Why do you think (my interpretation of my understanding of what you're saying) that rationality is not just a type of belief ? I see rationality as the belief that what we are experiencing could be understand/known by us, that somehow here and now could be explained in acceptable term.
In any cases, I just see absurdity for what is reality (don't know if it has to be rational), but in the "not everything" case, I see it as much more absurd. In the everything case, I'm because I must be by definition... And you are too for the same reason. In the other case you just get absurd justification for absurdity ;D Quentin Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 21:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > If we are leaving all rationality aside, then how can be talk about > relative absurdity and justification? > > Tom Caylor > > -----Original Message----- > From: Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:59:10 +0200 > Subject: Re: Let There Be Something > > Hi, > > yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any rationnality > in the > faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then the > reality > is more absurd... How a justification for only a small part of > possibilities > (and only this one) could be found ? > > Quentin > > Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 18:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > I guess I'll "break the symmetry" of relative silence on this list > > lately. > > > > I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get > > something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a > > selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it > > is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of > > nothing. And I see the belief that our universe appeared out of > > nothing as just that, a belief. In fact, I believe that. But I don't > > see how it makes one iota more rational, "scientific" sense to try to > > explain it with a Plenitude and the Anthropic Principle. It's like a > > probability argument that poses the existence of as much unobservable > > stuff out there as we need, along with the well-behaved unobservable > > probability distribution we need, in order to give us a fuzzy feeling > > in terms of probability as we know it in our comfortable immediate > > surroundings. Sounds like blind faith to me.
