First, accepting that an agent can exist without parts, and also accept that is simple and thus more likely to be true than something complex (having two or more parts), is quite a big acceptance. And is a being who holds every true fact and every counter-factual statement in their mind/memory really not composed of parts/is simple?
But even if we take that as possible, then why could not apply the same simplicity to some underlying physicalist Grand Law of Everything out of which then unfolds the multiverse?
Could we also then not ask which seems less intuitively absurd to be a brute fact: an omni being or a physicalist universe composed of one thing?
I still can't see a difference in absurdity. Absurdity just says something is unreasonable/ without explanation. No matter how many brute facts existed wouldn't they all amount to the same thing: zero explanation? I don't see how absurdity is additive?
But even if we take that as possible, then why could not apply the same simplicity to some underlying physicalist Grand Law of Everything out of which then unfolds the multiverse?
Could we also then not ask which seems less intuitively absurd to be a brute fact: an omni being or a physicalist universe composed of one thing?
I still can't see a difference in absurdity. Absurdity just says something is unreasonable/ without explanation. No matter how many brute facts existed wouldn't they all amount to the same thing: zero explanation? I don't see how absurdity is additive?
