From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Fri Feb 12 1999 - 06:36:44 MST
J. R. Molloy wrote:
> Jonathan Reeves wrote,
> >This is a sophist argument. If nothing existed we wouldnt be here to
> >argue about it..
> >That kind of question can only be answered in a religious or
> >philosophical way..
>
> I tried to point this out earlier on this list, writing:
> "Because if nothing
> existed, no one could ask the question."
I think you both misunderstand the question. We aren't talking about some
philosophical argument about the ultimate meaning of life. When a physicist
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?"
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 quest
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.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:02 MST