What about a prophecy? Does that exist? Should I take the red pill or the blue pill?
Kim > On 15 Dec 2014, at 4:56 pm, 'Roger' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Peter, > > Hi. I've read parts of a few of your blog posts and found them very > interesting and highly recommend them to others. > > To build on this thread of "Why is there something rather than nothing?", > I'd like to throw out some related ideas. I used to post here more often > with this, but my view is that the situation we've always considered to be > "nothing" (e.g. no space/volume, time, matter, energy, abstract concepts, > laws of math/physics, no information, and no minds to think about this "lack > of all") isn't really the lack of all existent entities. I try to show that > that situation meets a definition of what it means to be an existent entity. > > Briefly, I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or > relationship present defining what is contained within. This > grouping/relationship is equivalent to a surface, edge or boundary defining > what is contained within and giving "substance" and existence to the thing. > Then, what we've traditionally thought of as “the absolute lack-of-all” (no > energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, > etc.; and no minds to think about this “absolute lack-of-all”), and not our > mind's conception of “the absolute lack-of-all”, is one and the same as the > entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. That's it; that's > everything; there's nothing else; it is everything that is present. It is the > all. An entirety or whole amount is a grouping defining what is contained > within and is therefore a surface, an edge and an existent entity. In other > words, because the absolute lack-of-all is the entirety of all that is > present, it functions as both what is contained within and the grouping > defining what is contained within. It defines itself and is, therefore, the > beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in > terms of other existent entities. The grouping/edge of the absolute > lack-of-all is not some separate thing; it is just the "entirety", "the all" > relationship, inherent in this absolute lack-of-all, that defines what is > contained within. > > Anyways, if you're interested, there's more detail at my websites at: > > sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist > > sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite > (click on 3rd link) > > Thank you! > > > On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Peter Sas wrote: > Hi guys, > > Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being: > > http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html > >> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Peter Sas wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being: >> >> http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html > > -- > 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
