Norman Samish wrote:
> Thanks to all who replied to my question. This question has bothered
> me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can be made towards
> an answer.
> on.
>
> A state of pure "NO THING" would forbid even the existence of numbers,
> or of empty space, or of an empty set. It would be non-existence.
>
> Non-existence seems so much simpler than the infinity of things, both
> material and immaterial, that surrounds us. So why are things here?
> (I'm grateful that they are, of course.)
>
> Is this a self-consistent, if unanswerable, question?
If nothingness did exist, that would be an arbitrary state which
therefore would require a cause.
If something did exist by itself and nothing else, that would also be
arbitrary and would also require a cause.
The only state that is completely acausal is the plenitude. It is not
arbitrary because all possibilities are there. It also contains zero
information (a form of nothingness without being nothingness).
George
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Mar 06 2006 - 14:59:44 PST