>Popperian answer: Possibly: "There is something rather than nothing" is irrefutable.> The Popperian (and logical) answer is not so straightforward. Anything (apart from nothing) may be taken to falsify that 'there is merely nothing', and simultaneously to confirm that there is something. If 'there is nothing' may be testable and falsified, its negation may be testable and 'verified': 'there is nothing at space-time x' may be falsified by there being something observed at space-time x, and that observation also shows that 'there is something' is true - given that from 'there is something at space-time x' we may deduce that 'there is something'. So "There is something rather than nothing" may not be irrefutable but may be something that passes empirical tests because it is deducibly true from an empirically falsifiable statement such as "There is something rather than nothing at space-time x" (or a more specific version such as "There is a black swan, rather than nothing, at space-time x"). What is true is that an unrestricted existential statement such as "There exists something", and its counterpart "There exists nothing", cannot in themselves be falsified, they can only be verified (verified, as above, by whatever verifies a restricted existential statement from which the truth of the unrestricted existential statement may be deduced). These statements must be distinguished from the claims "All that exists is something (i.e. there is no nothing)" and "All that exists is nothing (there is no something)": for "There exists something" does not assert that "All that exists, or that is the case, is something" but merely that among what is the case is at least one something (the rest of what is the case may be nothing). That there is 'at least one something or other' cannot be falsified, for no matter how many nothings we find (without finding something) this would not falsify that somewhere else there is something. Conversely, no matter how many 'somethings' we find would not falsify that somewhere else there is a point in space-time where "There is nothing". It is a logical confusion to take "There is nothing" to mean "All that is the case is nothing (i.e. there is no something)" - rather this last claim is equivalent to "There is only nothing" or "There is nothing except nothing". So "There is nothing" has as its negation that "There is only something", for "There is something" and "There is nothing" do not themselves contradict, being both compatible with there being 'something' at some somewheres and 'nothing' at some elsewheres. As to why the universe is a something rather than a mere nothing, this is a separate question. Which I'll answer later. Donal Head hurts London On Friday, 16 May 2014, 14:46, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: In a message dated 5/16/2014 9:25:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx writes: why there’s Something rather than Nothing?" "Why is there something rather than nothing? Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer." ----- Sorensen, Roy, "Nothingness", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/nothingness/>. Popperian answer: Possibly: "There is something rather than nothing" is irrefutable. Griceian answer: "There is something" is usually conversationally incomplete: cfr. "There is something (or other) in the fridge" -- implicating: "There _must_ be something (or other) in the fridge, no?" Cheers, Speranza ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html