> [Ian] > because "why is there something rather than nothing ?" is still the > first-cause question. > > [Arlo] > Not every question has an answer. Apart from that, "why" presumes a > "reason". It very well may be that there is no "why" at all. And even > if we suppose there is, its something we can never know, either way.
Depends on what you mean by "know." I know that the MOQ answer to the question makes sense . . . because a universe is better than no universe. > [Ian] > There is this intangible / ineffable hole where physics meets > metaphysics, even a quality metaphysics. > > [Arlo] > A "hole" that is impossible to fill. A central "mu" of which all > "physics" or "metaphysics" or "art" or anything else can offer is an analogy. "Betterness," the fundamental premise of the MOQ, fills the "hole" nicely and is directly felt without any conceptual intermediary such as analogy. Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
