89
   

Why does the Universe exist?

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 04:11 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
It creates more problems sometimes to suggest that there were multiple attempts
Agreed. The simpler theory usu works out


Quote:
It means the matter, all this "stuff" is really nothing more than residue. It is like a spec of dust in an empty room the size of the earth.
Yet the argument that life is an important part of the entire affair is very compelling to the Intuition

Quote:
it is so incredibly insignificant, it might as well be non-existent comparitively.
You mean comparatively in size but significance is something else

Quote:
You use the word "important" as if the universe views life as being necessary or important.
Yes, it appears so. The entire Megillah seems pointless without us

Quote:
I however; do not view the universe as seeing life as it's goal or why there is a universe.
I didn’t mean I supposed life as the reason for the Universe but only wondered how life contributed to its evolution

Quote:
I think life was just a result because of how things are in terms of chemistry and physics but life is not necessary or important to the universe.
Okay

Quote:
To use the word important makes an assumption that I am not willing to grant.
All right, no need to
0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 07:28 pm
We are asking what would have happened if, with
the same laws of nature, the initial conditions had been
different. That provides the basis for a statistical judgment.
There is a range of values that these conditions might have had,
and physicists can work out in what proportion of this range
the resulting Universe could have contained stars, heavy
elements, and life. This proportion, it is claimed, is extremely small. Of the range of possible initial conditions, fewer than one in a billion billion
would have produced a Universe with the complexity that
allows for life. If this claim is true, as I shall here assume,
there is something that cries out to be explained. Why was
one of this tiny set also the one that actually obtained?

On one view, this was a mere coincidence. That is
conceivable, since coincidences happen. But this view is hard
to believe since, if it were true, the chance of this coincidence
occurring would be below one in a billion billion.

Others say: ‘The Big Bang was fine-tuned. In creating the
Universe, God chose to make life possible.’ Atheists may reject
this answer, thinking it improbable that God exists. But this is
not as improbable as the view that would require so great a
coincidence. So even atheists should admit that, of these two
answers to our question, the answer that invokes God is more
likely to be true.

The Universe, we can reasonably believe, contains many planets, with
varying conditions. We should expect that, on a few of these
planets, conditions would be just right for life. Nor is it
surprising that we live on one of these few.

Things are different, we may assume, with the appearance of
fine-tuning in the Big Bang. While there are likely to be many
other planets, there is only one Universe. But this difference
may be less than it seems. Some physicists suggest that the
observable Universe is only one out of many different worlds,
which are all equally parts of reality. According to one such
view, the other worlds are related to ours in a way that solves
some of the mysteries of quantum physics. On the different
and simpler view that is relevant here, the other worlds have
the same laws of nature as our world, and they are produced
by Big Bangs that are broadly similar, except in having
different initial conditions.

On this Many Worlds Hypothesis, there is no need for finetuning.
If there were enough Big Bangs, we should expect
that, in a few of these, conditions would be just right to allow
for complexity and life; and it would be no surprise that our
Big Bang was one of these few.

Compared with belief in God, the Many Worlds Hypothesis is
more cautious, since its claim is merely that there is more of the
kind of reality that we can observe around us. But God’s
existence has been claimed to be intrinsically more probable.
According to most theists, God is a being who is omnipotent,
omniscient, and wholly good. The uncaused existence of such
a being has been claimed to be simpler, and less arbitrary, than
the uncaused existence of many highly complicated worlds. And simpler hypotheses, many scientists assume, are more
likely to be true.

If such a God exists, however, other features of our world
become hard to explain. It may not be surprising that God
chose to make life possible. But the laws of nature could have
been different, so there are many possible worlds that would
have contained life. It is hard to understand why, out of all
these possibilities, God chose to create our world. What is
most baffling is the problem of evil. There appears to be
suffering which any good person, knowing the truth, would
have prevented if he could. If there is such suffering, there
cannot be a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly
good.
0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 07:43 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Which constants are dependent, and which are independent?
Tur that’s really a good question and one that deserves to be further addressed. My feeling is that somehow they’re all interdependent, the value of each depending on those of the rest

No, not exactly a definitive response, purely intuitive

Quote:
Also, there is not only constants that need to be explained, but also the form of the fundamental equations.
Indeed. Wish I could help you


Don 't we have to explain why all those numbers are precisely fine tuned? Suppose there are five constants, and they happen to be precisely the digits of pi: 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, such that it produce a universe with life. Each constant can be deduced by the other four. Still, it would be puzzling why we have a universe with 3, 1, 4, 1, 5 as constants that yield a universe with life. Also, if our goal is ultimate explanation, then we need to also why we have fundamental laws that we have. The software of the universe is not just the constants, but the law like regularities described by fundamental laws.
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 07:49 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
The Big Bang, it seems, was like this second lottery. For life to be possible, the initial conditions had to be selected with great accuracy. This appearance of fine-tuning, as some call it, also
needs to be explained.


