Why does the Universe exist?

OK, I copy paste from the website:

Let us define “Everything” as… every thing altogether.

If you have done your homework, you will immediately say “Stop, you cannot define the set of sets” and you would be correct. We will come back to this later, for now let us keep it like this, and see where it leads us.

They are plenty of things that Everything is not, a rock is not Everything, it is just one thing. All the numbers are not Everything, a flower is not Everything, a planet is not Everything, they are some things but they are not all the things.

Indeed… there are infinite things that are not Everything, in fact every thing is not Everything. And this is the key, because if Everything is not every thing, then it is the same as to say that Everything is not any thing at all, and so it is Nothing: it simply isn't.

As a result Everything does not exist as a thing. Nothing is exactly this: no-thing, non-existence of a thing. And therefore “Everything does not exist” means that “Everything is not a thing”, it is no-thing. Nothing.

Everything is the SUM of all things that were, that are, and that will be. Whether we have an epistemic problem to frame the set thing by thing is irrelevant to the aknowledgment of such a set.

...and yes obviously a set of things is no particular any thing except a collection. So what ?

Also there is a conceptual problem with the fantasy of sets that contain themselves if we look at it from a information basis...SIZE matters...
The set of all triangles witch itself is a triangle does not contain itself due to size. Rather IT IS itself a triangle (but not contained).

Sets are complete when they ARE themselves not when they contain themselves. In fact no set can contain itself own information size.

"Everything is the SUM of all things"
Yes and No, the "sum" operator is only defined on a specific set of things, such as numbers, or vectors. You cannot sum an "apple" and a "pear", among other things
Metaphorically Yes, but then Everything sums to zero, Nothing.

"...is irrelevant to the aknowledgment of such a set"
No, such a set cannot exist, or at least cannot be defined (see below).

"the fantasy of sets that contain themselves"
A set that contains itself is simply Fractal, I don't see the issue. (Fractality is infinity to some extent)

As they say:

The reason why you cannot define the Set of Sets is related to the reason why you cannot define Everything.
To define is to delimit and confine. The word “define” comes form the latin “definire” which means “to set bounds to”. To define is to determine the “fine”, which is latin for “end”: the limit. When you define some thing, you abstractly draw a line that delimit what this thing is, and what it is not.

Infinity means no-finity, no finish, no end, no limit. It isn’t a thing. Rather it is the absence of limit, the absence of boundaries. The moment you put a boundary to it, the moment you delimit it, you lost it: it is not infinite anymore. That is the reason why you cannot define Everything, because Everything is infinite. You cannot delimit or confine the infinite.

Nothing is the absolute absence of boundaries, Nothing already contains every thing timelessly. All the things taken altogether actually sum to Nothing. Nothing is every thing altogether, Everything.

You have described your posts very well. Nothing.

I saw elsewhere you say I am confused. Can you explain?

Try to figure out the contradiction in your statements.

I figured it already. Everything is the absolute, as Nothing.

The absolute is non-relative.
False is relative to True, and True is relative to False.
Therefore there can never be an absolute Truth, truth in intrinsically relative.

The absolute is non-relative. And by saying this sentence, the absolute is relative, because it is defined as non-something else (non-relative). Can you see?

So the absolute is non-relative, AND relative.
This contradiction is welcome, we are happy with it, we were hoping for this contradiction.

Because in absolute there is no Truth (as True is relative to False). The absolute cannot be True, it cannot be False, otherwise ti would be relative.

The absolute cannot EXIST, because existence itself is relative to non-existence.

Therefore the absolute cannot be just non-relative, it has to be relative as well.
The absolute both exist and doesn't exist. The absolute is both False and True, and neither False nor True

The absolute is Everything, and Nothing. The absolue isn't.

Yes there is a contradiction. A very welcome contradiction.

On the contrary, if you are able to say anything definite about the absolute, then there must be a problem. Because any thing is relative.

This is basically the Yin and Yang symbol.

Is it a black drawing on a white background?
Or is it a white drawing on a black background?

Only the contrast between the two creates something.
If it were ALL the same color (Everything) then there would be no shape, there would be no thing, Nothing.

Everything is Nothing. Something only exists relatively to what it is not.
If there is nothing else, there is no-thing. Nothing.

Nothing or Everything are the same (and they do not exist)

A subpart of Everything is a thing, and does exist. In fact, every things is contained inside Nothing.

Your word games are meaningless.

More meaningless are your statements without justification

Simple: copy paste a statement I said, that you think is False

Just go ahead, what is stopping you?

I don't need to copy and paste from your posts; they're self-explanatory. I'm not the one thumbing down your posts, so I'm not alone in my criticism of your posts.

Look, it is the fourth time in a row that you avoid justifying anything you say.

It is self explanatory No need to say more.

Here. See if you can figure it out.


If you can't see the contradiction, there's nothing I can do to clear it up for you.

Thank you! I was starting to think you were a genuine troll.
Ok I see, you didn't understand what I am trying to show, and where I start from. My fault.

The sentence you have copy pasted is the result I am trying to show. You can't just say it is False, because I made a reasoning that resulted in this result. If you want to show that the result is False, you have to show that there is an error in the reasoning that led to the result.

In a mathematical demonstration, you cannot just say "the result is False", you have to pint point where in the demonstration there is a False statement.
The beauty is that if you cannot find anything False inside the demonstration, then the result is automatically True wether you like it or not.

Do we agree on this?

Just to be clear, the result I am trying to show is :
- Everything does not exist
- What does not exist isn't a thing, it is no-thing, Nothing (using the verb to be for simplicity in English)

These 2 results above, can be immediately rephrased into further results:
- Everything and Nothing is the same
- But since Everything contains every thing, then Nothing contains every thing.

If we agree on this framework, then we can go back and talk about the reasoning that led to these results.
Does it look better now? Sorry it was messy.

If everything does not exist, what are you doing on a2k?

Everything does not exist. But each single thing does.

It is like to say the Set of Sets does not exist, but some sets do exist, correct?

Whatever you say; I just don't care.

Hahaha.. if you don't care, what are you doing on a2k?

a2k is involved in many topics that interests me. Many provide entertainment and education. That's the reason I'm on a2k - since its founding. I was invited by Robert, the creator of this site.