Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Philosophical Nothingness Argument - Jim Holt

  1. Jan 21, 2013 #1
    I recently received Why Does the World Exist by Jim Holt. I haven't gotten around to reading anything but the first chapter, but the book opens with a rather interesting paragraph:
    The book then starts on a completely different note, and from my skimming it doesn't seem to treat this introduction with any length.

    I, however, am stuck on this.
    It seems to me to be a rather concise proof of what it tries to accomplish, but I cannot believe it is as simple as it appears.

    Can anyone point out a flaw in this argument? Or a place of weakness?

    Thank you.

    I'll note that an initial qualm was over the use of 'nothing' both as a noun and as meaning 'the lack of a noun' but it seems to me that even with this considered, this paragraph makes a daunting argument.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 21, 2013 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sorry, we closed the philosophy forum.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook