Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM, John Mikes wrote: > Ricardo: I hate to become a nothingologist, but if you REMOVE things to > make NOTHING you still have the remnanat (empty space, hole, potential of > 'it' having been there or whatever) from WHERE you removed it. IMO in > Nothing there is not ev

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote: > > > "nothing" could also be obtained by removing the curly brackets from the > empty set {}. > > > N... Some bit of blank remains. If it was written on hemp, you could > smoke it. That's not nothi

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Ricardo: I hate to become a nothingologist, but if you REMOVE things to make NOTHING you still have the remnanat (empty space, hole, potential of 'it' having been there or whatever) from WHERE you removed it. IMO in Nothing there is not even a "where" identified. Forgive me the 'light' reply, pleas

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote: PM, Bruno Marchal Yes. "Nothing", in set theory, would be more like an empty *collection* of sets, or an empty "universe" (a model of set theory), except that in first order logic we forbid empty models (so that AxP(x) -> ExP(x) remains valid, to si

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

> > PM, Bruno Marchal > > Yes. > "Nothing", in set theory, would be more like an empty *collection* of > sets, or an empty "universe" (a model of set theory), except that in first > order logic we forbid empty models (so that AxP(x) -> ExP(x) remains valid, > to simplify life (proofs)). > "nothing

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 09 May 2012, at 13:19, R AM wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It is the set { }. The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not empty. It contains as element the empty set.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It is the > set { }. > The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not > empty. It contains as element the empty set. > Just to be precise. > Well, I guess

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 09 May 2012, at 12:36, R AM wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz wrote: You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have come before. Yes, probably I did. Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine nothing - is a nonsense. You can't b

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz wrote: > > You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have come > before. Yes, probably I did. > Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine nothing - > is a nonsense. You can't bridge the hgap between existence and

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 09 May 2012, at 02:36, Pierz wrote: The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM and GR, which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You can bet on strings or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt- Wheeler equation, which, actually make physical time

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 09 May 2012, at 02:25, Pierz wrote: There is an interesting point here, although probably not what you intended. What you say is true, you cannot trace it all the way back to absolute nothing, >because there is no reverse physical process that transforms something into "nothing" (at

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 08 May 2012, at 21:46, John Mikes 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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 8, 8:36 pm, Pierz wrote: > Yeah OK fine, so maybe I'm one turtle too high! Let's just say arithemetic > then. Why does it exist? Because. Try it this way instead: Why does existence have causality? To make more sense. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to th

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM and GR, which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You can bet on strings or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt-Wheeler equation, which, actually make physical time vanishing completely from the big picture. It

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

>There is an interesting point here, although probably not what you intended. >What you say is true, you cannot trace it all the way back to absolute >nothing, >because there is no reverse physical process that transforms >something into "nothing" (at least, not into absolute nothing). Or >eq

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Mikes 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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2012 wrote: > > > There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing >> existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-) >> > > EXCELLENT! I wish I'd said that; Picasso said good artists borrow but > great artist

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > Some people claim that something cannot come from "nothing". I think they > are hanging a property on it. > > > Hi Ricardo, > > Yes and some other people claim that something can indeed come out of > nothing - so long as that something

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/8/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes 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. And plea

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

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. And please, do not forget about my adage in the pre

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

John: who told you that "anything" evolved? especially: from nothing? that is our human stupidity presuming a world according to our figments. We "think" in our terms, i.e. if something seems to be, it had to 'evolve'. (I almost wrote: 'be created'!) We 'think' there is something. Do we have the ca

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/7/2012 9:16 AM, R AM wrote: On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: Hi Stephen, - If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property, then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of gen

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 08 May 2012, at 11:49, R AM wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being is not a countable way of being. I agree.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 7, 5:22 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 5/7/2012 2:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't >

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there > being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being > is not a countable way of being. > > > I agree. > Hi Bruno, what do you agree with exa

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 07 May 2012, at 19:42, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>I'm not an engineer. >> I know, that's part of the problem. > I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It's far easier to ge

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/7/2012 2:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdbwrote: The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue contradictory statements. You have to have logic to b

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > > >> The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't > >> issue > >> contradictory statements. > > You have to have logic to begin with to conceive

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Or maybe it's global warming which might make the Earth uninhabitable. Of course in a sense that's an engineering success, not failure. There have 2053 nuclear bombs exploded. I'm not sure how many were above ground; about 200 U.S. and probably an equal number of Soviet. Brent On 5/7/2012 1

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 07 May 2012, at 15:42, Pierz wrote: The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I was a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head- exploding moment sometimes thinking about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb wrote: The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue contradictory statements. You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability of avoiding contradiction. Something has

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

John, On the subject of engineering blunders, here is the most catastrophic engineering blunder humanity has ever faced. It could make North America uninhabitable. http://www.kurzweilai.net/fukushima-fuel-pool-is-urgent-national-security-issue-for-america-top-threat-facing-humanity?utm_source=Kurz

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 7, 1:42 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2012  Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>>I'm not an engineer. > > > >> I know, that's part of the problem. > > > > I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have > > is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. > > It's far eas

