Dear John, thank you for the feedback. My comments below..

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM, John Mikes <> wrote:

> Dear Pilar,
> as your fellow "Not-English-Mothertongue" guy. I point to the*incompleteness
> * in this language:* "Nothing"  -  "EXISTS" not.* It isn't. But it is bad
> English to write:
> * "Why 'is-not' nothing?"* so we have a discussion point. In my
> (non-IndoEuropean) mothertongue the question is exactly formulated in the
> 'wrong(?)' way.
> *(Miert nincs semmi?*)

I felt that zero as a concept would take care of that. In fact, zero wasn't
part of the numeral system until very late in the game. I'm sure it took a
lot of discussion to make it "real", and its acceptance has revolutionized

> I see you take it for granted that "the Universe was born". Was it indeed?
> Maybe "OUR" universe was, but I speak about the "World" (Multiverse, none of
> them necessarily identical in any sense) in which we inhabit a pretty simple
> one with 'the' physical system we have.

John, I personally don't believe there was a begining with nothing before
it. Information is not created or destroyed, just transformed. The Universe
is being born every day in a way.

> Our limited imagination can work only with 'somethings', *nothing* has no
> meaning (if it includes such meaning - it would negate its true meaning -
> <G>) E.g. 'Physically' it cannot be bordered  - or I ask: is such border
> inside the nothing (when it is nothing), or outside (when it does not belong
> (in)to it)?

Yes, I understand. However, if you consider the EM Spectrum, what we can see
(light) and what we can hear (sound) are very narrow ranges. There's a whole
lot that our senses don't pick up, so we have to invent tools to extend our
senses in order to know what else is there, where there was "nothing"

If you consider also that our bodies are 99% empty space: you may call that
space "nothing", only until our human drive and capacity develops the tools,
the sensors, the receptors to detect, measure, and observe what this "empty
space" is made of and how it behaves. That nothing may be called God, or the
Quantum Vacuum, or anything that sounds metaphysical until measured or
observed or nobel-prized.

> ~2 decades ago I wrote a little silly 'ode' to 'Somethingness" starting
> with the BLANK:
> *And there was 'NOTHING" at all.* (I don't recall the rhythmic words
> anymore)* And when this nothingness 'realized it's nothingness then it
> changed into a 'somethingness' - as *
> *indeed it's nothingness. And the World was shaped in the course of such
> build-up*...
> I don't think 'nothing'  is a 'poosible state' - I don't mix it up with
> 'zero' or 'null', just think about the meaningless meaning of it. No this,
> no that - MAYBE. I would not 'negate' ideas (states, as you call them) we
> don't know about. And we have lots beyond our knowledge.

That was my first reaction when I read the article, but then I thought about
the possibility of the Universe being binary-like. A computer needs the
"off" state, it needs the zeroes. Zero is information: "not that", you're
right: not physical, not form.

All the Best,

> Best regards
> John M
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:34 PM, RMahoney <> wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 3:48 pm, Pilar Morales <> wrote:
>> > ... To truly define non-existence, you would have to define a set of all
>> > that it is not: no time, no matter, no energy, no ideas, no mathematical
>> > constructs, and no each of the etcs to infinity.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to