On 12 February 2015 at 08:09, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Liz, > > > > Good to hear from you again. > > > > Empty space *is *the same as nothing. > I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions "why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?" "What breathes the fire into the equations?" etc are asking why *anything* exists. Pushing the chain of explanation back to asking "Why did empty space exist?" (assuming that is in fact how the universe started) is a step in the right direction, but it isn't a final explanation. I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of physics.” I > don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics and I don’t think > “nothing” presupposes the laws of physics. In my mind neither one > presupposes anything. > Maybe if the empty space does nothing, ever, that might be the case. But if anything ever arises from the empty space, then the LOP were implicitly there, because they govern what appears. So if your description is correct the question has been reduced to "why should empty space plus the laws of physics exist?" That's progress towards a TOE, but it hasn't hit bedrock yet IMHO. -- 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.
