From: Colin Hales (colin@versalog.com.au)
Date: Wed Jun 19 2002 - 16:13:14 MDT
Rafal wrote:
>Damien Broderick wrote:
>It's much worse than that. We started out debating whether there could
>conceivably be nothing rather than something. Most people immediately
>dodged this hard question, and galloped around explaining that one
>something could really be another something in disguise, or that a more
>fundamental something could switch off a derivative something.
### Here's my answer to the hard question - something, as well as
everything,
must exist, because nothing did.
My answer:
Something exists because Nothing requires infinite energy to maintain, and
is inherently unstable becasue it doesn't get that energy. Hence we are here
because of a massive failure of Nothing to do it's job properly. :-)
Colin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:54 MST