On 31 October 2013 16:46, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>> On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 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".
No, by nothing they mean "only that which must exist from logical
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.