From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jun 19 2002 - 18:02:00 MDT
Colin Hales wrote:
> 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.
>
>
How much of nothing do you want? No space-time either? I would
assume so. Can we conceive of it? Barely, if at all. Could it
"be"? That almost implies a contradiction.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:54 MST