My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', 
answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather 
than nothing exist?'

The second fundamental question is, 'Why does what actually exists exist 
instead of something else?' Why is our universe as it is instead of being 
fundamentally different?

Our universe is as it is because of what I call 'the Extended Fine Tuning'. 
This includes the standard fine tuning of physics plus everything else that 
is necessary to our universe that cannot be derived from something else. 
The Extended Fine Tuning is what makes our universe what it actually is.

The extensions to the standard fine tuning (of which there isn't yet any 
consensus in physics but which basically consists of the irreducible 
constants of nature) necessary to explain our universe include things such 
as the basic laws of logic, the notion of an actual present reality that 
supports computationally evolving information, and whatever else is 
irreducibly necessary to explain our universe.

So the 2nd fundamental question reduces to 'why is our extended fine tuning 
the fine tuning that actually exists?'

There is actually a rather simple answer to this but to understand it one 
must be able to escape the constraints of our English syntactical 
structures, not an easy task for most....

The logic of our linguistic syntax evolved to describe what I call 'The 
Logic of Things', that is the basic logical constructs that seem to govern 
our apparent daily interactions with our apparent material environments. 
And our language does this quite well and quite flexibly. However 
the syntactical constructs of this logic of things simply do not apply when 
we try to extend them to the universe as a whole. When this is understood 
we can proceed with our argument.

Now there is only one actual present state of the universe. It is absolute 
in the sense that whatever it is it is exactly as it is and there is no 
other actual possibility for what it could be because the actual fact of 
its existence conclusively falsifies all other possibilities.

Once this is understood we must conclude that the actual current state of 
the universe also conclusively falsifies all other PASTS than the actual 
past which it evolved out of all the way back to the big bang and fine 
tuning which also could not have been any different than they actually were.

We can always IMAGINE other possible fine tunings, but given the actual 
current state of the universe these other theoretical possibilities were 
not really possible at all!

This seems to contradict the logic of syntax in which we can reasonably 
speak of alternate possibilities for daily events. It is reasonable to do 
so because in the case of daily life we can actually reconstruct different 
initial conditions for event networks, So the effects of some event can be 
reasonably considered to have been different if the initial conditions are 
changed because we can construct and experience an actual scenario in which 
they are. Thus for daily events we can reasonably speak of alternate 
initial states.

However even here we must be extremely careful in our understanding and 
application of syntactical logic. Because we can never change an actual 
event sequence that has actually occurred. What we are doing is always 
constructing a new one and comparing that to the original rather than 
actually changing the original which is now unalterable and thus could not 
have been other than it actually was.

Now when we try to apply the logic of things to the original fine tuning we 
see there can be no possibility whatsoever of actually changing it, and we 
see that given the current state of the universe in the present moment the 
original fine tuning is unalterable, and thus it could not have been any 
different than it actually was even in the most minute detail. In fact that 
is also true of the entire past which given the current actual present is 
unalterable and could not have been different in the finest detail. In this 
sense the actual present completely determines the past that completely 
determined it in every minute detail down to every quantum event.

Thus the entire logical computational structure of past and present is 
completely determined and unalterable in every minute detail. Not a single 
iota of it could have been different that it actually was to evolve into 
the actual present that actually and absolutely exists right now. (Of 
course the future, and only the future is still subject to the constrained 
randomness of quantum events because it has never existed and thus is not 

Thus the actual existence of the present as it actually is conclusively 
falsifies all other possible pasts back to and including the original 
extended fine tuning. There is no way we can go back and change the initial 
conditions, therefore the standard logic of things as embodied in 
syntactical logic simply does not apply to the fine tuning in the same 
sense it applies to daily life in which we can change initial conditions to 
get different results. 

So when this is understood it effectively precludes all other extended fine 
tunings than the actual one. Thus is becomes meaningless to even consider 
the possibility of any other one. Thus the supposed rationale for all sorts 
of other alternate universes (multiverses and bubble universe) with 
different initial fine tunings that some misguided cosmologists thought 
they had to assume goes out the window. They simply didn't understand the 
limits and non-applicablity of standard syntactical logic to the initial 
conditions of the universe.

This is the answer I propose to the 2nd fundamental question of why what 
does exist is what exists. The answer is that given the actual current 
state of the universe there simply is no other possibility. Only what 
actually exists can exist, and the original Extended Fine Tuning is the 
only one that actually could have existed.

There is also a second compatible answer to this question which I posed in 
my book as "The Consistency Conjecture" which perhaps is better called "The 
Extended Fine Tuning Conjecture".

This states that the extended fine tuning of our universe is the only fine 
tuning that results in a logically consistent and logically complete 
computational universe. Note that part of the Extended Fine Tuning is in 
fact the basic rules of logic but it is not clear how the constants of 
nature fit in to the conjecture. It's something that needs to be explored 

Only a computational universe that is logically self-consistent and 
logically complete can exist since otherwise it would tear itself apart at 
the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and thus could not 
exist. Thus the 'Extended Fine Tuning Conjecture' also proposes an answer 
for why our fine tuning was the one that actually existed, because it was 
the only one that could exist to result in a logically consistent and 
logical complete universe.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to