Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems important to know why everything exists. How is it that a thing can exist? What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within is an existent entity. Then, you can use this to try and answer the other question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?".
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 12:17:37 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:36 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > >>> 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. >>> >> >> > 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". >> > > Existent entity? But something that has the existent property is something > that exists, and round and round we go. Once again 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.
