> Hi Jonathan,
> You say that if "something and nothing are equivalent," then 
> "the big WHY question is rendered meaningless."
> 
> But isn't the big WHY question equivalent to asking "WHY does 
> the integer series -100 to +100 exist?"  Even though the sum 
> of the integer series is zero, that doesn't render the 
> question meaningless.

I don't think that's quite an equivalent question, because the answer is
simply "because it is necessarily true". I think that's a different
observation (and question) than Pearce's "free lunch" (or observation that
the sum of everything is equivalent to nothing).

Jonathan Colvin


> Norman
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:20 PM
> Subject: RE: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST
> 
> 
> 
> > Norman wrote: 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?
> 
> Pearce is a little tongue-in-cheek here, I think, but surely 
> Pearce does answer the *big* "why" question ("why is there 
> something rather than nothing?").  O is nothing, so if 
> everything adds up to zero, something and nothing are 
> equivalent, and the big "why" question is rendered meaningless.
> All other "why" questions (as in, "why this rather than 
> that?") are answered by the standard UE (ultimate ensemble), 
> which Pearce seems to assume.
> 
> Jonathan Colvin 
> 
> 

Reply via email to