I disagree. I can pose a question that could solve this issue easily.

What if, the big bang, banged multiple times, but failed to result in a universe because the bang in these other bang attempts the physics were not right and it immediately collapsed back in on itself?

Sort of like a person blowing up a balloon but failing to do so on the first few attempts and then finally something gives and the right amount of "pressure" is exerted and the balloon inflates.

Now my balloon analogy might be a horrible one, but it paints a picture that we could have had technically many failed universes and then the reason why we have a universe now was because something "gave" that allowed the expansion to occur as we observe it.

The problem is people assume that there was only one bang and it was successful on the first attempt. When you assume this, you make an error right off the get go because any following questions will assume such a process and so doing it will imply (as many so desperately try to) that there was some aid by some intelligence to make it happen just so.

With my theory, you wouldn't need any intelligence, if the bangs failed many times previously and then finally a "successful" result occurred. I see this happen in nature quite a bit, so it isn't so far fetched to question if the start of the universe underwent the same sort of process.


That is a theory of multiple universes separated in time. Here our universe was the one that was successful after multiple failures. If we go further back in this sequence, would there be something that initiate the sequence of big bangs?
0 Replies
 
NoSuchThing
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 07:58 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Universe exists because of Separation of Unity (Division of Oneness). Everything you see/feel/sense around you is by definition a Separation. If all Separations were to merge back together again, then the Universe would instantaneously vanish. But what is even more interesting is that the existence of Universe as a result of Separation of Unity is only cognizable within the Totality of all Separations. Outside of that Totality, there is no Universe and no existence, only Nothingness.
0 Replies
 
NoSuchThing
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 07:59 pm
Universe exists because of Separation of Unity (Division of Oneness). Everything you see/feel/sense around you is by definition a Separation. If all Separations were to merge back together again, then the Universe would instantaneously vanish. But what is even more interesting is that the existence of Universe as a result of Separation of Unity is only cognizable within the Totality of all Separations. Outside of that Totality, there is no Universe and no existence, not even Nothingness.
zDamien
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 08:45 am
@dalehileman,
Really?
Like asking 'why is the universe here, when it could be somewhere else.' When the fact of matter is: The universe is everything and, the only thing that exists, there is no other reference to measure its place in space. And, even that space would not exist if it were not for the universe. If the universe were some other way, there would still be no other reference, even if it didn't exist. As for why.. In a infinite amount of time, anything is possible. Who would ever be to say someday, the universe is some other way? Or, that the universe no longer exists....? Just because the universe is here, doesn't mean its here forever. Because forever is even more infinite than the universe.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 12:47 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
then we need to also why we have fundamental laws that we have.
No, yes, Tur, you’re absolutely right about that and I don’t have good answers, especially why all such constants, rules, etc, should be aimed at the evolution of humanoid

I can only they had to come out they way that they have because any violation would entail a contradiction. But why the humanoid should be so important is still open to discussion

Quote:
not just the constants, but the law like regularities
Yes yes absolutely I agree wholeheartedly, the Entire Megillah
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 01:04 pm
@zDamien,
Quote:
Really?
Yes Zd

Quote:
Like asking 'why is the universe here, when it could be somewhere else.’
Yes that doesn’t make sense if all the space is within the Universe of course

Quote:
When the fact of matter is: The universe is everything
Yes I incline to agree

Quote:
there is no other reference
Quite so

Quote:
And, even that space would not exist if it were not for the universe.
Agreed wholeheartedly--

Quote:
If the universe were some other way, there would still be no other reference, even if it didn't exist.
Zd you will have to elaorate on that assertion

Quote:
As for why.. In a infinite amount of time, anything is possible.
Yes no, that’s a very profound observation and in fact I’ve noted that maybe there’s something wrong with the math, that the idea that anything that can happen, will happen, is simply false; that in the case of an infinite continuum identical galaxies are impossible owing to interactions between them or better yet, the whole idea of infinity is flawed, it’s an impossible concept, it consists entirely of exchange of electrons in certain patterns amongst brain cells….as in the case of the reality of numbers

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6296

Quote:
Who would ever be to say someday, the universe is some other way?
Forgive me but you’ll have to further explain that one too

