This question seems unanswerable, but set theorists have tried (though
that might not be how they view their own endeavours): One interpretation of
the universe of constructible sets found in standard set theory textbooks is
that even if you start with nothing, you can say "that's a thing," and put
brackets around it and then you've got two things: nothing and {nothing}.
And then you also have {nothing and {nothing}}. Proceeding in this manner
you get a mathematical structure equivalent to numbers, a structure which in
turn is known to contain unimaginable richness and texture, in which
mathematical physicists (like me) attempt to 'find' the structures of our
universe embedded.
-Chris C
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?> Hal Finney, > Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing > by using Descartes reasoning. (From > http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm) "The only > thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt > that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere > (viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he > existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very > beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think > therefore I am)." > > I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing. Perhaps I > don't understand what you mean by "nothing." By "nothing" I mean no thing, > not even empty space. > > In other words, it is conceivable to me that the multiverse need not exist. > Yet it does. Why? This seems inherently unanswerable. > > Norman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:12 PM > Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? > > > > How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead > > of nothing? Maybe there could be both something and nothing. Or maybe > > the existence of "nothing" is consistent with our own experiences. > > > > I don't think all these terms are well enough defined for the question > > to have meaning in its simple form. It's easy to put words together, > > but not all gramatically correct sentences are meaningful. > > > > Hal Finney > > > > > >
