On 04 Jan 2015, at 08:07, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
In regard to:
"If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?"
This is exactly what I'm suggesting. It would not remain
"nothing". We usually think of the situation when you get rid of
all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, minds,
etc. as "nothing". But, what I'm saying is that this supposed
"nothing" really isn't the lack of all existent entities. That
"nothing" would be the entirety of all that is present; that's it;
there's nothing else. It would be the all. An entirety is a
grouping defining what is contained within and therefore an existent
entity, based on my definition of an existent entity.
Your set comprehension axiom. You are working in some set theory,
which is provably too much in case you assume brain works without
magic (computationalism).
So, even what we think of as "nothing" is an existent entity or
"something".
If only through the "we" which think about that nothing.
This means that "something" is non-contingent. It's necessary.
There is no such thing as the lack of all existent entities.
It is necessary for having an observer, or a dreamer, conceiving
nothing, but then you assume "we", which usually is among what we
would like to explain the existence. In all case we have to do some
assumption, notably about the thing we talk about before deciding if
they exist or not.
Like computationalism offers the best we can hope for the mind-body
problem, I think it does the same for the question of this thread. It
is a bit frustrating in the sense that it shows that there are minimal
thing that we will never explain the origin of (like the "basic"
Turing universal system).
Bruno
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it
seems important to know why everything exists. How is it that a
thing can exist? What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is
contained within is an existent entity. Then, you can use this to
try and answer the other question of "Why is there something rather
than nothing?".
If everything exists, what doesn't exist? Nothing.
If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?
-Chris
Brent
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