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb wrote: > The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue > contradictory statements. You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability of avoiding contradiction. Something has to put the 'contra' into our 'diction'.  T

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/7/2012 8:30 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum physics must exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the acceptance on your part of some of the (outrageous) claims of string theory. I say that the most outrageou

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, May 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>I'm not an engineer. >>> >> >> > >> I know, that's part of the problem. >> > > > I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have > is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. > It's far easier to get a reputation as a good philo

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/7/2012 6:42 AM, Pierz wrote: The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I was a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes thinking about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense it is a n

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 7, 9:42 am, Pierz wrote: > Krauss's argument may satisfy the cosmologist's desire to see the cause of > the universe reduced to something extremely simple, but it does not satisfy > the wondering child or philosopher who is thunderstruck by the strangeness of > there being any existence

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum physics must exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the acceptance on your part of some of the (outrageous) claims of string theory. I say that the most outrageous claim of string theory is that the compactifi

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > The question in my mind as a wondering child was never 'How did the > nothing that must have come before the universe produce the universe?' It > was my mind chasing the chain of causation of things and realizing that, > whatever that chain look

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I was a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes thinking about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense it is a non-answer, a simple ackowledgement t

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing" co-existing with the >> possibility of "something" existing, which is rather bizarre. >> >> >> Does Nothingness exist? Can Nothingness non-exist? At what point are >> we playing games with words and at what point are we being meaningful? >> >

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Stephen, > - 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". > >

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/6/2012 3:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 06.05.2012 20:04 Stephen P. King said the following: ... [Side note: This is where we start to see that our words can be such to sometimes have only other words as referents and sometimes have actual objects (not words) as referents. (I wish we cou

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 06.05.2012 20:04 Stephen P. King said the following: ... [Side note: This is where we start to see that our words can be such to sometimes have only other words as referents and sometimes have actual objects (not words) as referents. (I wish we could get a semiotic theory expert to join us!

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 6, 1:33 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > >> That depends on what you mean by "nothing". > >>   1) Lack of matter, a vacuum. > >>   2) Lack of matter and energy > >>   3) Lack of matter and energy and space > >>   4) Lack of matter and energy and space

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 6, 1:06 pm, R AM 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". Nice o

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/6/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote: Some thoughts about "nothing": Hi Ricardo, I like these thoughts (as they imply questions!)! - If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property, then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of generating "

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, May 6, 2012 wrote: > There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing > existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-) > EXCELLENT! I wish I'd said that; Picasso said good artists borrow but great artists steal, so no doubt some day I will indeed say that. John K

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sat, May 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> That depends on what you mean by "nothing". >> 1) Lack of matter, a vacuum. >> 2) Lack of matter and energy >> 3) Lack of matter and energy and space >> 4) Lack of matter and energy and space and time. >> 5) Lack of even the potential to p

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Nothing does not exist... Richard On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, R AM 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". Theref

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

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 t

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sat, May 5, 2012 John Mikes 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, th

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 05 May 2012, at 13:49, ronaldheld wrote: Does nothing mean zero or the empty set in this thread? There are as many notions of nothing/everything that there are notion of things. "Nothing" can be interpreted in many ways, differently for each theory candidate to be a theory of everyth

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 5, 1:51 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > So you agree that it is impossible to have something come from nothing. > > That depends on what you mean by "nothing". > 1) Lack of matter, a vacuum. > 2) Lack of matter and energy > 3) Lack of matt

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Is it so hard to understand a "word"? * - N O T H I N G - *is not a set of anything, no potential, no vacuum, no borders or characteristics just nothin'. There is 'nothing' in it means an "it" - measureable and sizable. Folks-talk refers usually to a lack of a material content. I agree with Bru

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > So you agree that it is impossible to have something come from nothing. > That depends on what you mean by "nothing". 1) Lack of matter, a vacuum. 2) Lack of matter and energy 3) Lack of matter and energy and space 4) Lack of matter and ener

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Does nothing mean zero or the empty set in this thread? Ronald On May 5, 2:52 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 04 May 2012, at 17:48, John Clark wrote: > > > > > > If the nothing of a vacuum is really full of potentials, > > > If you insist on the strictest definition of

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 04 May 2012, at 17:48, John Clark wrote: > If the nothing of a vacuum is really full of potentials, If you insist on the strictest definition of "nothing" which is not even the potential of producing anything, then even God Himself could not produce something from nothing; and this lin

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 4, 8:00 pm, Pierz wrote: > Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the > members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e., > everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set > of all things - need not. We can argue about whether the

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e., everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set of all things - need not. We can argue about whether the ontological nature of the "set of everyth

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 4, 11:48 am, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other? > > Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent > focusing on issues that Krauss correctly describes as sterile (

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other? Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent focusing on issues that Krauss correctly describes as sterile (not leading to new ideas) is time not spent focu

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 03 May 2012, at 23:45, meekerdb wrote: On 5/3/2012 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote: Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book "Why is there something rather than nothing?" recently wrote a article in Scientific American, here is one quote I like" It may be that even an eternal multiver

