On 05 May 2012, at 13:49, ronaldheld wrote:

## Advertising

Does nothing mean zero or the empty set in this thread?

`There are as many notions of nothing/everything that there are notion`

`of things.`

`"Nothing" can be interpreted in many ways, differently for each theory`

`candidate to be a theory of everything (ontology/epistemologies).`

`The everything idea in this list is that conceptually simple theory`

`are preferable than complex theory, but conceptually simple theory`

`tend to multiply the possibilities and the ontologies, and the taking`

`into account of the first person view entails such possibilities`

`interfere.`

`Comp explains as most as possible why there is something rather`

`nothing. UDA makes elementary arithmetic enough, and elementary`

`arithmetic can already explain why you can't get them with less. So`

`our belief in {0, 1, 2, ...} is mysterious, and *has to be*`

`mysterious. But then we have the explanation of the emergence of`

`quanta and qualia from {0, 1, ...} and the + and * laws.`

`Any first order logic specification of a Turing universal system would`

`do. The key discovery is the discovery of the universal numbers, and`

`the ways they reflect themselves in the arithmetical truth/reality.`

Bruno

Ronald On May 5, 2:52 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 04 May 2012, at 17:48, John Clark wrote:If the nothing of a vacuum is really full of potentials,If you insist on the strictest definition of "nothing" which is not even the potential of producing anything, then even God Himself could not produce something from nothing; and this line of thought is quite clearly leading precisely nowhere.At the meta level of a theory, "nothing" and "everything" arebasically equivalent with respect to the difficulty to be definethem.In set theory, everything (the "universe" of set) is given by the unary intersection of the empty set, for example. And the quantum vacuum, needs the whole non trivial assumption of quantum mechanics. The "no" and the "every" in "nothing and everything" depend on the logical assumptions. The real difficulty is in the definition or choice of the notion of "things". Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.