Why does the Universe exist?

@brianjakub,

No.

@georgeob1,

Why not?

How about similar answers then?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

For example, the gear ratio in the rear axle of my truck is a "physical constant" relating input RPM to output RPM. That constant has nothing to do with causing my truck to go a certain ground speed compared to the transmission output shaft RPM. What causes it to do that is how many teeth are on the ring gear and pinion gear in the rear end.

Man-made products do not have a relationship to nature except man's ability to destroy it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

What's bullshit is the disingenuousness of you pointing out that the odds aren't impossible, merely unlikely, but going on to dismiss their likelihood in favor of your intelligent designer theology which is at least as unlikely.

Own your offensive inconsistencies.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Man-made products do not have a relationship to nature. . .

Are you saying man's intelligence is not part of nature? Are you saying intelligence and consciousness aren't natural?

Are you saying you believe in mind-body dualism then? or, what are you implying?

Dualism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look up dualism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Quote:

Dualism may refer to:

Mind–body dualism, a philosophical set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which begins with the claim that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical
Property dualism, a philosophy of mind and a subbranch of emergent materialism
Epistemological dualism, a philosophical concept also known as representative realism, indirect realism, and the veil of perception
Dualism (Indian philosophy), views in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy that are similar to but distinct from Western mind-body dualism
Dualistic cosmology, the moral, spiritual, or religious belief that two fundamental concepts exist, which often oppose each other
Soul dualism, the belief that a person has two (or more) kinds of souls
Ethical dualism, the attribution of good solely to one group of people and evil to another
Dualism (law), a principle in contending that international and domestic law are distinct systems of law, and that international law only applies to the extent that it does not conflict with domestic law
Dualism (politics), the separation of the responsibilities of cabinet and parliament
Duality (mathematics)
Duality (physics), media with properties that can be associated with the mechanics of two different phenomena, such as wave-particle duality
Dualism (cybernetics), systems or problems in which an intelligent adversary attempts to exploit the weaknesses of the investigator

Quote:

Man-made products do not have a relationship to nature except man's ability to destroy it.

Are you suggesting destruction and creation has something to do with intelligence? And intelligence's ability to create and destroy suggests there is good and evil?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

It is not the, "remarkable simplicity of the basic laws of physics; the remarkable fine tuning in the values of the seven or so basic physical constants" that permit our existence. Constants don't have the ability to permit anything.

You are simply incorrect here. The constants themselves are merely descriptive features of the physical universe we live in, which in the main relate the various forces acting in the universe. . However if many of these features were fundamentally different the universe couldn't support life. If the gravitational constant was ten times its actual value our bodies wouldn't function. Different values of Avogadro's number and the gas constant ( which expressed the relationship of pressure temperature and density in a gas) would yield a profoundly different atmosphere. At an elementary level, the charge on an electron or the Planck constant which expressed the relationship of the energy and frequency of a photon would profoundly change the planet and stars such as our sun.

The point here is that the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces whose action they describe are few and are sufficient to yield all the variety and complexity of our world, and yet they appear remarkably "tuned" to support life on a planet such as ours.

As for the rest of your babble, I have no comment to make.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The point here is that the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces whose action they describe are few and are sufficient to yield all the variety and complexity of our world, and yet they appear remarkably "tuned" to support life on a planet such as ours.

Explain to me how "the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces whose action they describe "yield" all the variety and complexity of our world."

For example, explain what it is about the structure of the atom and the higgs field that "yields" the value for the fine structure constant we currently measure it to be by using just the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces to "yield" that number.

I think that is like using just gear ratios and torques to describe how a truck rear end works without providing a blueprint or a working model. Am I wrong?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Am I wrong?

Yes

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Anything that worries you about what George said have conflict with th LAW of conservation of mass and energy?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Explain to me how "the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces whose action they describe "yield" all the variety and complexity of our world."

For example, explain what it is about the structure of the atom and the higgs field that "yields" the value for the fine structure constant we currently measure it to be by using just the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces to "yield" that number.

Back up your claim.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Explain to me how "the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces whose action they describe "yield" all the variety and complexity of our world."

Back up your claim.

If you refuse to understand that you aren't worth the effort.

Piss off.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Anything that worries you about what George said have conflict with th LAW of conservation of mass and energy?

No. But, when george says physical laws and constants exist. And, their very existence is enough to explain the complex systems that operate using those laws and constants without describing the mechanisms from which the laws, constants and forces emerge from just to avoid the underlying complexities that appear to require intelligence is almost dishonest in its nature.

That's like saying the alphabet and grammar is all you need to explain the existence of all the previous posts.

Am I breaking the laws of conservation of mass and energy by using the alphabet and grammar in creating this post? No.

Can you explain the existence of this post and previous posts without mentioning farmerman and brianjakub? No.

Is the existence of farmerman and the atoms in his body a more complex system of information management than the words in this post? Yes.

Does farmerman intelligently use physical laws and grammatical laws to create posts? Yes. I see a pattern starting to emerge when symbols and laws appear to work together in complex ways.

