In my view the entire system we discuss is self referential. For example a line item on my list is the "features" of the list and thus the list itself. The list is a member of itself. There is no "outside" and thus I see no opportunity for, or a need for, a meaning or point.

Of course in order to allow it as an explanation one needs to postulate it and thus belief is required since proof it unobtainable [it being a postulate]. On the other hand is this postulate unreasonable? I do not at this time see why it would be.

Hal Ruhl

At 08:00 AM 10/30/2005, you wrote:

Norman Samish writes:

If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems.

I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only once, or a finite number of times?

--Stathis Papaioannou
That's a good question, forcing me to realize that I have an irrational "fuzzy feeling" that there "should" be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events "should" occur only once. Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of "God" which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. I suppose my early "first cause" training is at work. I think now that the premises of the First Cause argument are unproven.

Reply via email to