Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

buybuydandavis comments on The map of ideas how the Universe appeared from nothing - Less Wrong

7 Post author: turchin 02 September 2016 04:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (45)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 04 September 2016 08:03:25PM 4 points [-]

“Why does anything exist at all?”

I lose no sleep over this. I think people who do are just confused by language.

I'd say that if you examine your concept of "why", you find it presupposes existence.

Comment author: Jude_B 19 September 2016 03:20:01PM *  0 points [-]

So when you ask, "Why did Sherlock Holmes tell Watson that...?"

You assume that Holmes exists?

Also, when you ask why some complicated theorem in number theory is true, you are basically asking for a proof from first principles (say Peano Arithmetic), you don't need to assume that numbers exist (which would make you a Platonist).

Comment author: entirelyuseless 06 September 2016 02:20:57AM 0 points [-]

I said as much in one of my replies to turchin. But that doesn't mean that the question has no answer.

Comment author: turchin 05 September 2016 12:09:51PM 0 points [-]

But some people do like Tim Urban http://waitbutwhy.com/table/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing

I think that it is overkilling argument, as it may be applied to almost any question. Why Sun looks like a circle? Why we value human existence?

This "why" expresses some kind of lacking knowledge or confusion, but not exactly appropriate wording to really describe what is going on.

So our inability to find adequate wording for something as already incorporated into "why".

Comment author: torekp 05 September 2016 11:52:36AM 0 points [-]

This. And if one is willing to entertain Tegmark, approximately 100% of universes will be non-empty, so the epistemic question "why a non-empty universe?" gets no more bite than the ontological one.