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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@eskimo.com> 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 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`