From: Nick Bostrom (bostrom@ndirect.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 12 1998 - 17:15:21 MST
> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:17:18 -0800 (PST)
> From: John K Clark <johnkc@well.com>
> The only halfway adequate way to explain it is if it could be shown that
> "nothing" was somehow self contradictory so there must be "something".
> Needless to say I have no idea how to do this. Even in this case however it
> assumes the existence of logical laws, such as the law forbidding
> contradictions. Being logically self consistent doesn't prove a thing's
> existence (or does it?), so why does being self inconsistent prove it doesn't
> exist?
Well, if we could derive the existence of the universe from the laws
of logic, then I think we could be reasonably satisfied. A logical
proof is surely good enough.
Philosopher Nozick mentions the following argument in one of his
books (Philosophical Explanations 1981): There are infinitely many
ways for there to be something, but only one way for there to be
nothing. Therefore, assuming each way is equally probable, the
probability that there is something equals 1.
________________________________________________
Nick Bostrom
n.bostrom@lse.ac.uk
*Visit my transhumanist web site*
http://www.hedweb.com/nickb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:26 MST