Quote:
Or, that the universe no longer exists....? Just because the universe is here, doesn't mean its here forever.
Right on, Zd! For instance the end of the next Big Crunch winds up with a spot of infinite mass but zero dimension, “nothingness” before the next Big Bang

Hard to imagine it goes on forever though: It gives one the counterintuitional notion of near-exact repetitions

Quote:
Because forever is even more infinite than the universe.
Sorry but this one also has me going around in circles
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 01:13 pm
@NoSuchThing,
Permit me to express my subjective bias: I agree that our intellectual understanding of the Universe rests on the analytical separations we make against its Unity. This does require abstraction or, as you put it "separation". An "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" is the default character of experience before we set to breaking it up by means of analytical abstraction/differentiation: Analysis turns our experience into a "differentiated aesthetic continnum" but a continum nonetheless. Your comment was more ontological than mine: you suggested that the Universe itself was affected by thought. I referred only to the epistemological implications of analysis or "separation."
Nevertheless, I do see the Universe as an ontological unity, e.g., the space between us connects rather than separates us.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 01:27 pm
@JLNobody,
I’ll have to agree there appears to be a certain Unity while its organization does suggest some sort of “Plan"
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 02:06 pm
@JLNobody,
My second ex wife didn't have any sex.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 03:00 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
Hence, you cannot have nothing.
Sure you can Ding, why not. One of the most profound questions: Why should there be anything at all

I can easily posit if not envision nothingness and in fact the condition is a lot easier to accept than a Universe

You’ll have to reword your ans to q2 in order to reach the Average Clod (me)
zDamien
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 08:18 pm
@dalehileman,
Infinity is a function not a state, and therefore anything is possible in a infinite amount of time... But that means everything will eventually happen stemming from a sequence of events dictated by the laws of physics. Not that anything will ever happen. This post may be better written as 'why do the laws of physics exist?' As such though, had the laws of physics been different, and the universe created under different laws, there would still be no other reference to the universe other than the laws by which it exists is different. But lets say (for the sake of argument), the laws of physics dictate that the universe is not eternal. If there is some observer a trillion trillion trillion years from now, at the end of the universe, when the last radioactive isotope decays......... He'd say 'Well, thats how the cookie crumbles. The laws of physics dictate that there could be something rather than nothing. So, the laws of physics also dictate that there could be nothing rather than something. Thats the way the universe is.' The observer can't look on our time and say 'the universe was different then'... Its always been a event in progression/ a process.. not a state in time.

We don't know if the process is eternal or not, whether it could ever happen again in a infinite amount of time.

But, if it happened again..... Who's to say that the only trick the laws of physics performs is simply turning nothing into something. Maybe the something the next time around could be completly different.

Viewed from another angle, the universe is much, MUCH different than we percieve.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 11:50 pm
@zDamien,
zDamien wrote:

Infinity is a function not a state, and therefore anything is possible in a infinite amount of time... But that means everything will eventually happen stemming from a sequence of events dictated by the laws of physics. Not that anything will ever happen. This post may be better written as 'why do the laws of physics exist?' As such though, had the laws of physics been different, and the universe created under different laws, there would still be no other reference to the universe other than the laws by which it exists is different. But lets say (for the sake of argument), the laws of physics dictate that the universe is not eternal. If there is some observer a trillion trillion trillion years from now, at the end of the universe, when the last radioactive isotope decays......... He'd say 'Well, thats how the cookie crumbles. The laws of physics dictate that there could be something rather than nothing. So, the laws of physics also dictate that there could be nothing rather than something. Thats the way the universe is.' The observer can't look on our time and say 'the universe was different then'... Its always been a event in progression/ a process.. not a state in time.

We don't know if the process is eternal or not, whether it could ever happen again in a infinite amount of time.

But, if it happened again..... Who's to say that the only trick the laws of physics performs is simply turning nothing into something. Maybe the something the next time around could be completly different.

Viewed from another angle, the universe is much, MUCH different than we percieve.


Great post. I agree with most of it, there might be a few aspects of what you say that I don't quite agree but doesn't really matter. Just needed to say it was a good post since a thumb up wasn't quite good enough.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 06:13 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Hence, you cannot have nothing.
Sure you can Ding, why not. One of the most profound questions: Why should there be anything at all

I can easily posit if not envision nothingness and in fact the condition is a lot easier to accept than a Universe

You’ll have to reword your ans to q2 in order to reach the Average Clod (me)


Two things:

1) The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" tacitly assumes, at least for most philosophers (even Heidegger(!)) that there is a "reason" why the universe exists. I argue that there is no reason whatsoever why this universe the way it is. There is only the absolute facticity of everything, or the necessary contingency of all objects.

