James asked:

Philosophy, huh? Pah! You guys crack me up. Okay, I'll admit the need for the contemplation of the
various ideas as detailed by this site...and human conciousness in general. But come now, Kollidge
Kids. The "basic facts" of existence are:

1. There was "nothing".

2. "Bang".

3. There was everything.

Ain't there something wrong here? We all understand that "everything" is created...from other
"things". Everything. No exceptions. Except.... Everything.

Seems to me, the entire human population should huddle together one week out of the year and
contemplate the utter nonsense of the fact of "our" existence. Why we don't walk around muttering
"We came from nothing. We came from nothing. We came from nothing." is a mystery in itself.

So the philosophs and others never seem to take up that question. Even the essays which I've read
here ignore that question. (Although, it's true that I ain't read `em all yet. :} ) Because if you accept
that premise (and by golly, either you accept it or you go "mad"), than any other concept of existence
of possible also. Anything. Mind Reading. Teleportation. Living rocks. Stars as sentient beings.
Humans as microorganisms in a vastly greater "reality". Unending universes. And so on.

It is humorous though. The only way human conciousness can exist is by ignoring the true reality of
our existence. Or at best, simply remaining in awe of the whole shebang. Never forgetting to awe is
the most important thing to remember.

As far as I can tell, the only way to deal with it is to not think about it. You got any better ideas?

============

What cracks me up is that you don't notice an equally big problem staring you in the face every time
you look at the bathroom mirror in the morning.

Let's play a game of suppose. Suppose there were an explanation of why there is something rather
than nothing. That wouldn't be very interesting or helpful, if under the description of 'something' came
any possibility under the sun, including a universe consisting entirely of empty space. There still
remains the urgent question, Why is there thisuniverse, rather than some other possible universe?
Why are things this way, rather than one of the myriad other possible ways things might have been?

But now suppose — if you are still with me — that we had an answer to thatquestion. The
philosopher Leibniz thought he had, in his conception of God as the one unique being that contains
the reason for its own existence, who necessarily chose to create the 'best of all possible worlds'. —
Huh!

As I was saying, we've got something when there might have been nothing. We have got this world,
when there might have been some other world. Now, you are looking in that bathroom mirror, and you
think, 'Hang on a second, why is there thisface in the mirror? Why am I me? Why isthere such an
individual as I?'

Leibniz's theory implies there had to be aJames S. Gagliardi matching your precise physical and
mental description, because that is what was required to make this the best of all possible worlds. But
where does Icome into the picture?

I think that this is a question that deserves to be pondered at least once a day, not one week every
year. Not for very long, though. I suggest a couple of minutes, at the maximum. Then you can think
about how to fill the rest of your day. I suggest that an hour set aside for all the other fascinating
problems of philosophy would be very good and rewarding use of your God-given talents.

Geoffrey Klempner