Quote Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)
I think the word for this is, if Herr Smitler will pardon me, hutzpah! ummm .... whaddya mean "necessarily" ? There are a few possibilities:

If you mean "is it necessarily so that the universe exists?" Then this is a debate about perception - is what you see real? Then who the fuck is asking these questions. Am I just a brain in a vat being fed a videotape and why couldnt I have gotten better writers? Does the self exist or is that just another perception. Thats not what we are after.

So if we suppose that our current universe arose from something else - that our universe has a finite age it is logical to speculate whether it had to be this way. And modern cosmology is that the universe did indeed arise from something else and that the particular nature of our universe including at least some of the physics were the result of random fluctuations in first instants of the its existence.

But wait up - theres at least one more logical possibility that the universe has always existed. Oh! Then there is the possibility that the universe was born in the cataclysmic death of a previous universe - and that could be part of a chain that has no beginning. Like turtles holding up turtles holding up turtles. It need not be homogenous. Perhaps God created the universe and he was created by the occupants of a previous universe who were just trying to get even with the God that had created them. Or perhaps their universe had always existed or perhaps it was made by a turtle! I could go on but I think its clear there are, at least logically, an infinite variety of such possibilities.

There is a more abstract interpretation of the universe in that statement: what is the essential nature of its physical existence. What really is matter, energy, time? After strings whats next? Well if we arrive at some understanding that cant be further reduced then I agree, this is a meta theory, its a theory that explains science and therefore it is NOT science. But why does it have to be that way? Perhaps we will keep peeling away onion layers for ever and weeping all the way. Perhaps its mixed! Some facts are irreducible and some are not!

Sorry for the long stoned ramble but in short there are a lot of possibilities to eliminate and #7 ignores them - a "bifurcation fallacy"

Quote Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
Therefore.....
Never got there


uhhh ... I just realized I've had my pants on backwards all day .... dont pay any attention to this crap!:stoned: