On 9/19/2011 2:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:22 PM, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

On 9/19/2011 11:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:27 AM, nihil0 <jonathan.wol...@gmail.com <mailto: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
    about the validity of an article at


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 said:

"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.


Hi Jason,

Very good points and quotes. we might start with the basic principle that Existence exists. From there we elevate Wheeler's elaboration of Leibniz "/the necessity to draw a line between the observer-participator and the system under view/." This active separation between observer and observed is the key to unlock the Gordian knot of how does Everything obtains from Nothing.



Thanks Stephen, I thought of another reason for the existence of something rather than nothing,, this one being more from logic than mathematics:

If nothing is defined as "no structure, plan, or law", as Wheeler suggested, then for nothing to ever result from that nothing requires the logical principle that nothing comes from nothing. So minimally, some principles of logic exist. Further, if no laws exist, there is no prohibition against the existence of other structures. I think what Wheeler really meant to say is that there is one law: No structures exist. We must then ask ourselves why we think a meta-reality having this one law is preferred to a meta-reality having no laws?

A meta-reality with no laws permits the existence of any structure that can exist. And as Liebniz suggested "everything that is possible demands to exist".


    Hi Jason,

To add more fuel to this fire, I invite all to read Wheeler's essay found here: what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/*wheeler*_*law*_*without*_*law*.pdf

It was the suggestion by Leibniz that you quoted here which inspired my claim that Existence is necessary possibility. We could also say: "Nature explores all possibilities."



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