On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ricardo: > good text! I may add to it: > "Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody". (The ancient joke of Odysseus > towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me). > > Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes space, > it is not nothing. > I actually meant that most of the time, people say "nothing" when they mean Newtonian empty space. I agree that "nothing" is not empty space. > And please, do not forget about my adage in the previous post that limits > (borders) are similarly not includable into nothing, so it must be an > infinite - well - "nothing". > It still may contain things we have no knowledge about and in such case it > is NOT nothing. We just are ignorant. > I agree that if it contains things, then it is not "nothing", but you can "create" a "nothing" by removing them. Ricardo. > JM > > > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Some thoughts about "nothing": >> >> - If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a >> property, then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the >> limitation of generating "something". Therefore, "something" may come from >> "nothing". >> >> - Given that something exists, it is possible that something exists >> (obviously). The later would be true even if "nothing" was the case. >> Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing" co-existing with the >> possibility of "something" existing, which is rather bizarre. >> >> - Why should "nothing" be the default state? I think this is based on the >> intuition that "nothing" would require no explanation, whereas "something" >> requires an explanation. However, given that the possibility of something >> existing is necessarily true, an explanation would be required for why >> there is "nothing" instead of "something". >> >> - There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing >> existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-) >> >> - I think the intuition that "nothing" requires less explanation than the >> universe we observe is based on a generalization of the idea of classical >> empty space. However, this intuition is based on what we know about *this* >> universe (i.e. empty space is simpler than things existing in it). But why >> this intuition about *our* reality should be extrapolated to metaphysics? >> >> - I think that the important question is why this universe instead of any >> other universe? (including "nothing"). >> >> Ricardo. >> >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, May 5, 2012 John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Is it so hard to understand a "word"? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, the word "nothing" keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years ago >>> "nothing" just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a few years >>> later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any energy too, then >>> still later it meant also not having space, and then it meant not even >>> having time. Something that is lacking matter energy time and space may not >>> be the purest form of nothing but it is, you must admit, a pretty pitiful >>> "thing", and if science can explain (and someday it very well may be able >>> to) how our world with all it's beautiful complexity came to be from such >>> modest beginnings then that would not be a bad days work, and to call such >>> activities "incredibly shallow" as some on this list have is just idiotic. >>> >>> >>> >>>> *>** N O T H I N G - *is not a set of anything, no potential >>>> >>> >>> Then the question "can something come from nothing?" has a obvious and >>> extremely dull answer. >>> >>> > I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started: >>>> "In the beginning there was Nothingness. >>>> And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness >>>> It turned into Somethingness >>>> >>> >>> Then your version of nothing had something, the potential to produce >>> something. I also note the use of the word "when", thus time, which is >>> something, existed in your "nothing" universe as well as potential. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
