Norman Samish wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
When I heard that Famous Question, I did not assume that nothing was
describable - because, if it was, it would not be nothing. I don't think
of nothing as an empty bitstring - I think of it as the absence of a
bitstring
Hi Norman,
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:14 AM
Subject: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
When I heard that Famous Question, I did
George:
Thanks for this delightful story (..ies?)
I met Chaitin once for a brief chat and did not like
him: he was too sharp for me (though very friendly).
His quoted idea is something I will keep to use it
against closed-minded physicists (or provide it to
open-minded wifes of them).
John
Gentlemen:
George Levy's moral is correct.
George's encounter with his wife reminds me of a similar
encounter with my wife.
I told her, "Some people feel that there is something rather
than nothing because everything can be represented by strings of numbers, and
numbers must exist. Do
Hi, Stephen,
when I first made the mistake of barging int ontology
I started from Nothingness and continued: once it
becomes aware of it's nonexistence it starts to exist
and realizing its emptyness it became Somethingness.
I had a good laugh. Since then (~1990?) I don't think
in so smart
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Norman,
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:14 AM
Subject: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
When I
Kris Kristofferson sings, Nothing ain't worth nothing but its free.
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:36 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something
Kim,
you described an epigon (I suppose) It happened in the
20s at an 'avant-guard' performance that the pianist
walked in with a big hatchet and chopped the piano to
pieces, then took a bow and left. (I did not call that
a concert).
People like to expect what they are used to.
John
--- Kim
Norman, Stephen, Brent, list
Why is there something rather than nothing?
When I heard that Famous Question, I did not assume that nothing was
describable - because, if it was, it would not be nothing. I don't
think of nothing as an empty bitstring - I think of it as the absence of
a
Thanks to all who replied to my question. This question
has bothered me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can be made
towards an answer.
I've heard some interesting concepts, including:
(1) "Numbers must exist, therefore 'something' must
exist."
(2) "Something exists because
OK, Norman,
here is my challenge to your 'new' question to answer
without retrospection or self-reference:
Why do we speculate?
And don't you speculate too long on the answer.
John M
--- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to all who replied to my question. This
question
--- Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somebody once wrote a piece of music which in fact
involved not
writing a piece of music at all.
The score of the piece merely instructs the pianist
to sit down, open
the lid of the piano and wait out a period of 4' 33
then close the
piano lid
well, john cage is a musician who people talk about a great deal more
than listen to
Somebody once wrote a piece of music which in fact involved not
writing a piece of music at all.
The score of the piece merely instructs the pianist to sit down, open
the lid of the piano and wait out a
Norman Samish wrote:
Thanks to all who replied to my question. This question has
bothered me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can
be made towards an answer.
I've heard some interesting concepts, including:
(1) Numbers must exist, therefore 'something' must exist.
(2)
I think that an alternative that deserves more consideration than it usually
gets (though I don't embrace it, I just consider it), is the idea that
existence, though not contradictory, is a non sequitur -- that there's
something brute arbitrary about it.
Some people hold the view that others
Benjamin Udell wrote:
In standard first-order logic, the phrase everything exists would be taken
to trivially mean “that, that is, is, or the like. Is there a way to say it
in a non-trivial sense in first-order logic at all? Is it an idea that can be
logically expressed at that basic level?
Of course, it's supposed to be confusing, one is supposed to ponder it in its
aporia.
I didn't consider a naming operator. Objectual quantification, which I've taken
Quine at his word that it's the standard kind, does not require that everything
in the variable's range be indicable, able to
Hi. I've been reading the postings of this group
for
awhile but haven't yet posted anything on my own.
However,
the question of Why is there something rather than
nothing? is of interest to me, so, if you're
interested
here are my thoughts.
Overall, my answer to the question of why is
The question contains its own answer. The Nothing, the Everything
[the All as I call it], and various Somethings are not mutually
exclusive but rather they are simultaneous.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
But your 20s avant guardist actually *did* something in relation to
his act! My pianist just sits there. There's a difference, don't you
think? In your case something is given, in my case nothing is. There
is no mystery in your case. The mystery in mine is why some people
thought they had
20 matches
Mail list logo
