From: John M <>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 16:00:49 -0400

Norman, your review is commendable.
I try to look at things from another aspect and these remarks come from
there: not argumentatively, just representing another view. Or call it a
belief-system (as eg. the physical/mathematical thinking, or the creationist
religiously(!) scientific ways). You wrote:
"some hold that there is an identity between physical and mathematical
existence "
- I think they are one-way, both the figments of human
explanations for observing whatever comes into the reach of our (quite
different) minds. As Bohm stated: there are no numbers in nature (until
WE've invented them) and human logic is also our artifact. The one way means
that physicists "apply" the results of math, why mathematicians (at lest
some friends of mine) feel quite happy with "I don't know physics". The
"applied" math is different from the "pure(?)" kind because it serves for
equationing models identified as physical objects/phenomena quantized in our
system (again humanly devised) by their limited "model" content. Those
models are incomplete and the equations require some manipulation to fit in
spite of the quantitative inaccuracy of the models.
In the past 3 millennia human science did an incredible job to balance out
such a model-based edifice of the scientific view about the world. Which
does not mean that it is true.
Truth - if any - lies in the 'inaccessible', from which certain details are
discovered by our epistemic development. So Leahy may be right or may be

It is perfectly stated in your post, omitting my above stance
on our anthropomorphized mindset: "(Answer: Because such existence is a
logical necessity".) In human logic.
Stephen puts it well: an explainable existence would be deterministic to
"beyond existence" factors. Which again would only extend the limits of what
we call existence. If someone invokes "god", that would merge into pantheism
if consequently applied (ie extending the existence to god). Just a step
further into the unknown.
The answer to (even the causative) WHY is fiction. I see no difference
between the 'infinite existence', God's dreation, a quantum fluctuation, or
any other (random or unexplained) origination of the "first steps".
To Stephen's "asymmetries": they are 'local' in a finite system. Infinity
may render them symmetrical in their repeated occurrence - at such
(infinite) level.
Infinite distribution inadvertently includes asymmetries by the (unexcluded)
occurrences of grouping identicals in the otherwise invariant variety.
(This is my startup for the universes in my cosmologic narrative. My unkown
is an invariant infinite Plenitude).
I would add to Patrick's points the anthropomorphism in the 'logical' and in
fashioning the universes according to our so-far formulated discoveries on
OUR universe ( e.g. immortality, life, etc.) As if we knew what we don't.
In Bruno's quoted arguments:

"physical existence emerges from mathematical existence"
"you attach consciousness..." AND " individuated bodies" -
are all figments of explaining our model-observations. Also:

"Also, it is possible to explain why we cannot explain
where our belief in natural numbers come from..."

is within our consciousness/thinking 'bootstrap' syndrome (Russell's
preferred naming) using our mind to explain our mind in a world we are
intrinsic part of.

I wonder if the list finds any merit in such views?

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Samish" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:15 PM

> Gentlemen,
> Thank you for many illuminating replies to the "Why does anything exist?"
Received on Fri May 20 2005 - 16:44:34 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST