Colin, you always have something extraordinary and unexpectable to say. Like: "infinity of energy" what can be easily zero as well, of something (- currently unidentified.) It still leaves open my quale: 'nothing must not have borders either, (that would be a NO-nothing) so as far as our (incomplete) views are concerned: it is either infinite, or NOTHING indeed (even a point has ordinates). And what would you 'maintain'? nothing? (see Odysseus and Polyphemus). JohnM
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < [email protected]> wrote: > Why didn't you just ask me in the first place? It's easy. > > "Nothing" (noun) is intrinsically unstable. Think about it. It takes an > infinity of energy to maintain a perfect Nothing. So Nothing breaks up into > its components. > > There. You can all rest easy now. > > Cheers > Colin > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King > Sent: Friday, 18 May 2012 12:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? > > On 5/17/2012 8:42 AM, ronaldheld wrote: > > arXiv:1205.2720 [pdf] > > Title: Why there is something rather than nothing: The finite, > > infinite and eternal > > Authors: Peter Lynds > Hi Ronald, > > Thank you for posting this reference. After reading the paper I > find that I agree with it 100% but would point out that it assumes some > concepts that need more careful examination. > > The idea of a "universe" is used as if where an object that has a > set of properties and relations that is completely independent of the > observations there of. This is not unusual, it is the common way of > thinking of things, but is it faithful to how Reality is? > I would argue that a "universe" is an object that is perceived by > some observer and that if no observer can be defined that has some > universe X as its observables, then such a universe X cannot exit. It is > not possible to have a universe where the observer thereof is somehow > "outside" of it. All observers will find themselves "in" a universe > consistent with their continuation as such observers. All other > alternatives generate logical contradictions. > > I am going way out and claiming that there is no such thing as an > observer independent universe and that if we wish to consider conceptual > questions like "why is there something rather than nothing" that we need > to be mindful of the fact that all of the discussion, including the > concepts themselves, only exist in the minds of observers. > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." > ~ Francis Bacon > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
