The something from nothing "problem" has been addressed by numerous authors
with some plausible sounding arguments. To site one recent summary, with
On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2011 8:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>>> On 04.09.2011 07:51 meekerdb said the following:
>>> If that's what you're trying you're giving aid and comfort to the
>>> enemy. Every religious fundamentalist in America hates materialism
>>> and believes in an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes,
>>> which is responsible for our thoughts and actions.
>>> You know, I was raised in the USSR where the official religion was atheism
>>> and materialism. The results were disastrous.
>>> Hence you could take the existence of people in the USA who "believe in an
>>> immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes" positively. After all,
>>> they are working hard and contribute to prosperity.
>>> In any case, I do not think that the ideology should affect reasoning.
>>> The kind of atheism and materialism which stood as the official religion of
>>> the Soviet Union, and that held by most atheists today is naive. The
>>> leading scientific explanations for conscious are mechanistic, but taken to
>>> its logical end mechanism leads to remarkable conclusions: consciousness is
>>> not attached to the body, it survives death of the body, it continues
>>> forever, it may be reincarnated into different forms, it may switch between
>>> realms. In this respect, science leads directly to something very much
>>> like a soul.
>> Only by taking partial theories and over extending them.
>> If you accept the first few steps of the UDA regarding duplication /
>> survivability with clones (digital mechanism), and you accept any of the
>> following: 1. the universe is infinitely big, 2. many worlds interpretation,
>> 3. string theory landscape, 4. ultimate ensemble or 5. mathematical realism,
>> then it can be clearly demonstrated. I think the only reason you call it
>> "over extended" is that you are uncomfortable with the conclusion.
> If by "accept" you mean "believe", I don't accept 2, 3,4, and 5. I consider
> 1 to be an inference from some theories, but I don't necessarily accept those
> theories. When you make a long chain of inferences and arrive at a
> conclusion contrary to experience that is called a reductio ad absurdum.
> Then it is time to review your bets.
>>> Similarly, the materialist effort to explain the existence of this universe
>>> without invoking God ends up pointing to the existence of something that
>>> has no cause, exists timelessly, contains infinite variation (perhaps
>>> everything possible), may be identical to the sum of all truth, is
>>> everywhere and everything. While not every scientist or person on this
>>> list agrees with this, it is the conclusion of any rational effort to
>>> explain the fine tuning of this universe.
>> I don't think any scientists agrees with all of that.
>> 1. Something exists without a cause (Any Platonist believes this. Also, it
>> is inconsistent to believe that nothing exists without cause, unless you
>> believe something can come from nothing)
> Most current theories of cosmogony say something like that.
>> 2. Exists timelessly (Again, every platonist accepts mathematical truth
>> exists timelessly)
> That is a peculiarly mathematical meaning of "exists".
>> 3. Contains infinite variation, perhaps everything possible (Mathematical
>> truth is infinite in scope, and math contains all possible structures, again
>> according to the platonist philosophy of mathematics (which is the most
> Which cardinality of infinite? All of them?
>> 4. Is everywhere and everything (This follows from digital mechanism and
>> platonism. Most today are unaware of this of course, but I think if all the
>> choices were well defined and described most rational people would identify
>> with platonism and finite mechanism.)
> "Something exists everywhere and everything"? I don't understand what is
> being asserted. Is it a mere tautology?
>> For no scientist to agree with all of the above means means you think no
>> scientist is both platonist and mechanist and consistent in his or her
>> It is just armchair philosophizing based on hypotheses like "everything
>> exists". It is certainly not the *only* possible explaination of the
>> alleged fine tuning of some physical parameters.
>> I indicated that not everyone accepts the universe is fine tuned. Again I
>> think you are uncomfortable with the premise of fine tuning because of where
>> it inevitably leads.
> First, I'm not sure the concept is well defined. It is relative to some
> theory of possible ranges of parameters that make life possible. That's two
> "possibles" we don't know how to define. Second, if a parameter has a
> life-friendly range of 50 to 100 is that "fine-tuned"? Are we to compare it
> to a possible range of 0 to infinity? or -inf to +inf? Once you start
> saying that everything happens infinitely many times you lose the ability to
> say this is more probable than that and also the ability to say this is
> improbable, i.e. fine-tuned.
>>> Beware of those materialists who say all we can see is all that there is.
>> Beware of those who say they can see what you can't be shown.
>> There is an inconsistency in seeing what cannot be seen.
> But there are those who claim a special ability to see what you can't.
>> There is no inconsistency in there existing something which cannot be seen.
>> This list is founded to discuss the idea that the theory that everything
>> exists can explain more, while assuming less, and remain consistent with
>> observations. If you reject this, then how large a concept of reality do
>> you think is scientifically justified? The Hubble Volume? The Block Time
>> Hubble Volume? The minimum 10^23 - 10^26 * the hubble volume implied by
>> inflationary theories? Infinitely large volume of spacet-time? Any of the
>> previous with CI or with MWI?
> Science isn't about justifying theories. It's about creating models that
> have predictive and explanatory power. To ask what concept is scientifically
> justified is to misconceive the enterprise. Some theories are better
> supported by evidence than others. Some are contradicted by evidence.
> That's all.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at