Some thoughts about "nothing":
- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property,
then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of
generating "something". Therefore, "something" may come from "nothing".
- Given that something exists, it is possible that something exists
(obviously). The later would be true even if "nothing" was the case.
Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing" co-existing with the
possibility of "something" existing, which is rather bizarre.
- Why should "nothing" be the default state? I think this is based on the
intuition that "nothing" would require no explanation, whereas "something"
requires an explanation. However, given that the possibility of something
existing is necessarily true, an explanation would be required for why
there is "nothing" instead of "something".
- There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-)
- I think the intuition that "nothing" requires less explanation than the
universe we observe is based on a generalization of the idea of classical
empty space. However, this intuition is based on what we know about *this*
universe (i.e. empty space is simpler than things existing in it). But why
this intuition about *our* reality should be extrapolated to metaphysics?
- I think that the important question is why this universe instead of any
other universe? (including "nothing").
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it so hard to understand a "word"?
> Yes, the word "nothing" keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years ago
> "nothing" just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a few years
> later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any energy too, then
> still later it meant also not having space, and then it meant not even
> having time. Something that is lacking matter energy time and space may not
> be the purest form of nothing but it is, you must admit, a pretty pitiful
> "thing", and if science can explain (and someday it very well may be able
> to) how our world with all it's beautiful complexity came to be from such
> modest beginnings then that would not be a bad days work, and to call such
> activities "incredibly shallow" as some on this list have is just idiotic.
>> *>** N O T H I N G - *is not a set of anything, no potential
> Then the question "can something come from nothing?" has a obvious and
> extremely dull answer.
> > I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started:
>> "In the beginning there was Nothingness.
>> And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness
>> It turned into Somethingness
> Then your version of nothing had something, the potential to produce
> something. I also note the use of the word "when", thus time, which is
> something, existed in your "nothing" universe as well as potential.
> John K Clark
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
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