Vorde
- 786
- 0
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.
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.