Re: Let There Be Something

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:03:02 -0500

In my view the entire system we discuss is self referential. For
example a line item on my list is the "features" of the list and thus
the list itself. The list is a member of itself. There is no
"outside" and thus I see no opportunity for, or a need for, a meaning
or point.

Of course in order to allow it as an explanation one needs to
postulate it and thus belief is required since proof it unobtainable
[it being a postulate]. On the other hand is this postulate
unreasonable? I do not at this time see why it would be.

Hal Ruhl






At 08:00 AM 10/30/2005, you wrote:



>>Norman Samish writes:
>>
>>>If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then
>>>anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen
>>>has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The
>>>sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past,
>>>and will be played in the future, over and over again. How
>>>strange and pointless it all seems.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless
>>than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only
>>once, or a finite number of times?
>>
>>--Stathis Papaioannou
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>That's a good question, forcing me to realize that I have an
>irrational "fuzzy feeling" that there "should" be a point to it all
>that I can understand, and that a sequence of events "should" occur
>only once. Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there
>is some kind of "God" which designed the multiverse for some reason,
>and keeps track of all events. I suppose my early "first cause"
>training is at work. I think now that the premises of the First
>Cause argument are unproven.
Received on Sun Oct 30 2005 - 11:06:45 PST