On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than >>> nothing" etc. >>> >> >> That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something >> has about the absence of everything. >> >> Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would > claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the > existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing. >
That could only be true if by "nothing" we really mean "anything we want". I only tolerate an absolutely literal definition of "no-thing", otherwise why bother even using a word? Nothing cannot lead to anything, or else it is really "the potential for something in particular, at the very least". True nothing is "can never be related to anything in any way, even potentially or theoretically". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
