://www.afproject.org.
Alastair Malcolm
(Personal emails to a.malcolmATphysica.freeserve.co.uk, replacing the AT)
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
The answer I prefer is to say that the Nothing and the Everything
From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Norman,
Perhaps because Nothingness can not non-exist.
Stephen
I'm not sure of the double negative, Stephen, but I think I am in
agreement. Nothing (noun) cannot exist.
Think about it. Maintaining an absolutely perfect
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
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
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead
of nothing? Maybe there could be both
mathematical physicists (like me) attempt to 'find' the structures of our
universe embedded.
-Chris C
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
Hal Finney
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
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
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
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,
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
of S.
- David
-Original Message-
From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 17 November 2003 2:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
John Collins wrote:
One interpretation of
the universe of constructible sets
12 matches
Mail list logo
