NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/philosop/objectiv/872

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 1.7 KB | 36 lines

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!mimbres.cs.unm.edu!constellation!darkside!okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu!bil
From: [e-mail] (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Does it exist? (Was: On the subject of Kant..)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:15:54 GMT
Lines: 22


   I disagree with a least one the statements, "... nothing is certain".
I wonder if such a claim can ever be established through evidence or
logic. If nothing is certain, what becomes of all the other things we
believe to be certain? Or, what becomes of our concept of nothing?
This is all very painful.
   If I understand the meaning of nothing properly, it is a state of
non-being; the absense of everything else. If the definition is to
remain consistent, there is no way to verify the existence of nothing,
since such verification necessarily requires the intrusion of an
observer effectively nullifying the very existence ot the phenomenon
to be observed. The paradox is well known and is of sufficient power
to seriously weaken the assertion, "Nothing is Certain".
   I think the safest course for reasonable people is to concede that
nothing is most definitely NOT certain. Combine the uncertainty of
nothing (which must include the question of its possible
non-existence) with what we are certain we don't know (the nature of
gravity for instance), and the only conclusion left to us is that any
conclusion must be premature.

Bill (cogito ergo sum ?)