2) You can most certainly posit a nothingness, but I doubt you can concieve of nothingness. For, if you do, you still have, to take from Kant, the pure a priori intuitions of space and time. There is no envisioning or concieving; perhaps thinking. To posit that nothingness exists is a contradiction in terms.

I conclude that there must exist at least one object according to the principle of factiality, or the necessary contingency of all objects. If all objects are necessarily contingent, then necessarily all objects are contingent; if necessarily all objects are contingent, then necessarily there exists a contingent object. Hence, you cannot have something from nothing. Q.E.D

Proof in more formal terms

1. All objects are necesssarily contingent. (Principle of Factiality)
2. All objects are necessarily contingent implies necessarily all objects are contingent. (Barcan Formula)
3. Necessarily all objects are contingent. (1,2 Modus Ponens)
Subproof
4. All objects are contingent.
5. Fresco is a contingent object.
6. There exists a contingent object.
End subproof
7. Necessarily there exists a contingent being. (4-6, Necessity Subproof)
Q.E.D

* If nothing is the absence of all things, then there is some possible world in which there is no objects whatsoever. But it has been demonstrated that Necessarily there exists a contingent being. Using reductio, we can conclude that there has always existed something that is contingent. Q.E.D

That is my answer.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 06:52 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Hence, you cannot have nothing.
Sure you can Ding, why not. One of the most profound questions: Why should there be anything at all

I can easily posit if not envision nothingness and in fact the condition is a lot easier to accept than a Universe

You’ll have to reword your ans to q2 in order to reach the Average Clod (me)


Two things:

1) The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" tacitly assumes, at least for most philosophers (even Heidegger(!)) that there is a "reason" why the universe exists. I argue that there is no reason whatsoever why this universe the way it is. There is only the absolute facticity of everything, or the necessary contingency of all objects.

2) You can most certainly posit a nothingness, but I doubt you can concieve of nothingness. For, if you do, you still have, to take from Kant, the pure a priori intuitions of space and time. There is no envisioning or concieving; perhaps thinking. To posit that nothingness exists is a contradiction in terms.

I conclude that there must exist at least one object according to the principle of factiality, or the necessary contingency of all objects. If all objects are necessarily contingent, then necessarily all objects are contingent; if necessarily all objects are contingent, then necessarily there exists a contingent object. Hence, you cannot have something from nothing. Q.E.D

Proof in more formal terms

1. All objects are necesssarily contingent. (Principle of Factiality)
2. All objects are necessarily contingent implies necessarily all objects are contingent. (Barcan Formula)
3. Necessarily all objects are contingent. (1,2 Modus Ponens)
Subproof
4. All objects are contingent.
5. Fresco is a contingent object.
6. There exists a contingent object.
End subproof
7. Necessarily there exists a contingent being. (4-6, Necessity Subproof)
Q.E.D

* If nothing is the absence of all things, then there is some possible world in which there is no objects whatsoever. But it has been demonstrated that Necessarily there exists a contingent being. Using reductio, we can conclude that there has always existed something that is contingent. Q.E.D

That is my answer.


Here is the problem with contingency.

There is certainly uncertanty. We just assume there is a solidity or permenance to objects but at their subatomic levels we are discovering that they are a mess with uncertainty.

Not only that but accordingly, objects are only objects when we confirm them to be such, but they are not always such. This makes contingency less than reliable. So I would posit that not all objects are contingent and definately not necessarily so.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 10:04 am
@Krumple,
Very good, but I wish you had not made explicit reference to Fresco's contingency; that's not something we talk about.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 12:22 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
There is only the absolute facticity of everything, or the necessary contingency of all objects.
Well put Krump

Quote:
I conclude that there must exist at least one object according to the principle of factiality, or the necessary contingency of all objects.
I do also but for different reasons: Eventually it will be shown that the idea of nothingness is contradictory or paradoxical

Quote:
If nothing is the absence of all things, then there is some possible world in which there is no objects whatsoever.
Forgive me Krump but that sounds contradictory
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 01:09 pm
@JLNobody,
You mean my explicit reference to Fresco's contingency? Krumple did not reference it.

Would it comfort you if I said that Ellis (which is me), is contingent? Or any number of people? Or things? Or physical laws? Or logical laws?

I guess I could have said, "General Relativity is a contingent law". Doesn't matter.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 05:09:03