I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and seem to
approach it from a different perspective than you have.
Not much use in wondering why something exists rather than nothing,
because obviously the latter is not the case.
I came to the conclusion, if "something" exists, why doesn't
everything exist? Why should anything be excluded?
In your paper, you state that if any one spatial dimension is non
existent (zero) then nothing exists. One step further, if time is non
existent, then nothing exists. Time is the change from one state to
the next. If all we have is now, and never a before and never an
after, there is no existance.
As states change, time occurs... does the historical state still
exist? or is "now" the only state that exists?
If whatever started the whole thing rolling happened at some point in
time, maybe the beginning of time, what would preclude it from
happening again, and again, and again, every moment of time that ever
exists. Because time is relative, I think every possible state exists
and has never not existed. Esentially, a multiverse where every
possible state exists and has always existed. The relation between one
state to the next manifests itself as time and experience to the
If it is possible, it must exist. Else it is not possible. Everything
must exist. Not just "something". "Every"thing.
On Aug 8, 1:40 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi. I used to post to this list but haven't in a long time. I'm
> a biochemist but like to think about the question of "Why is there
> something rather than nothing?" as a hobby. If you're interested,
> some of my ideas on this question and on "Why do things exist?",
> infinite sets and on the relationships of all this to mathematics and
> physics are at:
> An abstract of the "Why do things exist and Why is there something
> rather than nothing?" paper is below.
> Thank you in advance for any feedback you may have.
> Roger Granet
> In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things
> exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In regard
> to the first question, "Why do things exist?", it is argued that a
> thing exists if the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing are
> completely defined. A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or
> boundary defining what is contained within and giving “substance” and
> existence to the thing. In regard to the second question, "Why is
> there something rather than nothing?", "nothing", or non-existence, is
> first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time,
> thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think
> about this lack-of-all. It is then shown that this non-existence
> itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, is the complete
> description, or definition, of what is present. That is, no energy,
> no matter, no volume, no space, no time, no thoughts, etc., in and of
> itself, describes, defines, or tells you, exactly what is present.
> Therefore, as a complete definition of what is present, "nothing", or
> non-existence, is actually an existent state. So, what has
> traditionally been thought of as "nothing", or non-existence, is, when
> seen from a different perspective, an existent state or "something".
> Said yet another way, non-existence can appear as either "nothing" or
> "something" depending on the perspective of the observer. Another
> argument is also presented that reaches this same conclusion.
> Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive model of the
> universe via what I refer to as "philosophical engineering".
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
For more options, visit this group at