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 <
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> 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: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
> Sent: Friday, 18 May 2012 12:05 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> 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 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to