[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

[Micah]:
> I disagree, concepts are not "things".
>
> "Nothing" is a concept that does not exist nor refers to
> anything in reality, whereas "something" is a concept
> referring things or objects in reality.
>
> Vocabulary aside, nothing is a working concept that has
> never existed in reality.

Agreed, concepts are not "things".  But do they not exist as ideas in our 
minds?  Getting beyond logical syntax, 'nothing' is not an existent, but 
then neither is the subjective self.

I would say that nothing (let's call it 'nothingness' to avoid confusion) is 
a logical possibility, although material existence (beingness) refutes it. 
However, if being is only the "appearance" of reality created by experience, 
as Hegel and the phenomenalists suggest, relative nothingness is as real as 
relative beingness.  In other words, the physical universe is a relational 
system divided between the two.

My own view, as Craig knows, is that nothingness is the antithesis of 
Essence.  Since neither Nothing nor Essence "exists" by the common 
definition of existence, nothingness is a 'potentiality' of Essence.  By 
this I mean it is the potentiality whereby existence is actualized by 
Essence.

I define experience as "being-aware", which is a nothingness/otherness 
dichotomy.  What we are aware of is a reduced, valuistic impression of 
Essence, and the "reductive agent" is relational nothingness.  In my 
ontogeny, this is what creates the experience of physical reality.

Please note that this creation hypothesis in no way contradicts the 'ex 
nihilo' principle: neither man nor the universe comes from nothing. 
Everything -- value, self-awareness, objective experience, and space/time --  
is derived from the negation of a primary source.  What my hypothesis 
suggests is that our individualized experiential reality is less "real" than 
the absolute source.

Your points are well taken, Micah.  I only hope I haven't totally confused 
you.

Regards,
Ham