# Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ricardo:
> good text! I may add to it:
> "Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody". (The ancient joke of Odysseus
> towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).
>
> Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes space,
> it is not nothing.
>

I actually meant that most of the time, people say "nothing" when they mean
Newtonian empty space. I agree that "nothing" is not empty space.

> (borders) are similarly not includable into nothing, so it must be an
> infinite - well - "nothing".
> It still may contain things we have no knowledge about and in such case it
> is NOT nothing. We just are ignorant.
>

I agree that if it contains things, then it is not "nothing", but you can
"create" a "nothing" by removing them.

Ricardo.

> JM
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> - 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").
>>
>> Ricardo.
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>  > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at