FW: Why Does Anything Exist?

[Philip Benjamin]

general_the...@googlegroups.com  
Subject: [Consciousness-Online] RE: Why Does Anything Exist?

[Philip Benjamin]
   Laws are NOT constructs of the human mind. The 'expressions of the Laws' 
are indeed human constructs.  F=GmM/r^2 = ma is only a human expression of Laws 
governing an unknown force called gravity. 'Unknown' here means unknown to 
human consciousness that DID NOT and COULD NOT have CREATED 'gravity'. From F = 
GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational 
constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the Earth, and m is 
the mass of another object (near the surface of the Earth),  GM/r2= a (The m's 
canceled out.) which allows solving for M, the mass of the Earth. M = ar^2/G, 
where a = 9.8m/sec^2, r = 6.4 x 10^6 m, and G = 6.67 x 10^-11m3/(kg sec^2).  M 
= 9.8 x (6.4 x 10^6)^2/(6.67 x 10^-11) = 6.0 x 10^24kg. This mass, radius, 
gravity and their relationships etc. are not created by human minds!! Greek 
Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth comparing shadows in wells 
during the summer solstice about 230 B.C.
  No human mind howsoever brilliant can escape facing the necessity of 
aseity of something or other. Only a degree of rationality can be settled here. 
What is MORE rational: Eternal dead-matter producing life (consciousness) or E 
ternal LIFE producing both dead-matter and life (consciousness)?
Philip Benjamin

everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Jason Resch verything List 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist? On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:24 AM Bruno 
Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence.
On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell 
mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:
[Brent Meeker]
"https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation"
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. "Ex nihilo, 
nihil fit" (Parmenides).

OK. Key point.Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a 
conscious Law Giver.

But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about 
machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including 
oneself. Introspective machine/number can't miss it.

What is it that makes the truths concerning consciousness unprovable?

Is it unprovable only by that machine where another entity using another more 
powerful system could prove it?

Is it a consequence of self reference?

Is it related to trying to prove statements of a form "Machine X cannot prove 
P"?

If I run a simulation of some entity on my computer, could I not prove 
statements about the knowledge/information states contained by it's mind?

What exactly are the limits of what can be proved? Is it just about qualia?

Jason

The logical question is: "what is more reasonable?" DEAD MATTER producing life 
or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms?  Only a degree of 
rationality can be established here.
Both in the arithmetical reality, and in the physical reality, life is a simple 
consequence of the so called second recursion theorem by Kleene. It is the fact 
that piece of codes can encode all it needs to protect itself, to reproduce 
itself, to grow, develop, organise and evolved...

Now, the physical reality is not a primitive primary reality, but an illusion 
common to all relative numbers, in almost all of their consistent histories.

The laws are constructs of the human mind.  [Lawrence]

The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I guess you 
are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true before human life appears 
on this planet and after. OK?
There may be patterns in nature, and we inductively infer them as laws.

... OK, and we can sometimes deduce some laws from other, and verify with 
Nature. Then there are some mathematical laws, that we find by introspection 
and dialog with others.
This is neutral with respect to the question of the origin of the physical 
reality. With Mechanism, the physical reality does not need to be assumed, and 
in fact cannot be assumed if we want get both the quanta and the qualia, as 
this requires a much simpler theory, like any Turing universal system/theory.
The idea there must be a mind for anything to exist is silly.

Yes. It is like abandoning to try to explain mind (and matter). It is better to 
not assume neither mind nor matter as fundamental. But we have to 

Fw: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST

[Norman Samish]

Hi Jonathan,

You say that Because it is necessarily true is the answer to Why does the 
integer series -100 to +100 exist?  However, you seem to say that this is 
NOT the answer to Why does anything exist?  In this latter case, you seem 
to say the question is meaningless because the sum of everything is 
equivalent to nothing.

I'm afraid I don't understand why this makes it meaningless.  To me, an 
example of a meaningless question is one which cannot possibly have an 
answer, such as standing on the North pole and asking Which way is North?

I agree that comparing anything to an integer series that sums to zero is 
not quite the same, since anything covers so much more than an integer 
series.  However, it seems to me that the same answer ought to apply to both 
cases.

Can you prove that there is no possible answer to WDAE?  Such a proof would, 
indeed, make the question meaningless.

Thanks for your assistance.

Norman
~~
- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:39 AM
Subject: RE: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST



 Hi Jonathan,
 You say that if something and nothing are equivalent, then
 the big WHY question is rendered meaningless.

 But isn't the big WHY question equivalent to asking WHY does
 the integer series -100 to +100 exist?  Even though the sum
 of the integer series is zero, that doesn't render the
 question meaningless.

I don't think that's quite an equivalent question, because the answer is
simply because it is necessarily true. I think that's a different
observation (and question) than Pearce's free lunch (or observation that
the sum of everything is equivalent to nothing).

Jonathan Colvin


 Norman
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@eskimo.com
 Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:20 PM
 Subject: RE: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST



  Norman wrote: Thanks for your identification of David
 Pearce - I see
  he
 was
  co-founder (with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist
 Association.
  I have a lot of respect for Bostrom's views.
 
  However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about  WHY DOES ANYTHING
 EXIST that
  I'm interested in.  This viewpoint is expressed at
  http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm  His conclusion
 seems to
  be that everything in the multiverse adds up to zero, so
 there are no
  loose ends that need explaining.
  Even if true, this doesn't answer the WHY question, however.
 
  If you or others have opinions on WHY, I'd like to hear them.
   I wonder if your opinion will be that no opinion is possible?

 Pearce is a little tongue-in-cheek here, I think, but surely
 Pearce does answer the *big* why question (why is there
 something rather than nothing?).  O is nothing, so if
 everything adds up to zero, something and nothing are
 equivalent, and the big why question is rendered meaningless.
 All other why questions (as in, why this rather than
 that?) are answered by the standard UE (ultimate ensemble),
 which Pearce seems to assume.

 Jonathan Colvin