On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:27 AM, nihil0 <jonathan.wol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> This is my first post on the List. I find this topic fascinating and
> I'm impressed with everyone's thoughts about it. I'm not sure if
> you're aware of this, but it has been discussed on a few other
> Everything threads.
> Norman Samish posted the following to the thread "Tipler Weighs In" on
> May 16, 2005 at 9:24pm:
> "I wonder if you and/or any other members on this list have an opinion
> about the validity of an article at
> http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm

Thank you for your post.  I actually came across that page many years ago,
before joining this list.  It is interesting to go over it again and I am
glad to see it still online.  I appreciated the Liebniz quote he cites
"omnibus ex nihil ducendis sufficit unum" which he translates as "For
producing everything out of nothing, one principal is enough".  I searched
for this, and also found by John Wheeler:

*The Universe had to have a way to come into being out of nothingness.
...When we say “out of nothingness” we do not mean out of the vacuum of
physics. The vacuum of physics is loaded with geometrical structure and
vacuum fluctuations and virtual pairs of particles. The Universe is already
in existence when we have such a vacuum. No, when we speak of nothingness we
mean nothingness: neither structure, nor law, nor plan. ...For producing
everything out of nothing one principle is enough. Of all principles that
might meet this requirement of Leibniz nothing stands out more strikingly in
this era of the quantum than the necessity to draw a line between the
observer-participator and the system under view. ...We take that demarcation
as being, if not the central principle, the clue to the central principle in
constructing out of nothing everything. * — John A. Wheeler

I think Liebniz's words are insightful, but more to the point was when he

"There is an infinity of figures...of minute inclinations....Now, all of
this detail implies previous or more particular contingents, each of which
again stands in need of similar analysis to be accounted for, so that
nothing is gained by such analysis. The sufficient or ultimate reason must
therefore exist outside the succession of series of contingent particulars,
infinite though this series be. Consequently, the ultimate reason of all
things must subsist in a necessary substance, in which all particular
changes may exist only virtually as in its source: this substance is what we
call God."

He says that the source of our existence is something that has to exist,
it's existence is a necessary property.  Of everything humans have
discovered, I think mathematical truth most closely fits.  It seems to
insist on its own existence unlike any physical contingency or the universe
itself.  Yet as Bruno has helped to illustrate, the universe, or our
perceptions, follow from the existence of mathematical truth.


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

Reply via email to