Why is there something, rather than nothing ?

[Brian Peacock]

Everything is a function of what it is just as much as it is a function of what it is not. There must be a boundary in between because otherwise you cannot distinguish between the two. How do you know, for example, that a chair is a chair unless you know what a chair is NOT? Old Descartes was of a similar opinion and came up with the Cartesian quadrants.

Well, I know that a chair is still a chair, even when there's no-one sitting there. But a chair is not a house, and house is not a home when there's no-one there to hold you tight, and no-one there you can kiss good-night....

[JimC]

Everything is a function of what it is just as much as it is a function of what it is not. There must be a boundary in between because otherwise you cannot distinguish between the two. How do you know, for example, that a chair is a chair unless you know what a chair is NOT? Old Descartes was of a similar opinion and came up with the Cartesian quadrants.

There is an infinity of things that are not chairs...

[pErvinalia]

I always find these questions less profound than they purport to be. If there was nothing, we wouldn't be asking this question. That's why, in this instance, there is something. What am I missing?

Perhaps that the question is "why?"

There doesn't need to be a why. Reality just is.

[Forty Two]

I always find these questions less profound than they purport to be. If there was nothing, we wouldn't be asking this question. That's why, in this instance, there is something. What am I missing?

Perhaps that the question is "why?"

There doesn't need to be a why. Reality just is.

Agreed, but the OP is "why?" That's the question under discussion.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I'm pointing out it's not as profound as most people make it out to be.

[Forty Two]

Profundity, too, is in the eye of the beerholder.