Why anything? Why this?

[SeattleUte]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-this

[wuapinmon]

I love Parfit. I took a class on Borges and Skepticism at BYU from a gifted young professor and we delved deeply into these questions. Indeed, this question about why anything exists, and my inability to contemplate the Null Theory (as he calls it), was something that I have always wondered about since I was a wee lad. I'm fairly certain that these thoughts bounced around my brain when my age was measured in single digits. I cannot fathom nothingness. When I do, I picture a black nothingness, a void. But, even then, black is something. This question has also kept me in the "Weak Theist" category for many many years. I'd probably consider myself a true agnostic if it weren't for my desire to want to believe and my lack of answer about why anything?

Considering the progress of mankind, we are entering a time in which it's entirely possible that the future will see a true merger of flesh and technology. When the ability to download our consciousness into technology arises, we will become immortal...our downloads will pass the Turing Test with ease because they will be us. No one will ever truly die--non omnis moriar--and we might move forward to a moment of no physical limitations on our thought processes, a hive mind, as it were, and closer to the notion of omniscience of what can be known----singularity.

Singularity scares the living shit out of me. Given the infinite expanse of the universe, perhaps other worlds have come and gone because singularity leads to the destruction of a civilization that can no longer think for itself because we're all like-minded. One bit of malfeasance, and BOOM!

Anyway, great link. Gracias, SU.

[SeattleUte]

I love Parfit. I took a class on Borges and Skepticism at BYU from a gifted young professor and we delved deeply into these questions. Indeed, this question about why anything exists, and my inability to contemplate the Null Theory (as he calls it), was something that I have always wondered about since I was a wee lad. I'm fairly certain that these thoughts bounced around my brain when my age was measured in single digits. I cannot fathom nothingness. When I do, I picture a black nothingness, a void. But, even then, black is something. This question has also kept me in the "Weak Theist" category for many many years. I'd probably consider myself a true agnostic if it weren't for my desire to want to believe and my lack of answer about why anything?

Considering the progress of mankind, we are entering a time in which it's entirely possible that the future will see a true merger of flesh and technology. When the ability to download our consciousness into technology arises, we will become immortal...our downloads will pass the Turing Test with ease because they will be us. No one will ever truly die--non omnis moriar--and we might move forward to a moment of no physical limitations on our thought processes, a hive mind, as it were, and closer to the notion of omniscience of what can be known----singularity.

Singularity scares the living shit out of me. Given the infinite expanse of the universe, perhaps other worlds have come and gone because singularity leads to the destruction of a civilization that can no longer think for itself because we're all like-minded. One bit of malfeasance, and BOOM!

Anyway, great link. Gracias, SU.

Interesting. Thanks.

Here is the second part of Parft's essay. I hope you can access all of it.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n03/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-this

A fascinating fact: Nobody ever asked this question until the modern age, as Jim Holt explains in his recent book, "Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story". As Holt explains, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a titan of the Enlightenment, first posed the question in 1714.

[Joe Public]

From the article (regarding the Big Bang resulting in conditions that were suitable for life to occur):


On one view, this was a mere coincidence. That is conceivable, since coincidences happen. But this view is hard to believe, since, if it were true, the chance of this coincidence occurring would be below one in a billion billion.

Is there not a difference between believing something will occur based on a low probability of occurrence and accepting that something did occur in spite of a low probability of occurrence?

[SeattleUte]

From the article (regarding the Big Bang resulting in conditions that were suitable for life to occur):



Is there not a difference between believing something will occur based on a low probability of occurrence and accepting that something did occur in spite of a low probability of occurrence?

Neither is empirical or ratoinal. Are you proposing a spiritual witness that the Big Bang resulting in conditions that were suitable for life to occur was a mere coincidence?

[wuapinmon]

From the article (regarding the Big Bang resulting in conditions that were suitable for life to occur):



Is there not a difference between believing something will occur based on a low probability of occurrence and accepting that something did occur in spite of a low probability of occurrence?

I don't get your question. will seems to imply determinism, and in this case, doesn't that just lead to the same place?

[Joe Public]

Neither is empirical or ratoinal. Are you proposing a spiritual witness that the Big Bang resulting in conditions that were suitable for life to occur was a mere coincidence?

SU, I know with every fiber of my being that the results of the Big Bang are mere coincidence.

At first glance, I just don't agree with the steps he takes with the pi and Hebrew stars examples. Yes, the probability of a radio transmission of pi to ten thousand digits is "most unlikely," in his words. It is still possible, though. It definitely merits further scrutiny. But, much like internet message boards, almost-certain involvement of intelligence is not the same as certain.

To turn that around and say that accepting the highly improbable as possible requires one to ignore stars that form Hebrew script doesn't follow (IMO). Again, it merits further scrutiny. I just don't think the acceptance of the highly improbable as possible necessarily negates one's desire or interest in exploring these "special" occurrences further. I also remain open to the possibility, however remote it is, that stars could align in perfect Hebrew by random chance.

[SeattleUte]

SU, I know with every fiber of my being that the results of the Big Bang are mere coincidence.

At first glance, I just don't agree with the steps he takes with the pi and Hebrew stars examples. Yes, the probability of a radio transmission of pi to ten thousand digits is "most unlikely," in his words. It is still possible, though. It definitely merits further scrutiny. But, much like internet message boards, almost-certain involvement of intelligence is not the same as certain.

To turn that around and say that accepting the highly improbable as possible requires one to ignore stars that form Hebrew script doesn't follow (IMO). Again, it merits further scrutiny. I just don't think the acceptance of the highly improbable as possible necessarily negates one's desire or interest in exploring these "special" occurrences further. I also remain open to the possibility, however remote it is, that stars could align in perfect Hebrew by random chance.

I'm not sure he or I disagree with you. It could be coincidence, and on the other hand absence of coincidence does not necesssarily connote design. I don't think he says it does.