Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
568
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing? (view source)
Revision as of 17:32, January 26, 2012
, 17:32, January 26, 2012no edit summary
:And in a random bit from a while ago, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ebayer_sells_nothing/ someone attempted to sell "absolutely nothing" on eBay]. Oh, and [http://cgi.ebay.com/Box-of-Nothing_W0QQitemZ130334037303QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1e58839537&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 here's a current listing] [[User:EricaS|EricaS]] 19:47, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
:And in a random bit from a while ago, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ebayer_sells_nothing/ someone attempted to sell "absolutely nothing" on eBay]. Oh, and [http://cgi.ebay.com/Box-of-Nothing_W0QQitemZ130334037303QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1e58839537&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 here's a current listing] [[User:EricaS|EricaS]] 19:47, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
::If I don't find it to be the genuine article, I'll do whatever necessary to get my money back! :) Which is the problem, because no one can actually convey (much less possess) such an article. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:30, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
::If I don't find it to be the genuine article, I'll do whatever necessary to get my money back! :) Which is the problem, because no one can actually convey (much less possess) such an article. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:30, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
== The dysjunct ==
If there is (or were) nothing, then there would be neither an answer to the question, nor the question. But, in so far as there is both 'something' and a questioner apart from that 'something', then there must be answer, and it must not be in that 'something', for, what is a thing worth if it have no one to place a worth upon it, nor even anyone to ask anything about its worth? So, if (or, since) there is something (including a questioner), then there is, therefore, an answer to the question, despite that many people look in the wrong place for an answer and so 'find the question impossible to answer non-trivially'.
Now, if whatever is that which most basically, necessarily exists is non-trivial, then the answer is non-trivial. For, that which necessarily exists, if it be non-trivial, cannot actually create something which is, ''at root'', trivial, since that root is none other than itself. And, what it creates is a reflection---albeit a contingent and synthetic reflection---of itself. Only trivia a can create trivia, and it is doubtful whether trivia can create the non-trivial.
So, in so far as we measure ourselves to be non-trivial, who are but contingent knowers (and, thus, questioners) the answer is more non-trivial, by far, that are we. Something besides ourselves exists, but, that of which we have empirical access is all measured by us to be of less worth than ourselves: rocks and trees, stars and lifeless planets, even gravity, electric lighting, and animals. But, all these things are worth much in our minds, so long as, without us, at least the animals and the plants exist, for such things a reflections of us, however dim. ''Silent Running''.
[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 12:32, 26 January 2012 (EST)