[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'll "break the symmetry" of relative silence on this list
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
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
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
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.
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
"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.