John,
Hi. What I was trying to get at is that the most fundamental unit of
existence and the most fundamental instantiation of the word exists is the
existent entity that is, I think, incorrectly called the "absolute
lack-of-all". That is when you say "therefore nothing exists", what I mean
is that this "absolute lack-of-all" is identical to "something". I'm not
sure how trying to explain why a thing exists and why "nothing" is
actually not the lack of all existent entities but is instead a "something"
drains "exists" of any usefulness?
Thanks.
Roger
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:54:42 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> > I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship
>> present defining what is contained within.
>>
>
> If nothing is contained within then that is very well defined, therefore
> nothing exists. Something obviously also exists, but if both something and
> nothing exist then there is no contrast and the word "exists" is drained of
> all usefulness.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
