your reply is well to the point(s) - I feel to explain why I opened Pandora's
(empty?<G>) box of nothingness. It was long ago when we discussed
these things with Hal, I changed my views a lot since then - as well,
as Hal also developed a comprehensive theory of his own. I wrote a
macama on 'Ontology' (what I hold today as a 'model-view' of a reduced
aspect in the royaume 'existence'). In my present view ontology is a
frozen state related explanation in a (dynamic?) world of continuous
change. As we look at it today. So my recollection was just that: a
I referred to a "starting point" what most theories shove under the
rug, mostly as some meaningless free concept to start a hazy process
(thinking of Q-science) - and at 'that' time I did not accept it. I
was 2 decades younger.
so I started with "nothingness" - and elevated it into our worldview.
As a later phase I started from an imagined 'plenitude' - perfect(!)
symmetry invariant singularity (atemporal, aspatial of course) and
deduced from my arbitrary conditions the innumerable "Bigbangs" for
the unlimited multiverse (diverse qualia, including ours) with all the
peculiarities we induce HERE. The 'universes' are lashing up and
dissipating complexity-knots (ours looks different from the inside
I call this a "narrative" and accept the origination of that
'plenitude' as untouchable as any other shoved under the rug.
I write this in explanation for my not going into discussion of
details of the 'old' idea.
The closest (a bit obsolete) is included in my Karl Jaspers Forum
On Jan 9, 2008 9:43 AM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> > and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> > "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> > or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> > balance, uniformity, perfect symmetry.
> Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
> a null pointer.
> Q: "What is on the paper?"
> As answer you expect that what is written.
> As the paper is still blank:
> A: "Nothing."
> You are being returned a null pointer, not a metaphysical reference to
> balance, uniformity, symmetry or whatever.
> Your concept of _nonexistence_ would then be a metaphysical null
> pointer. Attributing either concept some kind of "existence" is major
> metaphysical error IMHO.
> > It isn't a cancellation of
> > properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
> > single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
> > together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
> > property-less "one" in mathematics is zero.
> These are all features of language. I recommend Niiniluoto's "Critical
> Scientific Realism" how to resolve these issues - indeed, how they have
> been resolved through diligent work of many philosophers (that does not
> mean that there is no disagreement anymore ;-))
> > converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
> > fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our
> You seem to have a certain preconception of what a number is; or at
> least develop a conception which one must not naturally share.
> > high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
> > asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
> > (unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite
> I suppose you do not mean the heat death of the universe. But what would
> perfect symmetry be but heat death?
> Günther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
> Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at