I think that an alternative that deserves more consideration than it usually
gets (though I don't embrace it, I just consider it), is the idea that
existence, though not contradictory, is a non sequitur -- that there's
something brute & arbitrary about it.
Some people hold the view that others look for too much symmetry, regularity,
etc., in things. Maybe the fact that there's something rather than nothing is a
kind of raw, insistent asymmetry, where asymmetry gets to have its "place" or
"locus" in even the most fundamental questions. This obviously echoes the idea
of a whole universe or whole multiverse a quantum fluctuation, but seems
somewhat more radical.
Best, Ben Udell
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Samish
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Thanks to all who replied to my question. This question has bothered me for
years, and I have hopes that some progress can be made towards an answer.
I've heard some interesting concepts, including:
(1) "Numbers must exist, therefore 'something' must exist."
(2) "Something exists because Nothingness cannot non-Exist."
Perhaps the above two are equivalent.
With respect to (1) above, why must numbers exist?
With respect to (2) above, why can't "nothingness" exist? The trivial answer
is that even "nothing" is "something." However, I don't think that this
addresses the real question.
A state of pure "NO THING" would forbid even the existence of numbers, or of
empty space, or of an empty set. It would be non-existence.
Non-existence seems so much simpler than the infinity of things, both material
and immaterial, that surrounds us. So why are things here? (I'm grateful that
they are, of course.)
Is this a self-consistent, if unanswerable, question?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at