> 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).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <email@example.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
> > co-founder (with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist
> > 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