[extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causes thingy.

[steven mckenzie]

conversely or not, as Hawkins pointed out , a universe
that appears to be made for intelligence, made be due
to the fact that the universe allows intelligence to
evolve, if there are multiverses, many of them may not
be "friendly" to the origin of intelligence, and we
"lucked" out


--- A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>    
>   This is all just speculation on my part.
>    
>   I've been wondering lately if maybe our Universe
> is entirely deterministic after all. If everything
> is "caused", then something must have "caused" the
> universe to come into existence in the first place.
> A religious person might appeal to a timeless God. A
> scientist might appeal to a birth from the
> Multiverse. But even then, if everything is
> predetermined then something would still have to
> "cause" the existence of the Multiverse. Lately I've
> wondered if the nature of this "first cause" is
> defined by the nature of absolute Nothingness [I'm
> not referring to "empty" space, but rather the total
> absence of *all* things, including space]. I will
> argue that absolute Nothingness is inherently
> unstable, and in fact is profoundly volatile. In the
> case of Nothingness, there is no physics, no
> dimension, no logic, and *no rules*. There is
> nothing at all to prevent "Something" arising from
> "Nothing". So by extension, the birth of "something"
> is an inexorable result - our universe exists
>  because it was spawned from the Multiverse, and the
> Multiverse exists because it was "forced" into
> existence by the very nature of Nothingness. The
> reason that I insist that a Multiverse exists, is
> based on the observations that our Universe is
> approximately 15 Billion years old. If Nothingness
> behaves as I suggest, then the first "something"
> [the first Universe if you like] should be
> infinitely (or nearly infinitely) old.
>    
>   So, if one accepts this explanation for existence,
> then one doesn't have to abandon the notion that the
> Universe *is* entirely predetermined after all. It
> seems to me that the "infinite causal regression
> problem" can be explained. Of course, one might
> point out the experimental and theoretical
> "evidence" that some quantum events seem to suggest
> that some things truly are "un-caused". But, I would
> argue back that the seemingly random and "un-caused"
> quantum events are *at least* somewhat causally
> linked to the past; they would not exist if our
> Universe (or some Universe) had never existed to
> harbor them in the first place. Gotta go.
>    
>   Best Wishes,
>    
>   Jeffrey Herrlich
>    
>    
>     
> 
> 
> 
>  		
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make
> PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.>
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com