On Oct 5, 6:21 am, tadchem  wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:11 am, Osmium  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The easiest Universe to understand would be one where nothing at all
> > existed.  Further such a Universe would have no laws (remember
> > "nothing" at all exists).
>
> > And lastly such a Universe would be infinite---because "finiteness"
> > like the concept of "physical laws" implies the existence of
> > "something"---something that limits or constrains.
>
> > If one considers these concepts it can be seen that they mandate the
> > existence of the Universe we find ourselves in.
>
> > "Symmetry" shows that everything, all the particles and anti-
> > particles, all the Yings and the Yangs add up to exactly nothing.
>
> > The lack of laws (ie lack of constraints) mandates that multiple
> > Universes exist that have an infinite number of attributes and
> > dimensions and forces and fields etc
>
> > And infinity means, that without constraints there must be an infinite
> > number of Universes which will contain Earths just like this one.
>
> > So that's it: "Nothing exists; including that no laws exist, ie there
> > are no laws making this nothiningness finite", voile, Existence
> > explained.
>
> "I don't think, therefore I am not?"
>



Existential indeterminacy.


I think therefore I am.
If I were not to be, then I could not think.
***  I might think, therefore I might be.   ****

That makes perfect sense to me.