Hi.  Thanks for the feedback.  The empty set as the building block
of existence is exactly the point I as making in my original posting
that started this thread.  What you're referring to as the empty set,
I was referring to as how what has previously been called absolute
"non-existence" or "nothing" completely describes, or defines, the
entirety of what is present and is thus an existent state, or
something. This existent state of mine is what others would call the
empty set.   The reason this is worth thinking about is because just
saying that the empty set is the basis of existence doesn't explain
why that empty set is there in the first place.  This is what I was
trying to get at.  Additionally, there has to be some mechanism
inherent in this existent state previously referred to as absolute
"non-existence" (ie, the empty set) that allows it to replicate itself
and produce the universe, energy, etc. This is needed because it
appears that there's more to the universe than just a single empty
existent state and that things are moving around.  What I suggested in
the paper at my website was that:

1. Assume what has previously been called "absolute non-existence".

2. This "absolute non-existence" itself, and not our mind's conception
of "non-existence", completely describes, or defines, the entirety of
what is there and is thus actually an existent state, or "something".
This complete definition is equivalent to an edge or boundary defining
what is present and thus giving "substance" or existence to the the
thing.   This complete definition, edge, or boundary is like the curly
braces around the empty set.

3. Now, by the assumption in step 1, there is also "absolute non-
existence" all around the edge of the existent state formed in step
2.   This "absolute non-existence" also completely describes, or
defines the entirety of what is there and is thus also an existent
state.  That is, the first existent state has reproduced itself.  I
think that the existenet state that is what has been previously called
"absolute non-existence" has the unique property of being able to
reproduce itself.

4. This process continues ad infinitum in kind of a cellular automaton-
like process to form in a big bang-like expansion a larger set of
existent states - our universe.

    This is described in more detail in the paper at my website at:

There's also some more detail on how the above process can lead to the
presence of energy in the universe.

    Tegmark's assumption of a mathematical construct as the basis of
our existence doesn't explain where this construct comes from or how
it reproduces to form the universe.  Wheeler's idea that the
distinction between the observer and the observed could be the
mechanism of giving existence to non-existence could be fit into my
idea, I think, by saying that the observed is what has previously been
called "absolute non-existence", and the observer is the fact that
this "absolute non-existence" completely defines the entirety of what
is present and is like the edge or boundary defining what is there.
Speculating even further, one could say that this edge or boundary is
the same as the strings/membranes that physicists think make up the

    Anyways, thanks again for restarting this thread!


On Sep 19, 2:27 am, nihil0 <> 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
> . . ."
> I would like to continue that discussion here on this thread, because
> I believe the article Norman cites provides a satisfying answer the
> question "Why does anything exist?," which is very closely related to
> the question "Why is there something rather than nothing." The author
> is David Pearce, who is an active British philosopher.
> Here are some highlights of Pearce's answer: "In the Universe as a
> whole, the conserved constants (electric charge, angular momentum,
> mass-energy) add up to/cancel out to exactly zero. . . Yet why not,
> say, 42, rather than 0? Well, if everything -- impossibly, I'm
> guessing -- added up/cancelled out instead to 42, then 42 would have
> to be accounted for. But if, in all, there is 0, i.e no (net)
> properties whatsoever, then there just isn't anything substantive
> which needs explaining. . . The whole of mathematics can, in
> principle, be derived from the properties of the empty set, Ø" I think
> this last sentence, if true, would support Tegmark's Mathematical
> Universe Hypothesis, because if math is derivable from nothing (as
> Pearce thinks) and physics is derivable from math (as Tegmark thinks)
> and, then physics is derivable from nothing, and presto we have a
> theory of everything/nothing.
> I think Pearce's conclusion is the following: everything that exists
> is a property of (or function of) the number zero (i.e., the empty
> set, nothing). Let's call this idea Ontological Nihilism.
> Russell Standish seems to endorse this idea in his book "Theory of
> Nothing", which I'm reading. He formulates an equation for the amount
> of complexity a system has, and says that "The complexity [i.e.,
> information content] of the Everything is zero, just as it is of the
> Nothing. The simplest set is the set of all possibilities, which is
> the dual of the empty set." (pg. 40) He also suggests that Feynman
> acknowledged something like Ontological Nihilism. In vol. 2 of his
> lectures, Feynmann argued that the grand unified theory of physics
> could be expressed as a function of the number zero; just rearrange
> all physics equations so they equal zero, then add them all up. After
> all, equations have to be balanced on both sides, right?
> Personally, I find Ontological Nihilism a remarkably elegant,
> scientific and satisfying answer to the question "Why is there
> something instead of nothing" because it effectively dissolves the
> question. What do you think?
> Thanks in advance for your comments,
> Jon
> On Aug 8, 2:40 am, Roger <> 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 isthere
> > 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 istheresomething
> > rather than nothing?" paper is below.
> >     Thank you in advance for any feedback you may have.
> >                                                                             
> >                                                                     
> > Sincerely,
> > Roger Granet                                                                
> >                                                     (
> > Abstract:
> >    In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things
> > exist?" and "Why istheresomething 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 
> > istheresomething 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to