I was responding to this:Greta wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:30 pmSeeds, you keep insisting that things need a reason to exist. That view flies in the face of the reality we observe and experience.
Does a sharp boulder exist due to the physical and chemical forces of volcanoes or so that a bear may conveniently scratch its back?
And that is suggestive of a misplaced value judgment in which you seem to be conferring more value upon something because of its physical size (i.e., the material universe) as opposed to the value of the very thing that determines value in the first place (i.e., life, mind, and consciousness).Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:39 amYou wonder how universes without "stars, planets, and life" can qualify to be called a "universe''. No true Scotsman wears a chastity belt under his kilt. No true universe exists without stars, planets and life?
However, "stars, planets and life" make up approximate 5% of the universe...
We are all aware of the vastness of the number of planets and galaxies in the universe. And we are also aware of the often-cited reference to how life only appears to exist on just our tiny planet alone.
Therefore, from that particular perspective, life’s infinitesimal presence within the context of the abovementioned “5%” is barely worth considering. And when you factor in its presence with respect to the other 95% of the universe you were alluding to, then it (life) is practically non-existent.
And yet, even with all of that in mind, the question still remains that if we were somehow able to remove the very arbiter of value from reality...
(again, life, mind, and consciousness)
...then if the remaining 99.999999999999999999% of whatever it is that is left behind literally cannot see itself, or feel itself, or hear itself, or smell itself, or taste itself, then not only does that force one to wonder what reason or purpose it would have for existing,...
(especially if there is no possibility of life and consciousness ever emerging from its noumenal-like constituents)
...but it also raises the issue of what qualifies it for the title of “universe” and thus membership in an alleged “multiverse”?
Yet the proponents of a multiverse seem to believe that the multiverse is comprised of a near infinity of these phenomenonless creatures.
Now I know you disagree, but to me, those are simple and valid philosophical questions that cannot be waved-off by making a few anecdotal comments about volcanoes, boulders, and bears.
And finally, when it comes to how all of this “flies in the face of the reality we observe and experience,” see my reply to TimeSeeker in my prior post, here - (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=25337&start=135#p381211).