1. What is the answer Kolak proposes to the “Biggest Question” on behalf of Quantum Theory, explain? Is it sufficient or, the best we can do epistemologically, why or why not? In pursuit of this answer he realizes something by the end of his piece about the most fundamental philosophical questions that inspires him, their non-contingent quality, a point that Nozick’s “Fiction” helps to demonstrate…what does it mean, how does Nozick show this, and why might Russell concur?
2. How does Berkeley’s idealism and Hume’s empiricism/skepticism relate to, or differ from, Kolak’s explanation of the universe via the anthropic principle, and why? What about the Buddha’s take—what would he have to say based on both his own metaphysic, as well as his attitude towards metaphysics (Parable of the Arrow), explain?
3. Considering Kolak alongside our other metaphysical readings/discussions, what is your concept of reality, objective or otherwise? On what premises/evidence/reasons/logic do you justify your conception epistemologically? How well does your version hold up to Descartes’ methodological doubt, and how might you reconcile any difficulties?
4. Kolak has presented us with the biggest question (according to him), why does he think this is so? What might Descartes say is the biggest question, and why? How about Nagel, and what about the Buddha, explain? Which of these is the biggest, or do you think there’s a bigger, more important question for humanity to ask, and why?
