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
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.
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?
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.