Hi. My comments on all of today's comments on this thread are below:
o In regard to Jon's below comment:
>Pearce later concludes that "if, in all, there is 0, i.e no (net)
>>properties whatsoever, then there just isn't anything substantive
>>which needs explaining." Jason and Roger, are you satisfied by this
>>explanation of why there doesn't need to be a meta-explanation of why
I'm not real sure what you're trying to get at? I'm okay with not needing an
explanation of why so called "nothing" is a starting point, but I think we need
an explanation for why this so called "nothing" is actually "something" (aka,
the empty set). That's what I was trying to do in my paper. I thought that
trying to figure out why anything exists was our whole point? But, I'm
probably misunderstanding something here?
o In regard to Jon's point that:
>Also, I think Pearce's idea that reality is constituted (somehow) by empty
>sets nested in other empty sets
>>supports the following idea of Roger's: "the existent state that is what has
>>been previously called "absolute non->existence" has the unique property of
>>being able to reproduce itself." Perhaps you guys are saying the same thing
>>>just in different words.
I would totally agree. My only concern with people saying that the process of
getting the integers from nested empty sets can be used as a way for our
universe to come into existence is that these people usually don't say what the
mechanism is that's doing the nesting. One thing I like about my model is that
it provides a mechanism for doing this nesting that's inherent in the property
of the existent state that used to be called "nothing". This mechanism being
that if this first existent state is there, then there's the "complete
lack-of-all" next to it. This "complete lack-of-all" next to it also
completely defines the entirety of what is there and is thus also an existent
state. This process continues ad infinitum to create more and more existent
states (aka, nested empty sets) that constitute the existence around us.
o In regard to the idea that so called "nothing" contains all possibilities, I
don't think this is right because:
- Let's say you have some initial spherical state X and that nothing exists
other than that state. There are no locations/positions other than that state
X. Now, let's say that this state can create more identical, existent,
spherical states all around it. We might think that there's an infinite
number of possible locations/positions for these new states to be formed in
around initial state X. But, this is incorrect because there are no
locations/positions around the first state until after these new states are
created. Only once these new states are created are the new
locations/positions created and only then can we say, after the fact and
incorrectly, that these new states could have been created in any different
position. So, I think the idea of saying that nothing has an infinite number
of possibilities in it is incorrect because it's really our minds that our
putting these possibilities into this so called nothing, after the fact.
- It's very important in this whole area to distinguish between our mind's
conception of "nothing", in which it seems like there are infinite
possibilities, and "nothing" itself, in which neither our minds nor infinite
possibilities are there. "Nothing" itself is what we need to focus on, I think.
o Whatever people decide for themselves about these issues, I think in the end
that there has to be some initial existent state that has some inherent
properties that allow it to reproduce itself, create energy and create the
larger existence (ie, our universe) we live in. This initial state, its
properties and the model for creating existence out of them has to be
internally consistent, consistent with what's currently known and eventually be
able to make some testable predictions. This is how philosophy can transition
into science, IMHO. The people in the digital philosophy/cellular automata
area are trying to do this, and this is what I've tried to do in my paper and
what I'm still working on. Obviously, we all still have a long way to go, but
I think it's important that we don't get too distracted and that we "keep our
eyes on the prize".
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