On 31 October 2013 16:46, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: > >> On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> 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 necessity." -- 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.
