What I meant was, if there’s neither anything forbidden about there simply being… nothing, and there being something, what leads to the “something” winning out over the nothing?
ie, even given “everything not forbidden is compulsory”, there still seems to be stuff unexplained.
Erm… it’s harder for me to say this, because of the high-status thing where I’ve been turned into some kind of giant lumbering elephant who has to keep trying not to step on people, but nonetheless I beg you to stop, reflect, consider what you have just said, and realize that you don’t actually know anything about this problem.
I will say that at this point, I think we’re all talking past each other. That’s precisely why I dislike phrasing serious problems in the vague language of meaningless questions. Unfortunately, I seem to have gotten sucked into it anyway. Unless anyone is really interested in dissolving the issue, I’m probably not going to go any further with it here.
Update: I have started a discussion topic related to this issue. It’s based on a recent essay by Sean Carroll, who is certainly better versed in cosmology than I am.
The question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” is different from “What caused the Universe?”. The former question is not asking about causation in time.
The essay you cite is addressing “What caused the Universe?”, not the question we are concerned with.
The essay, in my opinion, dissolves that question as well. In any case, it’s a more relevant place to have the discussion than a tangent comment thread.
The essay, in my opinion, dissolves that question as well.
I don’t care about your opinion. The parts of the essay you quoted certainly do not dissolve the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”. If you think it does elsewhere, then quote that part.
In any case, it’s a more relevant place to have the discussion than a tangent comment thread.
Until your discussion post at least claims to address the question of “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”, I prefer the thread, however tangential, that provides the context of exploring that question.
What’s forbidden about there simply being… nothing? :)
No, the point is that there’s nothing forbidden about there being something.
What I meant was, if there’s neither anything forbidden about there simply being… nothing, and there being something, what leads to the “something” winning out over the nothing?
ie, even given “everything not forbidden is compulsory”, there still seems to be stuff unexplained.
Something by its nature wins out over nothing, if something is possible. Nothing is an absence, not just another thing.
Erm… it’s harder for me to say this, because of the high-status thing where I’ve been turned into some kind of giant lumbering elephant who has to keep trying not to step on people, but nonetheless I beg you to stop, reflect, consider what you have just said, and realize that you don’t actually know anything about this problem.
Yeah, that was not too helpful.
I will say that at this point, I think we’re all talking past each other. That’s precisely why I dislike phrasing serious problems in the vague language of meaningless questions. Unfortunately, I seem to have gotten sucked into it anyway. Unless anyone is really interested in dissolving the issue, I’m probably not going to go any further with it here.
Update: I have started a discussion topic related to this issue. It’s based on a recent essay by Sean Carroll, who is certainly better versed in cosmology than I am.
McAllister already explained:
The essay you cite is addressing “What caused the Universe?”, not the question we are concerned with.
The essay, in my opinion, dissolves that question as well. In any case, it’s a more relevant place to have the discussion than a tangent comment thread.
I don’t care about your opinion. The parts of the essay you quoted certainly do not dissolve the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”. If you think it does elsewhere, then quote that part.
Until your discussion post at least claims to address the question of “Why does something exist instead of nothing?”, I prefer the thread, however tangential, that provides the context of exploring that question.
I see the distinction you’re making. I have added a bullet point for the section of the essay which discusses “meta-explanatory accounts”
Is this a Tegmark IV thing where everything possible must exist?
What determines how much of each sort of everything exists?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/py/the_born_probabilities/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
Presumably it all exists in all mathematically possible amounts.
ETA: … whatever that means.