Rex, or Brent? (I am mixed up between th (>->>)s and the unmarked text. No signature. I rather paste my cpmment to the end of this posting, since it pertains to the last par.-s. John M
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > Rex Allen wrote: > >> What is your alternative to the "everything" universal acid? That > >> things just are the way they are (uniquely), and there's ultimately no > >> explanation for that. Right? > >> > > > > Exactly so. "It's just happened that way" and "Everything happens and > > so this happens too." are both equally useless. Progress is only made > > when we can explain why this rather than that. > > So, we have our observations, and we want to explain them, so we need > some context to place them in. So we postulate the existence of an > external universe. But then we want to explain what we see in this > external universe, and the only option is to postulate the existence > of a multiverse. > > Nothing can be explained in terms of only itself. To explain it, you > have to place it in the context of something larger. Otherwise, no > explanation is possible, you just have to say, "this is the way it is > because that's the way it is." > > Right? > > Basically there's only two way the process can end. Two possible > answers to the question of "Why is the universe this way instead of > some other way?": > > 1) Because things just are the way they are, and there's no further > explanation possible. > 2) Because EVERYTHING happens, and so this was inevitable in that > larger context of "everything". > > What other option is there, do you think? > > > >> So we can take our observations of the world around us and construct a > >> narrative that is consistent with what we see...a narrative that > >> involves big bangs and electrons. But what caused the big bang? Why > >> do electrons have the particular properties that they have? If you > >> propose a particular cause for these things, what caused that cause? > >> > >> How is that better than a narrative that allows for "everything"? > >> They would seem to have equal explanatory power. Which is to say: > >> zero. > > We have much evidence about the big bang and some theories as to how it > > may have happened which are testable. > > So the existence of a big bang event certainly seems consistent with > our observations. But so does the idea of a Boltzmann style > statistical fluctuation from thermal equilibrium. Or the idea that > this is just the dream of the infinitude of relations between numbers. > > We construct narratives that are consistent with our observations, but > these narratives are about our observations, not about what really > exists. You seem to have jumped to some unfounded ontological > conclusions. > > You can talk about big bangs if that helps you think about your > observations, helps you identify patterns in what you experience. > But, that's as far as it can reasonably go, right? > > At the end of the day, we're always right back at where we > started...with our observations...with our subjective conscious > experience. > > > JM: > I went one little step further and talked about a 'reversed' logic: Conventional science (as it developed over the millennia) constructed the 'axioms' as the conditions necessary to make the theoreticals VALID. I did not condone the idea of the Big Bang according to the conventionals (including the several variants available) and wrote (my) narrative in a different view (no conventionals). (For those who have a taste for oddities: Karl Jaspers Forum - TA 62 (MIK) of 2003. ) Once we enter the conventional figments of (reductionistic) sciences (ontology) we can only devise variants WITHIN. All, where the formulated 'axioms' help. And that pertains also to 2 + 2 = 4, where it may be 22 as well. Or: in Bruno's longer version: (2,(0),) + (2, (0),) = 2020 as well. Bruno, please excuse if I goofed your formula). Just in another way of axioms-formulation, while as II + II is always IIII . Axiom or not. JM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
