:
|
Where did "holding together the universe" come in? If something "exists", whatever existence may be, let's suppose for argument's sake that "existence" means capable of being perceived consciously through the senses, by any means, doesn't have to mean it automatically holds together the universe. As far as I could tell the discussion was about iwhether anything supernatural, so to speak, could take place, only that. But the statement itself involves too many ambiguous terms. Before it can make any sense whatsoever, we have to define "matter", define "universe", define "existence", define "force"...Have fun :P
|
If only matter exists then matter holds the universe together, the logical positivist stand (Of which I am most certainly not).
If something outside of the realms of matter exists then it at least suggests that matter is not the be all and end all. There is something existing outside the physical: The metaphysical.
Just as matter is governed by the laws of physics, things outside of matter must be governed by the laws of metaphysics.
Except for the huge gaping problem at the start (BOOM), the laws of physics are self-sustaining, you don't need to invoke any cosmic force to explain them. They just are.
What of the Metaphysical?
What laws govern ghosts?
Doesn't the existence of ghosts presuppose Cartesian Dualism?
What the hell did all this come from and where is it going?
:
|
My point is that it ultimately is quite irrational to make assumptions about anything external from the self, especially about such sweeping, definition-less terms like Matter or Universe.
|
Most definitely, I take a Wittgensteinian stance on these sorts of matters now; that it is through the use of things in their contexts and not through the origin and 'hidden' meaning of things that we find their purpose.