# RE: Why is there something instead of nothing?

```The set of everything U is ill defined.

Given set A, we expect to be able to define the subset { x is element of
A | p(x) } where p(x) is some predicate on x.```
```
Therefore given U, we expect to be able to write S = { x an element of U
| x is not an element of x }

Now ask whether S is an element of S.

- David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 17 November 2003 2:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
>
>
>
> John Collins wrote:
>
> >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}}
> >
>
> In fact zero information = all possibilities and all information = 0
> possibility.
> of course, (0 possibility) = 1 possibililty
>
> What is not arbitrary? Certainly anything is arbitrary. The least
> arbitrary seems to be everything which is in fact zero information.
> .