to the Fenway Park area.

Anyway, we ended up walking across the Harvard Street bridge....got a good view of the boat house if you know that...and up to Harvard Square. It was back when they had the Out of Town News stand and the Curious George store but I think it's all changed now. Mostly Banks.

We took the Red line back to downtown and did a block walk (5 minutes)to the Blue line...that was the tricky part...and the Blue line back to Logan Airport and from there one of us had a car.

I think they have done or are doing a fix to connect the Red and Blue lines. Something the locals would know about but was confusing to us.

I mixed up Harvard Square with Harvard Yard but corrected that. We used to be able to visit Harvard Yard and even Widener Library but now a lot like that is restricted.

I'm agreeing with you. It's my first comment on this because I don't think absolute nothingness can exists in the universe as we know it. In the coldest, sparsest regions of the universe there would be stars twinkling in the far distance.

Mental objects do exist and it's were the abstract concepts of absolute nothingness shows up.

As far as external data....what is that? It's physical matter that the brain must interpret through our senses.

What I was thinking about is that former presidents (both sides) know some things and formats like Factcheck.org might be attempts to set some public limits on debate.

Since he's a former president he would actually know quit a lot that he couldn't tell.

I think Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania maybe Wharton School of Business. .

I'd like your opinion too. Or anyone's.

Factcheck.org is out of the Annenberg school, University of Pennsylvania....from memory.

Are you familiar with Factcheck.org or Politifact?
If so do you have an opinion on these organizations?

Most times I've witnessed an event first hand and then watched it hours later on the news the first hand experience and the news reporting seem at odds. Mostly by over emphasis or omissions the news reporting is usually pushing an agenda. Or sometimes a reporter who is dispatched can't get up to speed fast enough to understand what the locals would know. Maybe a lot is filtered out for legal reasons.

I looked at journalism law a long time ago and it really is restrictive on what can be reported, what sources can be used, what subject matter can be covered and so on. And whoever is paying the bills gets to pick and edit the stories.

Have you ever noticed how they say 'stay tuned for updates' but never do?

I got busy with my taxes so can't give a long answer.

I'm guessing public education taught you wrong and you just need to reset.

The person who wrote the book is the source of the information (in his brain). He encodes it into a book. The book is encoded physical matter. The person reading the book hopefully decodes the book in the way it was intended.

If you think the information is in the book, travels through the air, your eyes, your optic nerve and arrives in your brain fully formed and unaltered from it's origin....well that's not necessary. The image is just decoded in your brain and that's where information is reformed.

You got me thinking about psychosis again.
You mentioned stories.
One of the symptoms of psychosis that comes up is self referencing when hearing a story or watching a movie. Instead of getting the normal messaging it's possible to decode a parallel secondary message specific to an individuals circumstances.

It's not a biological failure but an information processing quirk.

The way I do it is information (the story) only exists as,
Brain; (information)

So the book would be paper and ink.

The process is,
Book ---->Eyes --->Brain; (Information in the book)

We encode and decode matter to communicate brain to brain.