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 5/3/2012 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote: Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book "Why is there something rather than nothing?" recently wrote a article in Scientific American, here is one quote I like" It may be that even an eternal multiverse in which all universes and laws of nature ar

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 3, 4:25 pm, John Clark wrote: > Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book "Why is there something > rather than nothing?" recently wrote a article in Scientific American, here > is one quote I like" > > It may be that even an eternal multiverse in which all universes and laws > of nat

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Mar

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. >>> I find quite

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 26 Sep 2011, at 01:35, meekerdb wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules a

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 25 Sep 2011, at 08:20, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2011 6:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I said explicitly that "exist" means to be in the ontology of some model, and so it is always relative to that model (and similarly for nonexistent). Bruno's shown how the physical world is part of the s

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM ex

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. >> I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible >> theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic shape of atoms is really what

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 25 Sep 2011, at 09:05, Roger Granet wrote: Bruno, Hi. >Roger: When you say "Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons", this was the very point I was making. I don't >think there can exist mathematical truths in some platonic realm somewhere. They're in the mind, which is a

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 24 Sep 2011, at 20:56, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi has a value whi

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Roger Granet wrote: > Jason, > > >Do you believe there exist an infinite number of integers? If so I ask > you why should these very large numbers exist if >they require a physical > basis? There are numbers we cannot physically coceive of by virtue of their > s

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Bruno,     Hi.   >Roger:  When you say "Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons", this was >the very point I was making.  I don't >think there can exist mathematical >truths in some platonic realm somewhere.  They're in the mind, which is a >physical >thing, >This is something you assume

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Jason,      >Do you believe there exist an infinite number of integers?  If so I ask you >why should these very large numbers exist if >they require a physical basis?   >There are numbers we cannot physically coceive of by virtue of their size and >the finite >size of the observable universe.  If

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/24/2011 6:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I said explicitly that "exist" means to be in the ontology of some model, and so it is always relative to that model (and similarly for nonexistent). Bruno's shown how the physical world is part of the same model that includes the integers.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/24/2011 1:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/24/2011 1:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jas

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi has a value which no hu

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi has a value which no human has determined, as determinig it r

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi has a value which no human has determined, as determinig it requires infinite time and memory. If only those math

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 24 Sep 2011, at 08:12, Roger Granet wrote: Bruno, Hi. My responses are: >Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are machine, mathematical truth is in the mind >of numbers relatively to numbers. Of course we have to assume all elementary arithmetical truth,

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 23 Sep 2011, at 19:13, Pzomby wrote: On Sep 23, 8:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Roger, On 23 Sep 2011, at 07:37, Roger Granet wrote: Bruno, Hi. Yes, I am pretty much a materialist/physicalist. So, you cannot defend the idea that the brain (or whatever responsible for our

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sep 24, 2011, at 1:12 AM, Roger Granet wrote: Bruno, Hi. My responses are: >Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are machine, mathematical truth is in the mind >of numbers relatively to numbers. Of course we have to assume all elementary arithmetical t

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Bruno,     Hi.  My responses are: >Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are machine, >mathematical truth is in the mind >of numbers relatively to numbers. Of course >we have to assume all elementary arithmetical truth, like "17 is >you doubt them? Roger:  When you say

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sep 23, 8:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Roger, > > On 23 Sep 2011, at 07:37, Roger Granet wrote: > > > Bruno, > > >     Hi.  Yes, I am pretty much a materialist/physicalist. > > So, you cannot defend the idea that the brain (or whatever responsible   > for our consciousness) is Turing emul

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

cations/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Thanks. You are welcome, Bruno From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Roger, Your theory is still physicalism in disguise. You can&#

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 22 Sep 2011, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote: On 9/22/2011 10:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think what Bruno calls the 323 principle is questionable. Can I deduce from this that UDA1-7 is understood. This shows already that either the universe is "little" or physics is (already) a branch o

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

ty intrinsic to whatever existent state we're considering.  Otherwise, that doesn't explain where the observer comes from.        Thanks.  Roger  > >From: Bruno Marchal >To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >Sent: Thursday, Septembe

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/22/2011 10:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think what Bruno calls the 323 principle is questionable. Can I deduce from this that UDA1-7 is understood. This shows already that either the universe is "little" or physics is (already) a branch of computer science (even if there is a physical u

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 22 Sep 2011, at 08:32, meekerdb wrote: On 9/21/2011 11:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/21/2011 9:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/21/2011 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: When you aren

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 21 Sep 2011, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote: On 9/21/2011 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The Mandelbrot set has a definition which we can use to explore it's properties. Would you say the set was non-existent before Mandelbrot found it? If we have to define something for it to exist, then wha

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Roger, Your theory is still physicalism in disguise. You can't explain consciousness from that. I will ask you what is your theory of consciousness, before giving more detail on this. Your notion of 'nothing' is vague. You might dig a little bit on mathematical logic: it has been proved

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > [SPK] > Sure, let us consider this similarity to Leibniz' "per-established > harmony" idea. Could you sketch your thoughts on the similarity that you > see? I have my own thoughts about pr

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 9/21/2011 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:11 PM, "Stephen P. King" mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 9/21/2011 9:

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >