I only like one very particular brand of mayo. I don’t even consume it unless it’s given to me free, because I’m the sort who … when they sample … they want all the samples. I won’t even set foot in Costco.
Nothing personal, MagsJ.
So this Hellmann’s Mayonnaise advert, claims [that with the help of the mayonnaise] you can turn nothing into something
…if that was the case, they would all have been eating only mayonnaise for dinner… because they definitely turned something into something from many things, not no things.
MagsJ, can I interest you in some very particular Nothing mayo?
researchgate.net/post/Does- … ally-exist
_
…it wasn’t the mayo that was nothing, the mayo was very real, your analogy is way off… in being overly-eager to troll me (again) you missed the point completely.
I have formulated my thinking on the matter of the Universe and its properties, from the key factors that I think are relevant to my formulation.
Have you ever had a mayo sammich? It all started out nothing until it was thrown together.
And yet none it was really nothing.
In your eagerness to establish a difference yada yada yada.
Vacuum energy, tho. Something or nothing? Lawrence Krauss wrote the book on nothing mayonnaise.
…you threw things together, to make one new thing… a sandwich… so not from nothing, but from [some] things.
…so something.
I am entitled to my own thoughts on the/any, matter… hardly being eager, more free-thinker.
Does space itself not exist, by its very presence/self-definition… regardless of all else?
We’re saying the same thing. I agree mayo is something. There is no such thing as nothing. Only privation. But it all points to something. Privation cannot exist on its own.
Space? Maybe privation. Maybe something that doesn’t yet register/figure.
Who am I to say from my wee tiny ginormous view of the large and small?
Privation is an adjective, just like ‘nothing’ is… so a descriptor, not an object.
Space? the final frontier… 
Space? an adjective, containing objects.
mayo… an adjective added to nouns cuz you would never eat it as a meal
Lol
Mayo, in a bao [bun]… though I’ve never had a bao, nor a burrito. [sigh]
…considering having a chicken Balti -plus a Ceylon- for dinner… no mayo necessary. 
(Hu)man cannot live, on mayo alone. 
lol, no. No s/he can’t.
_
Mayo… adjective or noun…?
Have you fucks defined the terms you use, before you get involved in these long conversations that lead nowhere but back to where all your threads lead to?
forgive the interruption…
Some-thing
No-thing
Both refer to something named ‘thing’ - one affirming it as ‘some’ and the other nullifying it as ‘no’.
What is this “thing”?
Does it exist in the world, or in the mind, which is in the world?
What’s the difference?
Noumenon/Phenomenon?
What about this “one/nil”?
Where are they?
What are they?
What is nil negating as ‘one’?
An idea/ideal?
What is an idea and how does it form?
But what am I doing…this is a clown forum.
Back to the circus.
_
Your discounting of all the posts -and their contents- prior to your’s, doesn’t make them moot or irrelevant.
Might/right… the look you were going for?
So many morons…so little time.
I skim…like iamastupidcunt.
She inspired me.
…you are, aren’t you.
…I have no time.
…inspired -by an imitation of those that came before It- a twisted/deranged mind?
I saw much/all, but said very little… it’s not my call to make… I am not here to correct anyone nor their errors.
I have yet to realise what I am here for… all in good time/no rush…
Why is there something instead of nothing ?
Before I offer my answer to the question,
let me just say that if it were possible for such an amazing and perfect being as Creator God to always exist, then it would be much easier for our ordinary, and somewhat imperfect, Universe to always exist, too. So, perhaps in parallel to our clearly visible Universe, there might also exist some invisible god, or gods?
As to the main question above, I do agree with an ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, who had observed this obvious truth that the “nothing”, or the ontological “non-existence”, simply isn’t an existing alternative to the existence of our Universe, and therefore, logically reasoning, the entire ontological existence must have been existing always.
I don’t think that is valid logical argument to say “non-existence” is not an alternative – presuming to say that non-existence must exist in order to displace existence.
What does it mean “to exist”? And why can’t that condition be absent?
I think this is where are you gotta bring in the word essence. Some existents are more essential than others—some are nihil. Dross for refinement.
I think that would be related more to the relevance of an existence - how much anyone or thing would care. I think the more fundamental question (which James had a really great answer to) is how to distinguish existence from nonexistence - what is the defining difference?