[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

 [Micah]:
> We have evidence of A - the universe exists.
> We have absolutely no evidence of B - [nothingness] exists.

>From a conceptual viewpoint, you must first determine what it is that 
"exists".  Is it the universe or the "appearance" of a universe?  For 
example, I define existence as that which appears to occur in time and 
occupy space.
Since the "evidence" of a universe is experience, we may not know that a 
universe exists but only that experience exists.  But are we willing to say 
that experience exists?

> You would be right if the question were whether we had
> better evidence for
> a.1) the universe existing or
> b,1) nothingness existing.
> But the question is whether we have better evidence for
> a.2) the universe having ALWAYS existed or
> b.2) nothingness having ever existed.
> We have no better evidence for a.2) than for b.2).

[Nothingness existing] is self-contradictory by definition.  "Always" and 
"never" impute a time continuum to the universe, whereas time is the mode of 
experience.

 [dmb]:
> [Basically there are only 2 choices: a) the universe always existed
> or b) it came into existence from nothing] strikes me as a theological
> construction. I mean, why couldn't the universe come into existence
> from something rather than nothing?

It had to, of course.  Even the Big Bangers concede that it was the result 
of energy fluctuations, which ain't nothing.

> Why couldn't the universe come into existence from something other
> than the universe?  Now that's a "theological construction".

Indeed!  That's also a "metaphysical construction".  In fact, it happens to 
be the creation hypothesis I constructed for Essence.  But, then, if a 
theological construction is repugnant to you, I suppose a metaphysical 
hypothesis is equally repugnant.  At least it seemed to be for Robert 
Pirsig.

I still don't know what all this has to do with Chance.  Maybe we should
retitle this thread "Much ado about Nothing".

Thanks folks,
Ham