Norman,
"wonder if your opinion will be that no opinion is possible?"
not on this list! Sufficiently sophisticated minds can formulate opinions to
ANY question (situation problem).
First: the "WHY"
I enjoyed the URL, with its contemporary Q-science based views.
Of course in English there is no difference between 'why' as for what
purpose and 'why' by what reason. Other languages are more specific.
Then the 'constants', the eucharist of physicists. They are scale-related
results of a model view observed by instruments constructed for such use and
calculated as 'equational' with other models (limited cuts of potential
impredicativities). The huge model has been brought into an admirable
balance and its nth level (backwards) fundaments are sacrosanct. Constants,
axioms, givens, rates, equations etc. are all in
untouchable quantized unification with artifacts like energy, mass, photon,
quark, whatever. Who would dare to question the cloths of the emperor?
Yes, the 'traditional cosmolgy' narrative is on shaky grounds. I made up
another narrative, in which THIS universe (and innumerable other different
ones) start on a humanly followable reasonable basis, putting the
non-information based origination (instead of a creation or a Q-fluctuation)
one step further back, in my unidentified (mostly!) Plenitude in which the
'invariant dynamic symmetrical everything' must produce also assymetrical
nods within the total invariance.
These are considered universes and dissipate as they formed. Not by the
inside vue and not for us, where we 'see' our space-time physical system as
small and huge, shorttime and longterm.
The rest depends on the elements of the universe-originating nod, the
composition of the assymmetry, potentially unlimitedly different for every
universe. Nice narrative, no math.
Such universes are (again: from the insider vue) endogenously active in
their motions during that timelessness(!) until they re-evaporate into the
Plenitude. No 'why' for cause, no 'why' for purpose.
Your par:
> However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about "WHY DOES ANYTHING >EXIST" that
I'm interested in. This viewpoint is expressed at
> http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm
>His conclusion seems to be that everything in the multiverse adds up >to
zero, so there are no loose ends that need explaining. Even if >true, this
doesn't answer the WHY question, however.<
seems congruent with my idea in more than one sense.
No question: no answer. Opinion we may have.
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Samish" <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:56 AM
Subject: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST
> Stathis,
>
> Thanks for your identification of David Pearce - I see he was co-founder
> (with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist Association. I have a lot
of
> respect for Bostrom's views.
>
> However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about "WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST" that I'm
> interested in. This viewpoint is expressed at
> http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm His conclusion seems to be
that
> everything in the multiverse adds up to zero, so there are no loose ends
> that need explaining. Even if true, this doesn't answer the WHY question,
> however.
>
> If you or others have opinions on WHY, I'd like to hear them. I wonder if
> your opinion will be that no opinion is possible?
>
> Norman Samish
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Received on Tue May 17 2005 - 18:26:24 PDT