Why does the Universe exist?

Why does the Universe exist?

Quote:

Teleological Fallacy
A teleological argument is one in which the principal cause of something is its purpose or reason (from the Greek telos 'end' or 'purpose'). ...
But teleological arguments are rarely encountered today, being virtually confined to creationist or intelligent-design groups that deny evolutionary
theory .5

http://www.gsbe.co.uk/appendix-iv-fallacies.html#app iv: teleological

Quote:

Science without Purpose: Suppressing the Teleological Instinct
Max86's picture
Submitted by Max86 on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 8:51am Biology 202 Web Paper 1

There is a striking tendency among scientists to call attention to their humility. That is, they acknowledge their endeavor as fundamentally humble: the scope of their research is focused, their prose wholly transparent. Confronted with such statements, one might ask: Why is humility integral to science? The answer is that science recognizes the imperative of every Why? as the supreme human conceit, and much abashed, it is always paradoxically seeking to limit the very indulgence it imperatively hinges upon. In other words, science is embarrassed by the insolence of all imperatives, for it duly comprehends the artificiality of must and should in every observation of nature.

The scientist is embarrassed (not disdainful) because he recognizes the insolence of imperative queries as the inescapable human propensity for the teleological, which is the instinctual ascription of purpose to all things. He sees that every Why? betrays itself as a leading question, a collusion between an interrogative and the imperative modal of which that interrogative ought to be ignorant. These two grammatical agents seek to pass themselves off as components in the following operation:

(Why? + Insight = Must!) Law of Natural Imperatives

However, the scientist apprehends a different scheme:

(Why? + Must! = Why Must!? = Purpose) Teleological Fallacy

The scientist recognizes the desperation evinced in the violent convergence of punctuation -(!?)- seen above, and he is ashamed for his human complicity in it. Therefore, he still asks Why?, but only in so far as he must. The Why? of Science is therefore a continually suppressed impetus for the disciplined observations and humble claims the scientist makes. As in all human ventures, Why? drives science. However the scientific Why? operates not as a present component, but as an experienced absence; the scientist experiences Why? but will not attempt to manifest it.

It takes great fortitude to suppress the teleological tendency, and in their humility, scientists may forget the extent to which other humans indulge. After all, scientists are currently the world's great ascetics; they practice a conceptual-discipline of immense proportions. They are, figuratively speaking, the best adapted to solitude, for they are not making friends (or enemies) of nature. In other words, by resisting the ascription of purpose, they resist the concomitant attribution of agency to things incapable of it. Why? is the loneliest question.
...

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/3916

...
Particles from empty space
First we have to take a look at the realm of quantum mechanics. This is the branch of physics that deals with very small things: atoms and even tinier particles. It is an immensely successful theory, and it underpins most modern electronic gadgets.

Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as empty space. Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness.

These so-called virtual particles don't last long enough to be observed directly, but we know they exist by their effects.

Space-time, from no space and no time
From tiny things like atoms, to really big things like galaxies. Our best theory for describing such large-scale structures is general relativity, Albert Einstein's crowning achievement, which sets out how space, time and gravity work.
Relativity is very different from quantum mechanics, and so far nobody has been able to combine the two seamlessly. However, some theorists have been able to bring the two theories to bear on particular problems by using carefully chosen approximations. For instance, this approach was used by Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge to describe black holes.
In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens
One thing they have found is that, when quantum theory is applied to space at the smallest possible scale, space itself becomes unstable. Rather than remaining perfectly smooth and continuous, space and time destabilize, churning and frothing into a foam of space-time bubbles.

In other words, little bubbles of space and time can form spontaneously. "If space and time are quantized, they can fluctuate," says Lawrence Krauss at Arizona State University in Tempe. "So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles."

What's more, if it's possible for these bubbles to form, you can guarantee that they will. "In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability," says Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts.

A universe from a bubble
So it's not just particles and antiparticles that can snap in and out of nothingness: bubbles of space-time can do the same. Still, it seems like a big leap from an infinitesimal space-time bubble to a massive universe that hosts 100 billion galaxies. Surely, even if a bubble formed, it would be doomed to disappear again in the blink of an eye?

If all the galaxies are flying apart, they must once have been close together
Actually, it is possible for the bubble to survive. But for that we need another trick: cosmic inflation.

Most physicists now think that the universe began with the Big Bang. At first all the matter and energy in the universe was crammed together in one unimaginably small dot, and this exploded. This follows from the discovery, in the early 20th century, that the universe is expanding. If all the galaxies are flying apart, they must once have been close together.
Inflation theory proposes that in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, the universe expanded much faster than it did later. This seemingly outlandish notion was put forward in the 1980s by Alan Guth at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and refined by Andrei Linde, now at Stanford University.

As weird as it seems, inflation fits the facts
The idea is that, a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the quantum-sized bubble of space expanded stupendously fast. In an incredibly brief moment, it went from being smaller than the nucleus of an atom to the size of a grain of sand. When the expansion finally slowed, the force field that had powered it was transformed into the matter and energy that fill the universe today. Guth calls inflation "the ultimate free lunch".
As weird as it seems, inflation fits the facts rather well. In particular, it neatly explains why the cosmic microwave background, the faint remnant of radiation left over from the Big Bang, is almost perfectly uniform across the sky. If the universe had not expanded so rapidly, we would expect the radiation to be patchier than it is.
...

These questions do have meaning,.....What you said is true though,.....

Why the Big Bang occured is The Question

Where is your evidence for a 'Big Crunch'?

All the evidence points to endless expansion and maximum entropy

...like Faith. Or desperation

God + nothing = Universe

God looked at the nothingness that existed outside of God

You may look at the world as a glass of water, half full or half empty in either way, some water is better than no water.

My own ideals are awesome -

But, are no more valid than yours, or anyone else's