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


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.

Reply via email to