Carlos,
Hi. Thanks for the comment and for reading my posting! The idea
that the complete definition of something is a boundary or edge that
gives substance and existence to a thing seems to make sense to me.
Also, it sounds similar to stuff physicists are talking about now such
as string theory (strings seem like boundaries) and that we may be
holographic projections from a membrane (ie, boundary). Thanks again!
Roger
On Aug 18, 9:09 am, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I found your post very interesting!
>
> A philosophical engineering is possible yes I'm sure.
> In other words, to develop certain objects, right through pure
> speculation, which are able to interact in a third position which is
> not purely scientific or philosophic. (if I got correctly the
> expression)
>
> Called my attention what you called here the "boundary" which "gives"
> substance.
>
> best
>
> Carlos
>
> On Aug 18, 2:26 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If anyone is interested, I put some of my ideas on why things
> > exist, why is there something rather than nothing, and infinite sets
> > at the following website:
>
> >https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
>
> > The abstract of the "Why do things exist and why is there
> > something rather than nothing?" paper is also below. Thank you!
>
> > Roger
>
> > Why Do Things Exist and Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?
>
> > Abstract
>
> > In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things
> > exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In regard
> > to the first question, "Why do things exist?", it is argued that a
> > thing exists if the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing are
> > completely defined. A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or
> > boundary defining what is contained within and giving “substance” and
> > existence to the thing. In regard to the second question, "Why is
> > there something rather than nothing?", "nothing", or non-existence, is
> > first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time,
> > thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think
> > about this lack-of-all. It is then shown that this non-existence
> > itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, is the complete
> > description, or definition, of what is present. That is, no energy,
> > no matter, no volume, no space, no time, no thoughts, etc., in and of
> > itself, describes, defines, or tells you, exactly what is present.
> > Therefore, as a complete definition of what is present, "nothing", or
> > non-existence, is actually an existent state. So, what has
> > traditionally been thought of as "nothing", or non-existence, is, when
> > seen from a different perspective, an existent state or "something".
> > Said yet another way, non-existence can appear as either "nothing" or
> > "something" depending on the perspective of the observer. Another
> > argument is also presented that reaches this same conclusion.
> > Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive model of the
> > universe via what I refer to as "philosophical engineering".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
