On 1/5/2015 11:24 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 10:55 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 02:10:51PM -0800, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
List wrote:
Russell’s observation that “The ultimate theory of everything is just a
theory of nothing.” seems intuitively correct to me… though I have no
rigorous proof for this sense of it ringing true for
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 'Roger' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Even if the word exists has no use because everything exists, it seems
important to know why everything exists.
Even if the word klogknee has no use because everything is klogknee, is
it important to
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 7:59 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 03
, 2015 9:44 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word exists has no use because everything exists, it seems
important to know
On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
If everything exists, what doesn't exist? Nothing.
If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?
-Chris
Brent
You are both missing the main question: what was
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Careful not confusing Nothing exists and Nothing exist. In the first
case, something exists. But not necessarily in the second case
If nothing means no-thing, and that is certainly how that English word
originated, then
On 1/4/2015 1:09 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
If everything exists, what doesn't exist? Nothing.
If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?
:* Sunday, January 04, 2015 1:09 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
theory to dialectics?
On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 1:09 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 3
AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
If everything exists, what doesn't exist
mysterious and strange.”
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 11:27 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics
...@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
theory to dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word exists has
Logical positivism in the hard form has been abandoned in favor of a dozen
derivations, but it is a tactical withdrawal in order to protect the
central dogmas: the antimetaphysical standpoint, the acritical adoration of
science understood in the very narrow sense of today. The negation of
innate
On 03 Jan 2015, at 07:17, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something
:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
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
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
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.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:36 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com 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
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
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
First my apologies to you and Brent for the mix up. I'm new to this
wonderful forum, and the format still disorients me a bit...
which is why the universe exists in the first place, that is, it is not
nothing (=
On 15 Dec 2014, at 11:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
You are projecting metaphisical differences into physical forces at
the last steps. That does not make sense IMHO. The New Agers do the
opposite.
I think that this is an error typical of people with no education in
physics and
On 17 Nov 2014, at 16:25, Peter Sas wrote:
Here is a new blog piece I wrote:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/11/the-inconsistency-of-nothing-objective_17.html
OK. I print the quite clear and well written introduction of your
article:
Peter Sas wrote in his blog:
In
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com 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
What about a prophecy? Does that exist? Should I take the red pill or the blue
pill?
Kim
On 15 Dec 2014, at 4:56 pm, 'Roger' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Peter,
Hi. I've read parts of a few of your blog posts and found them very
interesting and
You are projecting metaphisical differences into physical forces at the
last steps. That does not make sense IMHO. The New Agers do the opposite.
I think that this is an error typical of people with no education in
physics and technology that are overexposed to scientific-tecnical terms.
Your
Peter,
Hi. I used to post here a long time ago, but thought I'd try it again.
I agree with your post that to answer the question Why is there something
rather than nothing?, we have to start with the supposed absolute
lack-of-all and can't presuppose the laws of math, etc. I also
Peter,
Hi. I've read parts of a few of your blog posts and found them very
interesting and highly recommend them to others.
To build on this thread of Why is there something rather than
nothing?, I'd like to throw out some related ideas. I used to post here
more often with this, but
Here is a new blog piece I wrote:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/11/the-inconsistency-of-nothing-objective_17.html
Here I use some of the tools of analytical philosophy to analyze the
logical impossibility of nothinness... For the philosophically inclined among
you...
Peter
Hi Bruno,
I would like to let you know that I read two of your papers, which I found
very interesting (even if the technical bits are a bit beyond me), but that
I can't respond right now, since we are in the middle of moving to a new
house. I will get back in touch with you later to discuss
Hi Peter,
On 01 Nov 2014, at 12:25, Peter Sas wrote:
I would like to let you know that I read two of your papers, which I
found very interesting (even if the technical bits are a bit beyond
me), but that I can't respond right now, since we are in the middle
of moving to a new house. I will
On 29 Oct 2014, at 09:04, Peter Sas wrote:
I wonder if you know the work of the French philosopher Badiou.
There is a big mixture of good things and bad things, and eventually I
am not convinced.
He has built an entire ontology on set theory, taking the empty set
(or the void as
I wonder if you know the work of the French philosopher Badiou. He has
built an entire ontology on set theory, taking the empty set (or the void
as dramatically calls it) as his most fundamental concept. He takes over
the Von Neumann derivation of math in terms of set theory and then adopts a
I agree with you about Derrida so on. I bought quite a few of their books
in the 80s (10,000 plateaus so on) and (fairly) rapidly worked out that
they were talking complete rubbish (even without help from Alain Sokal...)
I'm quite pleased to say.
On 29 October 2014 21:04, Peter Sas
First my apologies to you and Brent for the mix up. I'm new to this
wonderful forum, and the format still disorients me a bit...
which is why the universe exists in the first place, that is, it is not
nothing (= ontological difference).
