Newsgroups: alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!whyes
From: whyes@netcom.com (suresh yegnashankaran)
Subject: Re: Please give me your opinion about doubts !?
Message-ID: <whyesD73r5D.3n4@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <whyesD6pIqw.H9H@netcom.com> <3mkn50$32e@news.erinet.com> <peilmica-140495213309@cu-dialup-0064.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 00:39:12 GMT
Lines: 72
Sender: whyes@netcom15.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:26930 sci.philosophy.meta:17304 sci.philosophy.tech:17558

Newsgroups: alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Please give me your opinion about doubts !?
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <whyesD6pIqw.H9H@netcom.com> <3mkn50$32e@news.erinet.com> <peilmica-140495213309@cu-dialup-0064.cit.cornell.edu>
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Keywords: 

In article <peilmica-140495213309@cu-dialup-0064.cit.cornell.edu> peilmica%jabba@law.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Peil) writes:
>In article <3mkn50$32e@news.erinet.com>, jab@bowtech.erinet.com (Jerone A.
>Bowers) wrote:
>
>> suresh yegnashankaran (whyes@netcom.com) wrote:
>> 
>> : "No thing(nothing) may come into existence out of, or vanish into,
>> :  nothing(no thing)" is a simplistic tautology... no great principle.
>> 
>> 	And why is that so?  Define nothing.  Is nothing the limits of
>> our perceptions, our ability to measure, to observe? 
>
>"Although the principle of conservation of matter and energy <n1> may
>be viewed as a simplistic tautology, it depends largely on one's definition
>of the word 'nothing' <n2>.
>
>"The paradigmatic example of 'nothing' in a Jarfian context was devised in
>1971.  Based upon the Roman Catholic view of 'hell,' i.e. 'the absence of
>the Grace of God,' the paradigmatic Jarfian example of 'nothing is, 'the
>absence of the Taste of Pomegranates.' <n3>"
>
>n1.  "Nothing may come into existence out of, or vanish into, nothing"
>n2.  FOURTEENS theorists' suggestions that the best definition of 'nothing'
>     is the sound of one hand clapping have largely been rejected by the
>     Jarfian establishment as plagiaristic.
>n3.  Personal note from Prof. Layton:  "Not that either is necessarily a
>     bad thing."
>
>> :  What is this thing called 'thing'? nothing, something or everything?!! 
>> : what is existence, a thing or no thing or some thing or every thing ?!!
>
>Strangely enough, this is a verbatim transcript of the 45th Revelation of 
>Meister Eckhart's posthumously-published collection of blank-verse haiku.
>
>Michael Peil
>Executive Director
>National Center for Jarf Studies

Hi mike,
That was funny in a light vein sort of way... i mean my veins are not 
throbbing !

Seriously, a tautology is a self-contained assertion or an assertion of 
itself, such as, p =  "if something, a statement, is true then it is"; 
further, the assertion "p is true" can be made without contradiction.

Thus "nothing may come into existence from nothing" is a tautology - 
equivalent to "pomegranite may come into existence from pomegranite".

Can nothing 'come into existence' ? then it becomes something won't it ? 
or not ?!

How about: 
"nothing may not come into existence" (from something is redundant) 
 and 
"something may not vanish into nothing"

It turns out the above statements are true by definition - of existence and 
thing; from which arise defs of something, everything and nothing.

suresh
