Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Hal Finney
How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead of nothing? Maybe there could be both something and nothing. Or maybe the existence of nothing is consistent with our own experiences. I don't think all these terms are well enough defined for the question to have meaning in

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Eric Hawthorne
In the spirit of this list, one might instead phrase the question as: Why is there everything instead of nothing? As soon as we have that there is everything, then we have that some aspects of everything will mold themselves into observable universes. It is unsatisfying though true to observe

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Norman Samish
Hal Finney, Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing by using Descartes reasoning. (From http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm) The only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a

Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation

2003-11-16 Thread Ron McFarland
Hi, George. I'm sorry for the lateness of my reply; thankfully I've been very busy. I find your thoughts interesting in that they seem distantly relative to fractional charges we attribute to some things, such as quarks, although one might argue that they are only fractional because they were

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread John Collins
This question seems unanswerable, but set theorists have tried (though that might not be how they view their own endeavours): One interpretation of the universe of constructible sets found in standard set theory textbooks is that even if you start with nothing, you can say that's a thing, and

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Norman Samish wrote: ... I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by nothing. By nothing I mean no thing, not even empty space. I think of it this way. 1. Information (a strange and inappropriately anthropocentric word - it

Minor correction

2003-11-16 Thread Eric Hawthorne
I said nothing is a universe in which there is no difference, and thus no structure. i.e. That state of the bitstring has zero entropy, or zero information. So it is truely nothing. I guess you could define a zero-entropy state is having maximum order or simplest structure rather than

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread scerir
Does this question have an answer? I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things and is unanswerable. Does anybody disagree? Norman The less anything is, the less we know it: how invisible, how unintelligible a thing, then, is this Nothing! John Donne The

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Norman, Perhaps because Nothingness can not non-exist. Stephen - Original Message - From: Eric Hawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Russell Standish
The answer I prefer is to say that the Nothing and the Everything are the same Thing. (or rather that they are complementary aspects of the same thing). Its a bit mystical I know, but the inspiration comes from the notion of duality in Category theory - for example in the theory of Venn diagrams,

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread George Levy
John Collins wrote: One interpretation of the universe of constructible sets found in standard set theory textbooks is that even if you start with nothing, you can say that's a thing, and put brackets around it and then you've got two things: nothing and {nothing}. And then you also have

RE: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread David Barrett-Lennard
The set of everything U is ill defined. Given set A, we expect to be able to define the subset { x is element of A | p(x) } where p(x) is some predicate on x. Therefore given U, we expect to be able to write S = { x an element of U | x is not an element of x } Now ask whether S is an element of