You wrote: That looks like a play with word, which
cost a lot (in instruments), we might
be better without them. It is relative.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 09:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing
On 28 Oct 2014, at 09:25, Peter Sas wrote:
First my apologies to you and Brent for the mix up. I'm new to this
wonderful forum, and the format still disorients me a bit...
No problem.
which is why the universe exists in the first place, that is, it is
not nothing (= ontological
On 27 October 2014 15:09, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Since when is general relativity, wrong? What news did I miss?
It's (generally :-) assumed to break down in the vicinity of (what would
otherwise be) singularities.
Ok Hawkings old sales pitch! Thanks.
It's (generally :-) assumed
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Brent,
On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic
qualities because they are defined through their differences from
each other.
I guess you love category
-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 05:32 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
Mind you as some people like to point out, we know GR is wrong...
--
You
Hi Peter,
You are replying to my post (I am Bruno, not Brent, although I am open
that we are all the same person, it is better to keep the name right
for helping in future references)
On 26 Oct 2014, at 17:52, Peter Sas wrote:
Thanks for your comments, which are very useful, even if
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
it expands for ever even though closed). So you can never see the
back of your own head.
Obviously if it expands forever you could never see the back of your
head, and our universe is not only expanding
something with it. Back to the CAD application,
as they say.
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 09:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
of timeless to me, but I haven't really
studied it as it should be studied.
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 09:52 AM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
it expands for ever even though closed). So you can
never see the back of your own head.
Obviously if it expands forever you
On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Brent,
On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic
qualities because they are defined through their differences from
each other.
I guess you love category theory, which is mathematics based on that
idea. It is also a
Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 10:13 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Brent,
On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic qualities
because they are defined through
Hi Brent,
Thanks for your comments, which are very useful, even if the more technical
comments are beyond me (I have to study up on that). Thanks for the tip
about category theory, I vaguely heard about it... I know it is a rival to
set theory when it comes to founding math (insofar that is
: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 1:35 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
I am with you that generally Krauss does a good job of popularizations
Mind you as some people like to point out, we know GR is wrong...
--
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.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Kellett
the claims about the zero net energy of the universe made by people such
as Hawking and Krauss in popular presentations are wrong. The interesting
question is why undoubtedly clever people such as Krauss and Hawking would
make such fallacious
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Bruce Kellett
he [Krauss] appears to have overlooked the simple fact that in a closed
universe, light cannot go right round and back to the starting point before
the universe re-contracts to zero size.
You appear to have overlooked the simple fact that in a
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Since when is general relativity, wrong? What news did I miss?
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 05:32 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 05:55 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_fb3a2bdf-4ecb-4202-9653-54d0a3a79023
div class=aolReplacedBody
div dir=ltr
div class
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
If there is more that a very small amount of dark energy, then a beam of
light can never get right round the universe (the universe does not
re-contract in that case
OK.
it expands for ever even though closed). So you can
I find this quite surprising too and wonder if Brent could weigh in as I'm
out of my league on that stuff.
Terren
On Oct 25, 2014 12:23 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow... That's quite shocking! I see I have to be much more careful in
taking over what the pop science writers
Bruce is a very good physicist and he's right. John Baez has a good discussion of the
point on his blog.
Brent
On 10/25/2014 7:51 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I find this quite surprising too and wonder if Brent could weigh in as I'm out of my
league on that stuff.
Terren
On Oct 25, 2014
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 25, 2014 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_f2754c43-430e-42e0-9df2-602e590f37dd
div bgcolor=#FF text=#00 class=aolReplacedBody
div class
I am with you that generally Krauss does a good job of popularizations
of cosmology and so on. He is generally quite careful and accurate in
his book A Universe from Nothing, except on page 166, where he says
There is one universe in which the total energy is definitely and
precisely zero
Hi Brent,
On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic qualities
because they are defined through their differences from each other. Thus a
being is what it is simply by not being something else. So in themselves,
abstracted from their relations to other beings, beings
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your explanation, but I'm afraid it doesn't really help me. The
main reason is no doubt my own stupidity, since most of what you say goes
over my head. I understand some physics, but it must be explained to me in
non-mathematical terms, otherwise I don't get (I have
Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your explanation, but I'm afraid it doesn't really help me.
The main reason is no doubt my own stupidity, since most of what you say
goes over my head. I understand some physics, but it must be explained
to me in non-mathematical terms, otherwise I don't
Wow... That's quite shocking! I see I have to be much more careful in
taking over what the pop science writers say...
Unfortunately, physics is a subject where the text books tend to carry
more weight than the popular presentations. The text books show that the
claims about the zero net
Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a
physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental
question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get
with pure logic alone. It is of course very, very tricky to try to derive
fundamental
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a
physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental
question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get
with pure
On 23 Oct 2014, at 05:34, LizR wrote:
IMHO this slightly understates the problem of an infinite causal
chain:
The idea of an eternally existing universe - for example in the form
of an eternal cycle of Big Bangs - might turn out to be a
scientifically legitimate hypothesis. It might even
Hi Richard,
I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather from
the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of positive
energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too some kind of
polarity seems to hold. The point is that as space expands,
On 10/23/2014 12:50 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a physicist's answer. My
approach is to start with the most fundamental question (Why is there anything at all?)
and then see how far we can get with pure logic alone. It is of course very,
Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Richard,
I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather
from the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of
positive energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too
some kind of polarity seems to hold. The point is that
Peter,
Could you elaborate on how Dark Energy fits into your thesis?
Richard
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being:
On 10/22/2014 1:33 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html
I think you are too quick here:
It seems the subjective interpretation
On 22 Oct 2014, at 17:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2014 1:33 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source
of being:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html
I think you are too quick
As long as you're sure there *is* something, rather than nothing... anyway
I will have a look, as usual when I have time.
On 23 October 2014 06:09, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Oct 2014, at 17:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2014 1:33 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a
IMHO this slightly understates the problem of an infinite causal chain:
The idea of an eternally existing universe – for example in the form of an
eternal cycle of Big Bangs – might turn out to be a scientifically
legitimate hypothesis. It might even turn out to be true. But it still
doesn't
PS apologies if you get onto that later.
On 23 October 2014 16:34, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO this slightly understates the problem of an infinite causal chain:
The idea of an eternally existing universe – for example in the form of an
eternal cycle of Big Bangs – might turn out to
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:59, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some
2013/12/28 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
something exist: nothing. therefore the
On 28 December 2013 23:46, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/28 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good
starting hypothesis - show that some specific
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things
different than nothing, (that is, something) instead of nothing (that is
the most
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the
only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple
numerical relations). This seems to me
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrot
As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST
exist because non-existence canNOT exist. [...] The very notion is
illogical and impossible
Provided of course that the laws of logic exist.
there
John,
Yes, you are absolutely correct it depends on the universe being a logical
structure. That 2nd fundamental Axiom is in my book on Reality also.
However there is overwhelming evidence for that...
You slightly misunderstand my statement that 'there is no need for a
creation event'. Of
On 12/25/2013 7:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST exist because
non-existence canNOT exist. That is why there was never a nothing out of which something
appeared. Therefore there is no need for a creator nor a creation
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the
only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple
numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good starting hypothesis -
show that some specific thing must exist, such as the facts of simple
arXiv:1205.2720 [pdf]
Title: Why there is something rather than nothing: The finite,
infinite and eternal
Authors: Peter Lynds
Ronald
On May 15, 5:33 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent:
did I say .
I am *conscious of infinite complexity???
*If so, I used the word in a different
On 5/17/2012 8:42 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
arXiv:1205.2720 [pdf]
Title: Why there is something rather than nothing: The finite,
infinite and eternal
Authors: Peter Lynds
Hi Ronald,
Thank you for posting this reference. After reading the paper I
find that I agree with it 100% but would point
-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2012 12:05 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On 5/17/2012 8:42 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
arXiv
Brent:
did I say .
I am *conscious of infinite complexity???
*If so, I used the word in a different meaning: like I know about. Or
better: I think I know about. (Belief system).
I explained several times that said infinite comp[lex system is beyond our
knowability although we are part of it with a
Qualia aspect?
Please consider my 'rigid' agnostic stance with all those unknowable
aspects playing into - what you so succinctly call: 'qualia' - I struggled
for a long time to boil down my MOST GENERALIZED definition for something
that would cover what many of us (?) call consciousness.
I don't
On 5/14/2012 1:58 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Qualia aspect?
Please consider my 'rigid' agnostic stance with all those unknowable aspects playing
into - what you so succinctly call: 'qualia' - I struggled for a long time to boil down
my MOST GENERALIZED definition for something that would cover what
On 12 May 2012, at 22:51, John Mikes wrote:
Pure non-consciousness?
that would approach the 'pure(?) nothingness' - even in my
generalized definition of Ccness:
response to relations leaving open he definition of a response and
of relations. Otherwise it is perfect.
But 'response to
Pure non-consciousness?
that would approach the 'pure(?) nothingness' - even in my generalized
definition of Ccness:
response to relations leaving open he definition of a response and of
relations. Otherwise it is perfect.
RESPONSE came in as a concoction from acknowledgement of and response to
On 10 May 2012, at 21:09, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Ricardo:
...unless you remove the boundries as well - I think.
That would end up for nothing with a POINT, which is still a point
and not nothing. (If you eliminate the point???)
John M
I think we agree John. Pure nothingness makes
On 09 May 2012, at 21:39, R AM wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
Bruno and Ricardo:
...unless you remove the boundries as well - I think.
That would end up for nothing with a POINT, which is still a point and
not nothing. (If you eliminate the point???)
John M
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 May 2012, at
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.
501 - 600 of 798 matches
Mail list logo
