Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

From: Norman Samish <>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:09:54 -0800

Hal Finney,
Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing
by using Descartes reasoning. (From "The only
thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt
that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere
(viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he
existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very
beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think
therefore I am)."

I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing. Perhaps I
don't understand what you mean by "nothing." By "nothing" I mean no thing,
not even empty space.

In other words, it is conceivable to me that the multiverse need not exist.
Yet it does. Why? This seems inherently unanswerable.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Finney" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

> How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead
> of nothing? Maybe there could be both something and nothing. Or maybe
> the existence of "nothing" is consistent with our own experiences.
> I don't think all these terms are well enough defined for the question
> to have meaning in its simple form. It's easy to put words together,
> but not all gramatically correct sentences are meaningful.
> Hal Finney
Received on Sun Nov 16 2003 - 13:11:42 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST