Re: Let There Be Something

From: Quentin Anciaux <quentin.anciaux.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:44:41 +0200

Why do you think (my interpretation of my understanding of what you're saying)
that rationality is not just a type of belief ? I see rationality as the
belief that what we are experiencing could be understand/known by us, that
somehow here and now could be explained in acceptable term.

In any cases, I just see absurdity for what is reality (don't know if it has
to be rational), but in the "not everything" case, I see it as much more
absurd. In the everything case, I'm because I must be by definition... And
you are too for the same reason. In the other case you just get absurd
justification for absurdity ;D

Quentin

Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 21:24, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> If we are leaving all rationality aside, then how can be talk about
> relative absurdity and justification?
>
> Tom Caylor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quentin Anciaux <quentin.anciaux.domain.name.hidden>
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:59:10 +0200
> Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
>
> Hi,
>
> yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any rationnality
> in the
> faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then the
> reality
> is more absurd... How a justification for only a small part of
> possibilities
> (and only this one) could be found ?
>
> Quentin
>
> Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 18:33, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> > I guess I'll "break the symmetry" of relative silence on this list
> > lately.
> >
> > I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get
> > something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a
> > selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it
> > is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of
> > nothing. And I see the belief that our universe appeared out of
> > nothing as just that, a belief. In fact, I believe that. But I don't
> > see how it makes one iota more rational, "scientific" sense to try to
> > explain it with a Plenitude and the Anthropic Principle. It's like a
> > probability argument that poses the existence of as much unobservable
> > stuff out there as we need, along with the well-behaved unobservable
> > probability distribution we need, in order to give us a fuzzy feeling
> > in terms of probability as we know it in our comfortable immediate
> > surroundings. Sounds like blind faith to me.
Received on Fri Oct 28 2005 - 15:49:17 PDT