- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:27:09 +1100 (EST)

The answer I prefer is to say that the Nothing and the Everything are

the same Thing. (or rather that they are complementary aspects of the

same thing). Its a bit mystical I know, but the inspiration comes from

the notion of duality in Category theory - for example in the theory

of Venn diagrams, the universal set and the empty set are closely

related (one can find a transformation whereby any theorem expressed in

terms of universal sets can be transformed into an equivalent theorem

containing empty sets).

Hal Ruhl tried a theory based on logical contradictions inherent in

nothings and evrything, that he posted on this list, which was kind of

interesting...

Cheers

Eric Hawthorne wrote:

*>
*

*> In the spirit of this list, one might instead phrase the question as:
*

*>
*

*> Why is there everything instead of nothing?
*

*>
*

*> As soon as we have that there is everything, then we have that some aspects
*

*> of everything will mold themselves into observable universes.
*

*>
*

*> It is unsatisfying though true to observe that there of course cannot be
*

*> a case in which the question itself can be asked, and there simultaneously
*

*> be nothing in that universe.
*

*>
*

*> I'm with the last respondent though in thinking that the right answer is
*

*> that there is BOTH nothing and everything, but that the nothing is
*

*> necessarily
*

*> inherently unobservable by curious questioners like ourselves.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Norman Samish wrote: Why is there something instead of nothing?
*

*>
*

*> >Does this question have an answer? I think the question shows there is a
*

*> >limit to our understanding of things and is unanswerable. Does anybody
*

*> >disagree?
*

*> >
*

*> >Norman
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*>
*

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A/Prof Russell Standish Director

High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)

UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")

Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden

Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks

International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Mon Nov 17 2003 - 00:34:27 PST

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:27:09 +1100 (EST)

The answer I prefer is to say that the Nothing and the Everything are

the same Thing. (or rather that they are complementary aspects of the

same thing). Its a bit mystical I know, but the inspiration comes from

the notion of duality in Category theory - for example in the theory

of Venn diagrams, the universal set and the empty set are closely

related (one can find a transformation whereby any theorem expressed in

terms of universal sets can be transformed into an equivalent theorem

containing empty sets).

Hal Ruhl tried a theory based on logical contradictions inherent in

nothings and evrything, that he posted on this list, which was kind of

interesting...

Cheers

Eric Hawthorne wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A/Prof Russell Standish Director

High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)

UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")

Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden

Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks

International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Mon Nov 17 2003 - 00:34:27 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*