"Phil Roberts, Jr."  wrote in message
news:cj4nbf$1svc$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> Anthony Cerrato wrote:
>
> > "Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
> > news:civ2db$2sf$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> >
> >>Tony,
> >>
> >>in article cis9gj$29h0$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Anthony
> >
> > Cerrato at
> >
> >>tcerrato{at}optonline.net wrote on 9/22/04 9:33 AM:
> >>
> >>
> >>>It isn't the job of scientists to ask "why?"--they only
> >
> > ask
> >
> >>>how. It is up to philosophers and ethicists to probe
the
> >>>"why" questions if they wish. You must realize that
> >
> > "why" is
> >
> >>>a man-made concept
> >>>-- the universe has no concern for this concept.
> >>
> >>You might be correct, but this viewpoint is inconsistent
> >
> > with the existence
> >
> >>of universal laws.
> >
> >
> > I assume you mean that universal laws demand a reason
for
> > their existence? Why (NPI) should they? Anyway, this is
> > still more of a "how?" question on a deeper level. We
don't
> > really even have proper answers to the big "how?"
> > questions--how were the values for the physical
constants of
> > the universe specified...how did the Big Bang "creation
> > event" occur, etc.? Ultimately such questions cannot be
> > answered--they lie _"outside"_ the universe
> > and are undeterminable from within.
> >
> >
>
> In a response to another post I have offered an analysis
> of 'ought' point to predictions of causal hypothesese and
> 'reasons' constitue ENTAILMENTS of causal hypothesese:

Phil,
I think ultimately. the only requirements for the universe
are the physical laws which obtain. The universe is
ultimately akin to an axiom or a tautology. As for human (or
animal) behavior, all that's needed is genes, evolution, and
game theory. Bye,           ...tonyC

>
> Cheers!
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> PR
>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/27/04 5:58:24 AM