John,
Hi. What I was trying to get at is that the most fundamental unit of
existence and the most fundamental instantiation of the word exists is the
existent entity that is, I think, incorrectly called the "absolute
lack-of-all". That is when you say "therefore nothing exists", what I mean
is that this "absolute lack-of-all" is identical to "something". I'm not
sure how trying to explain why a thing exists and why "nothing" is
actually not the lack of all existent entities but is instead a "something"
drains "exists" of any usefulness?
Thanks.
Roger
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:54:42 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> > I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship
>> present defining what is contained within.
>>
>
> If nothing is contained within then that is very well defined, therefore
> nothing exists. Something obviously also exists, but if both something and
> nothing exist then there is no contrast and the word "exists" is drained of
> all usefulness.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
--
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.
