/lit/ - Literature

>>14034008
>The very concept of emergence is the antithesis of the proposal here, and has been studied time and again under bullet-proof systems of formal grammar
What the brainlets responsible for these alleged 'bullet-proof' systems didn't understand is that emergence was already refuted by Indian thinkers in the first millennium. Emergence presupposes an infinite regress which only ends (or can be initiated) with that X emerging from something else or from nothing, both of which upon further analysis are inherently self-contradictory and illogical. X cannot ever 'emerge from nothing', nothingness begets nothingness, add 0 an infinite number of times and you get 0. X cannot really 'emerge from something else' either as this creates an infinite regress that only can be begun or initiated by that X emerging from some base X existing eternally, but to claim that some eternal X existing forever as the uncaused eternal X suddenly gives rise to a series of emergences is really to say that the eternal becomes non-eternal, which is a contradiction in terms as the eternal can never become not-eternal because then it wasn't truly eternal to begin with.