Peter,
Hi. I used to post here a long time ago, but thought I'd try it again.
I agree with your post that to answer the question "Why is there something
rather than nothing?", we have to start with the supposed "absolute
lack-of-all" and can't presuppose the laws of math, etc. I also agree that
absolute "nothing" can't exist, but my reasoning is a little different. My
view is that:
o The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is kind of
built on a misunderstanding. That 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 think and try to show that this situation meets a definition of
what it means to be an existent entity. That's also why I put "nothing"
and the "absolute lack-of-all" in quotes to try and highlight this.
o Before going into why I think it's an existent entity, I just wanted to
say that I think it's okay to talk about and name the supposed "absolute
lack-of-all" because we have to do that just to consider the question.
And, our talking about it and naming it won't determine whether or not the
"absolute lack-of-all" itself (and not our mind's conception of the
"absolute lack-of-all") is or isn't an existent entity because neither we
nor our talk would be there in the case of the "absolute lack-of-all".
Also, it's real important to distinguish between our mind's conception of
the "absolute lack-of-all" and the "absolute lack-of-all" itself.
o For why I think what we've traditionally considered to be the "absolute
lack-of-all" is actually itself an existent entity, my reasoning is as
follows: First, 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.
If anyone is interested, there's more detail at my websites at:
sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist
(summary)
sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite
(click on 3rd link, more detail)
Roger
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.
