Russell Standish writes: > Alternatively, it is the recognition that Nothing and Everything are > mathematically the same object (This is a little more subtle that > Pearce's "summing to zero", but it is essentially the same > argument). Now either Nothing exists, or something exists. Since Nothing and > Everything exhaust the possibilities, and they are identical, there is > no question left to answer.
I don't follow the logic here. Let's suppose we accept that Nothing and Everything are the same. "Now either Nothing exists, or something exists." But where does the next phrase come from: Nothing and Everything exhaust the possibilities. That doesn't seem right. The two possibilities weren't Nothing and Everything, they were Nothing and something. Even if we accept that Nothing and Everything are the same, we then have to explain or decide whether Everything exists or merely some things exist. The question then becomes not, why is there something instead of nothing; but, why is there something instead of everything. Now, we don't know yet if everything exists, or merely some things exist, so it is an open question. But it does seem to be a question that needs to be answered. Hal Finney