On Nov 15, 9:45 pm, corvus <brian_higg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Philosophers are much attracted to nothingness. Why are they such
> queer ducks? Why would anybody favor nothingness rather than say,
> something-ness, or everything-ness?
> It's useful to conceptualize the known universe as an archipelago of
> islands of matter floating in a near-void, consisting of 9.6 hydrogen
> atoms per cubic meter, if we assume a uniform distribution.
> Looked at statistically, planets and stars, etc., are a deviation from
> the mean, the exception to the rule, an accident. And yet, if we were
> to speak of all that is, these few anomalies are all that is.
> When the question is asked, "How can mere stars influence events on
> earth?" -it can be argued that nothing else could influence events on
> earth, since there is nothing else.
> Only the facticity of "influence" remains. Either the planets and suns
> influence -or there is no influence whatever. Who would care to argue
> that the universe is pure chaos?
> Matter is all there is. Without a reference outside the known
> universe, that equals infinity, the apeiron of Anaximander.
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/essays_2.htm#how
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
(c) 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
|
