The expansion of the universe might have a different cause than the proposed 'dark energy', antimatter gravity which should repel:
> 
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-antimatter-gravity-universe-expansion.html-A completed four-year study demonstrates that 'dark energy' is real and fits Einstein's predictions:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-wigglez-galaxy-einstein.html

all my attempts at a frame shift have been futile...
> 
> I'm learning that eastern thought understands reality in terms of what I would call "the superposition." 
> 
> I'll think of something... hopefully you guys won't write it off as claptrap...-You do not spout claptrap. But! Eastern and Western thought patterns are a great distance apart. Try doing it in very small steps.


> > Have you ever studied the roots of the word "exist?"
> > 
> > Ex, meaning "outside of," and sistere meaning "to stand."
> > 
> > "To stand outside of." If I declare I exist, that I am not "nothing," what do I "stand outside of?" Do we have any accurate terms even for existence?
> 
> 
> My collegiate dictionary uses the latin meaning: 'to come into being' as its first explanation of the term. And that makes perfect sense. I stand within my reality as well as outside of it.-We have far too much reliance on dictionaries here, lol. We can always shift definitions to avoid hard questions.-I think I'm going to start posting Koans for you and dhw... all my attempts at a frame shift have been futile...-I'm learning that eastern thought undestands reality in terms of what I would call "the superposition." -I'll think of something... hopefully you guys won't write it off as claptrap...


> Have you ever studied the roots of the word "exist?"
> 
> Ex, meaning "outside of," and sistere meaning "to stand."
> 
> "To stand outside of." If I declare I exist, that I am not "nothing," what do I "stand outside of?" Do we have any accurate terms even for existence?-
My collegiate dictionary uses the latin meaning: 'to come into being' as its first explanation of the term. And that makes perfect sense. I stand within my reality as well as outside of it.

By all means let us agree to disagree on which of these views makes more sense, but drop your grammatical objections to Leibniz's question. It's all very well living for conflict, but he who lives by the word shall die by the word.-Have you ever studied the roots of the word "exist?"-Ex, meaning "outside of," and sistere meaning "to stand."-"To stand outside of." If I declare I exist, that I am not "nothing," what do I "stand outside of?" Do we have any accurate terms even or existence?-How different is this from cosmology?


> It's clear neither of you read the relevant article, fine, pronoun they both are, I don't care--at its core you're both wrong! Colors are my preference.
> 
> 1. Nothing is beyond the Universe.
> 2. Average Joe is beyond nothing .
> 3. Therefore Average Joe is beyond the Universe.-You are wrong. I read the article. Average Joe is just word play in my mind.
> 
> The error in the conclusion stems from equating nothing-as-a-thing with nothing-as-absence-of-a-thing, which is invalid logic. -The above is true of course. I still consider it playing with words. There are non sequitor syllogisms, but obvious to everyone. I still think this is word play. Of course Joe is illogical.
> 
> Clauses can often be restated to avoid the appearance that "nothing" possesses an attribute. For example, the sentence "There is nothing in the basement" can be restated as "There is not one thing in the basement". "Nothing is missing" can be restated as "everything is present".-Agreed. -Conversely, many fallacious conclusions follow from treating "nothing" as a noun.-Really?-
> 
> Modern logic made it possible to articulate these points coherently as intended, and many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a noun, as there is no object to which it refers. There remain various opposing views, however—for example, that our understanding of the world rests essentially on noticing absences and lacks as well as presences, and that "nothing" and related words serve to indicate these." -Again, agreed. First on one hand and then on the other hand.-Stimulate, stimulate litle philosopher
How I wonder, from afar, 
What you hope to teach this crew, 
When it seems quite clear to me, 
Logically we all think things thru.

MATT: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
> > 
> > Check the "Language and logic" portion. For both you and david, a pronoun is not a noun, and therefore it is still just as fallacious to compare them.
> > 
> > Time for you to take a grammatical sabbatical. 'Something' is also a pronoun.
> 
> Whoopee! Now things make real sense. Matt's statements did not.-It's clear neither of you read the relevant article, fine, pronoun they both are, I don't care--at its core you're both wrong! Colors are my preference.-"Grammatically, the word "nothing" is an indefinite pronoun, which means that it refers to something. One might argue that "nothing" is a concept, and since concepts are things, the concept of "nothing" itself is a thing. This logical fallacy is neatly demonstrated by the joke syllogism that contains a fallacy of four terms:- 1. Nothing is beyond the Universe.
 2. Average Joe is beyond nothing .
 3. Therefore Average Joe is beyond the Universe.-The four terms in this example are- * Average Joe,
 * The Universe,
 * Nothing-as-a-thing, which a Average Joe is beyond than, and
 * Nothing-as-an-absence-of-a-thing: 'no-thing' or 'not-some-thing', i.e., no entity exists that is beyond The Universe.-The error in the conclusion stems from equating nothing-as-a-thing with nothing-as-absence-of-a-thing, which is invalid logic.-Clauses can often be restated to avoid the appearance that "nothing" possesses an attribute. For example, the sentence "There is nothing in the basement" can be restated as "There is not one thing in the basement". "Nothing is missing" can be restated as "everything is present". Conversely, many fallacious conclusions follow from treating "nothing" as a noun.-Modern logic made it possible to articulate these points coherently as intended, and many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a noun, as there is no object to which it refers. There remain various opposing views, however—for example, that our understanding of the world rests essentially on noticing absences and lacks as well as presences, and that "nothing" and related words serve to indicate these."

