At 07:56 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
I would appreciate comments on the following.
I placed the definitions at the end for easy group reference.
Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.
Justification:
1) Given definitions 1, 2, and 3: [see original post]

I have already a problem here. It might not be specific to this proposal but this is a good opportunity to raise the question.

Defintion 1 and everything that follows depends in a strong way of the
concept of concept and on strong properties of that concept (like the
possibilty to discrimate what is a concept from what is not and to gather
all concepts in a set/ensemble/collection with a consistent meaning).

Perhaps I could find a more neutral word or define what I mean by "concept".

Please note however that the complete ensemble can not be consistent - after all it contains a completed arithmetic. Generally smaller sets can not prove their own consistency.

snip


Let's assume nothingness exists. Therefore something (nothingness) exists.

That is one of my points if one replaces your "nothingness" with my "nothing" and your "something" with my "All".


Any definition defines two entities simultaneously. Generally but not necessarily the smaller of the two entities is the one about which the definition says: "This entity is:....." The definition creates a boundary between this entity and a second entity which is all that the first is not. Most of the second entities may have no apparent usefulness but usefulness of an entity is not relevant.


Therefore nothingness doesn't exist.

Not at all. One can not define a "something" without simultaneously defining a "nothing" and vice versa.


That is the usually unnoticed aspect of the definitional process. This leads you to the exclusionary statement below.

That's why there's something rather than noting.

To the contrary both exist if either does.

Hal




Reply via email to