Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, That is the explanation It's not, because you force us to assume the very thing you are trying to explain. Telmo. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 04:40,

Why our fine tuning and not some other?

All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' The second fundamental question is, 'Why does what actually exists exist instead of something else?' Why is our

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist.

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

Liz, That is the explanation Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

So you're assuming that nothing must mean non-existence? Why? In any case, Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist is really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from it. While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume them

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

You won't get a sensible answer. Edgar is just playing with words. He might as well have said We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here. On 15 January 2014 18:20, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote: So you're assuming that nothing must mean non-existence?