If existence is based on relatedness, then it is a matter of degree.  The degree of existence, however, is not something that can be directly observed.  The Washington Monument exerts no more gravitation than its equivalent mass at the center of the earth.  A rock on the surface of Mars is apparently just as solid as the one in your back yard. 

Obviously the world would not work if solidity were a function or relatedness.  Among other things, the earth would collapse, which could be most embarrassing.  Physics works because it is so totally insinuated into our lives.  And it is so insinuated just because it does its work.  Is this circular?  You bet'chya'.  Creation is definitely a very participatory, bootstrap process.  

As long as astronomers are able to keep pushing the telescopic limits, they will not run into any cosmic or logical brick walls.  The sky will not literally fall on their heads.  However, they will gradually come to appreciate that the starry heavens function as a logically necessary backdrop to our earthly pageant.  A backdrop whose artistic potential is being increasingly realized!  Is this being anthropocentric?  Of course!  More accurately it is being philocentric, if I may drop another bon mot

Existence implies relatedness.  Relatedness implies coherence, or comprehensibility.  These invoke the operation of a principle of sufficient reason.  In like manner, the PSR implies the BPW hypothesis as Gottfried was able to deduce several centuries ago.  Trust me, Leibniz was no dummy.  If he were alive today, I would be standing on line to polish his shoes.  Thanks to the Darwinian Distraction, we can put away the polish, but not the bohunks, please.  


<--  Prev.      Next  -->