On 2/1/2012 10:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:47 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 1/31/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
    Regarding the "philosopher's nothing":

    This present moment exists, and it has no cause since our
    universe is a four dimensional structure (time is a subjective
    phenomenon).  This timeless existence of this moment establishes
    that "nothingness" cannot exist.  In short: It is an impossible
    state.  The question then becomes: "Why should this present
    moment exist, and what else might also exist?"  So far, the
    answer suggested by our latest discoveries and reasoning
    suggests: a lot.


    Or to paraphrase Quine: What is there? Everything. So what isn't
    there? Nothing.


I don't quite agree with that paraphrasing. My point was that there is no such thing as a philosopher's nothing, not that everything exists. Such a leap would require the additional assumption that "Nothingness" is only thing that does not exist. All I said was that "nothingness" is an impossible state. This is the conclusion of accepting a four-dimensional/atemporal existence, as suggested by relativity.


Hi Jason and Brent,

I hope that you both realize that the "four dimensional structure" does not take QM into account as SR assumes that observables all commute and there is no Plank's constant. Why this is not more widely understood is mysterious to me! It is as if a simple error keeps being repeated over and over and no one has the temerity to point it out and offer a correction. Maybe people want the idea to be true so they ignore the inconvenient facts.



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