On 28 December 2013 23:46, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> 2013/12/28 LizR
>
>> On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>> Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
>>> nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
>>> something
2013/12/28 LizR
> On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
>> nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
>> something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things
>
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:59, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some simple numerical relat
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
> nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
> something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things
> different than nothing,
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
>
> Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the
> only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple
> numerical relations). This seems to me to be a goo
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things
different than nothing, (that is, something) instead of nothing (that is
the most sim
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good
starting hypothesis - show that some specific thing
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the
only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple
numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good starting hypothesis -
show that some specific thing must exist, such as the facts of simple
arithm
On 12/25/2013 7:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST exist because
non-existence canNOT exist. That is why there was never a nothing out of which something
appeared. Therefore there is no need for a creator nor a creation eve
John,
Yes, you are absolutely correct it depends on the universe being a logical
structure. That 2nd fundamental Axiom is in my book on Reality also.
However there is overwhelming evidence for that...
You slightly misunderstand my statement that 'there is no need for a
creation event'. Of cour
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrot
>> As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST
> exist because non-existence canNOT exist. [...] The very notion is
> illogical and impossible
>
Provided of course that the laws of logic exist.
> there is no need
All,
As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST
exist because non-existence canNOT exist. That is why there was never a
nothing out of which something appeared. Therefore there is no need for a
creator nor a creation event. The very notion is illogical and
impossi
12 matches
Mail list logo
