Hi. I've been reading the postings of this group
awhile but haven't yet posted anything on my own.
the question of "Why is there something rather than
nothing?" is of interest to me, so, if you're
here are my thoughts.
Overall, my answer to the question of "why is
something rather than nothing?" is that something and
nothing are really one and same thing, just seen from
different perspectives. The perspective that sees
as nothing is the one where we're thinking of
nothingness in our
minds. The perspective in which nothing is the same
something is the one in which all things, including
minds are gone. I came to that conclusion by two
1. If we ask why is there something than nothing,
to be 2 choices:
A. Something has always been here.
B. Something has not always been here.
While choice A is possible, it doesn't offer any
explanation. So, in exploring choice B, if something
not always been here, that means that nothing was here
before it. So, this means that nothing was there
now there's something. When there was nothing (ie, no
thing, ideas, numbers, matter, energy, volume, etc.
exists), there would be no mechanism that exists to
this nothing into something else called something.
there is something now, the only possible choice is
nothing and something are one and the same.
2. I first considered the question of why anything
at all and then tried to apply that to "nothing" to
A. What I came up with is that something exists if
a whole, an entirety, etc. By this, I mean is
completely defined as to what is in the thing?
have edges defining what exactly is in the
edge isn't a separate structure; it's just the
wholeness, the complete grouping or complete
itself. Edges give something substance, and
why we think of wholes as existing.
B. I then arbitarilly defined things that exist
space, time, matter, energy, ideas, volume,
etc.) as occupying volume. It doesn't matter
you use volume or some other word, I just wanted
put a name to this.
C. Non-existence is the lack of all things, or, in
words, the lack of all volume, or zero volume.
non-existence, even our minds that are
non-existence would be gone. Because of this
one can never prove anything about
we can at least try to think of what properties
D. I then tried to think if zero volume meets the
definition of a whole.
o Are there any things missing? No.
o Does zero volume include all? Yes.
o Is zero volume completely defined as to what
it is? Yes.
This then suggests that zero volume is a whole,
this wholeness is the same as an edge or
defining an existent state, ie, the existent
We have trouble considering non-existence as something
exists because we can only think of non-existence from
perspectives of our minds, which exist. Only once all
things are gone, including our minds, does zero-volume
become the all, completely defined and, therefore, a
and something that exists. In other words, in our
must consider zero-volume/non-existence based on the
pre-existing concept of existence. But, non-existence
itself, not our minds' visualization of non-existence,
not have this restriction. It meets the definition of
whole on its own, separate from our minds'
For this and many other problems, I think it's very
important to separate our minds' conceptions of
something from the thing itself. They're two
If you've read this far, I appreciate your
Those are my crazy ideas. If you're interested, more
thinking on this and other topics is at my website, at
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
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