Billy Brown wrote,
>I think you both misunderstand the question. We aren't talking about some
>philosophical argument about the ultimate meaning of life. When a
>asks "Why does something exist?", what he means is "What process is
>responsible for the existance of observable reality?" In some ways this is
>equivalent to asking "Why do we have these particular laws of physics, and
>not some other set of laws?"
Okay, so the question becomes, "What process is responsible for the
existence of anything at all?"
Doesn't it? (The orginal question: "Why does anything exist at all?") But that presupposes a "process" can exist before "anything at all." Doesn't it?
>From a pancritical rationalist standpoint, this seems to indicate the
circular nature of existence, and to refute the idea of an open multiverse -- one that has a beginning.
>A lot of scientists have backed away from this kind of questioning, either
>because they think it is unanswerable or because it sounds too much like
>religion. However, it is merely the logical end result of the ongoing
>for a real theory of cosmology. If it seems meaningless now, that simply
>indicates that we don't yet know enough to properly address the issue.
The question has meaning. It just doesn't compute. Like the question, "What exists ten miles north of the North Pole?" doesn't compute, because you can't go ten miles north of the North Pole. Or, "What happened before the Big Bang?" doesn't compute because according to that theory, time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so you can't go back in time before then.
As already stated, the question "Why does anything exist at all?" doesn't compute because the word "why" implies reason, intent, and so forth. If you change it from a "why" question to a "what" question ("What process is responsible for the existance of observable reality?") you've changed the question entirely, and made it an altogether different query. Which doesn't bother me... let's go with it.
First, it seems to me that innumerable processes have resulted in observable reality, not just one process. So, what "process" started it all? Sounds like a very special process indeed. How did such a "process" come to exist? Has it always existed? Should we call it a "force" as some have done? Does that "force" drive us to discover it before the universe dies entropically?
Speaking of entropy, have you heard? Clinton will remain in office.