[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  
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.  


Brent wrote:
Why would you suppose there was once "nothing" from which
"something" came? Could you explain when and where there
was nothing? That there is something is certainly not a matter
of faith, it's straightforward observation. That there could
have been nothing sounds like completely unsupported speculation to
me.  

Brent Meeker  
"What is there? Everything! So what isn't there? Nothing!"  
 --- Norm Levitt, after Quine  
 
I'm not trying to rationally justify the belief of something coming out
of nothing. I'm saying that a selection principle "causing" something
to come out of the "zero-information" multiverse is equivalent to that
belief, or at least equally unjustifiable.

Tom Caylor


Reply via email to