MATT: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
> 
> Check the "Language and logic" portion. For both you and david, a pronoun is not a noun, and therefore it is still just as fallacious to compare them.
> 
> Time for you to take a grammatical sabbatical. 'Something' is also a pronoun.-Whoopee! Now things make real sense. Matt's statements did not.

Matt says the above question is not valid: "Abstracting the language, it's asking "Why is there [noun] rather than [adjective]?"
> 
> I've warned you before about your language! On 21 March at 20.14 I told you 'nothing' was a pronoun not an adjective, and now you've been rightly rapped over the knuckles by Dr David. Let me console you, though, It's possible to use 'nothing' as an adjective, in an expression like: "This is a nothing argument". I'd say that's a pretty appropriate example!-Heh. In China, India and Japan, "Nothing" is an adjective.-Western philosophers cede to eastern in discussions about "nothing." So, I'll let you decide who is right... but I will be interested to see if you see a way through...


> No... I live for conflict, as "strong" as that may seem. Nothing's more exciting than throwing out a batch of ideas and seeing which ones survive...-As I previously stated, it is fine to philosophize as to whether we 'know' our reality, but we have to accept some version of it in order to study and progress in science, culture and in society.

You can only compare two like things--nouns to nouns, adjectives to adjectives. 
> 
> Nothing is not a 'thing,' which is exactly why East trumps West in its discussion. Nothing is less than a "placeholder," the mathematical "Empty Set." An adjective presupposes the existence of the thing to which it describes, therefore "Universe" and "Nothing" are not separate entities.-My problem with your statement is that 'nothing' in the collegiate dictionary is a pronoun, not an adjective. Besides it is primarily Leibniz' question not mine. I simply repeated the statement to open a discussion.

MATT: The main thing I'm trying to do is encourage a radical uprooting for both you and dhw...It is very difficult to completely flip thinking like this, but it IS possible.
> 
> The discussions with you are never less than stimulating, and you continually push us along paths we would not otherwise explore. I'm therefore acutely conscious of how frustrating it must be if I keep refusing to go all the way with you, even though I do usually go SOME of the way. You acknowledged recently that your scientific materialism sits uneasily with your mysticism, and you've always been honest enough to admit it when there are contradictions in your arguments. The problem as I see it is that science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are only compatible to a certain degree, but there is a point beyond which they cannot converge. My state of indecision makes it impossible for me to ignore opposing arguments, and so when you state a positive case, I generally look for flaws, which makes me a horribly negative interlocutor, for which I apologize. But ultimately we tend to finish on the same side, because neither of us can embrace the extremes of theism/atheism. 
> -Don't go Dawkins on me! That's dangerously close to "Can't live together..."-As I explore the depths of eastern thought, I see clearly what you discussed before, such as a rejection of subject/object. Nietzsche often talked about exploring the world both Eso- and exo-terically... -But a cutting Buddhist observation I recently read (and it is backed up by Freud/Jung) is that of what we see and witness in the world; we do not have an intrinsically objective view, and Nietzsche would go so far as to say that it is not possible to be objective at all. So much is done by our subconscious that we have every right to question how reliable our observations really are... which goes into the "radical skepticism" I espouse. It is definitely in the philosophical realm, but from my view, if we aren't yet to the point where we can fully trust our eyes, we should stay there until we "get it right..."-And then there's how much language itself influences observation...-> I think science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are different approaches to an unknowable truth, and all of them can capture aspects of it in their different ways, but all of them have their limitations. Our discussions make us increasingly conscious of what can and can't be known, so even if we don't "completely flip" our thinking, that doesn't mean your efforts are wasted. Quite the reverse. I hope, though, that the very act of articulating and defending these ideas is of some use to you, because I would feel bad if I was the only one benefiting!-No... I live for conflict, as "strong" as that may seem. Nothing's more exciting than throwing out a batch of ideas and seeing which ones survive...