It seems there is always consciousness behind the complex systems we observe. And, some systems are just so vast and with so many layers embedded systems of information management in them, and those systems have been operating automatically over such a long period of time, that it has become hard to determine the identity of the consciousness behind them.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

brianjakub
Quote:
Explain to me how "the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces whose action they describe "yield" all the variety and complexity of our world."

Back up your claim.

If you refuse to understand that you aren't worth the effort.

Piss off.

I seemed to have unintentionally offended you when I asked you to explain how your answer to my question, "why the laws and constants exist" because I think that is necessary to substantiate your initial claim which was:

Quote:

. . .Darwin offered his model of evolution ( survival of the fittest) based on scientific observations of birds and reptiles in the Galapagos islands (and other places). A great deal of progress has been made in Physics since then, and we now know that - even at the levels of molecules and cells - the laws of Physics are sufficient to explain the evolution of observed species - how they got that way and survived to reproduce. The complexity we observe around us in nature and human behavior can truly evolve from a handful of basic laws, relationships and physical constants of proportionality. That is an amazing fact, but it has stood the test of repeated challenge and confirmation.

Instead you responded with a post that stated the system is very complex and operates under laws and constants that have tight tolerances for error. That does nmot seem to be an answer to my original question, but instead answers this question, "Is the system operating under tight tolerances?"

I agree that the system operates under tight tolerances and I would add a further conclusion which is, "the system is very complex and there is much we do not understand."

I apologize if my initial question wasn't clear so let me restate it.

Explain to me how "the laws of Physics and the constants that relate the various physical forces whose action they describe "yield" all the variety and complexity of our world."

For example, explain what it is about the structure of the atom and the higgs field that "yields" the value for the fine structure constant we currently measure it to be.

Can you explain the mechanisms?

Isn't an explanation of the mechanisms from the point of view from inside the higgs mechanism necessary to provide the sufficient explanation you claimed in your above quote. And wouldn't that point of view would then become Newtonian in nature because you would be attemptimg to take a point of view that would be similar in nature to the point of view we have of the larger universe through our five senses?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

You need to calm down. Maybe you should try extreme skate boarding to burn off this anger.

Naw, that was after my morning Ryker ryde which is as calming as it gets for me. Besides, it was just the facts.

You did notice that he didn’t challenge them didn’t you?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

DO they break the LAWS of the conservation of mass and energy? "I asked"

Quote:

NO(blah blah blah)

There, that wasnt so hard now? When you show your conceptual ignorance by just cherry picking factoids from Wikipedia, you dont look like you know of what you speak.
Science aint a vocabulary you just pull out at parties. Its a tool for solving relevant problems.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Re: brianjakub (Post 6786107)
DO they break the LAWS of the conservation of mass and energy? "I asked"

Quote:
NO(blah blah blah)
There, that wasnt so hard now? When you show your conceptual ignorance by just cherry picking factoids from Wikipedia, you dont look like you know of what you speak.
Science aint a vocabulary you just pull out at parties. Its a tool for solving relevant problems.

Laws don't explain how the systems operate under those laws. You guys don't usually break the laws. If you do its when you say things like, "Big bangs create matter and the Big bang is caused by a huge gravitational crunch but you avoid explaining why there is gravity (and a gravitational constant) nor do you explain how the gravity existed before the Big Bang when the matter you need to have gravity didn't exist before the Big Bang created it. This "which came first the chicken or the egg" argument is easily solved by all the matter in the universe being introduced by a quantum creation event and then existing in a perfect universe that is all one temperature but with no degrees of freedom. The big Bang would then be an event that introduces the degrees of disorder necessary for entropic gravity (introduced by Erik Verlinde) and the temperature differences we observe today.

An early universe with no entropy and a uniform temperature has been proposed by many cosmologists including Roger Penrose and Alan Guth because it is a possibility that can be derived using Guth's mathematical model (BGV inflationary) model. And Alan Guth has suggested in some of his blogs that would require a pre- Big Bang Quantum Creation Event. (QCE)

Both Guth and Penrose avoid the QCE because "a pre big bang QCE introduces all sorts of openings for ID". Plus, the only evidence of the pre big bang QCE being the apparent existence of a low entropy early universe with no other explanation because we can't see past the Big bang, we can only imagine it.

I think we need another Darwin to come up with a natural mechanism to explain this QCE and then use the existence of the universe as the evidence that the theory is correct. The problem is, there would be nothing before the QCE that would be physical in nature for this natural mechanism to operate in, because matter and the Higgs field is what makes the universe physical and they couldn't exist before the QCE.

Now, this sounds like "blah blah blah" to you, but both Penrose and Guth are contemplating these events and possible scenarios, because the mathematical models of inflation cosmology are suggesting they are possible scenarios.

The problem is these scenarios can only be interpreted using Objective Idealism and Naive realism along with Naturalism, because the only way you transition from one side of the Big Bang to the other, or consider a QCE event is by using QM and Relativity. And, like I said in an earlier post, Naturalism is just fine for interpreting the post Big Bang universe according to Newtonian physics but falls way short when considering Relativity, QM, and the pre-big Bang QCE, because naturalism can only explain the here and now without providing an explanation for what happened in the ancient past (especially before transistion events), or the origins of the chicken or the egg.

What concerns me is this "blah blah blah" is important. It is philosophical not religious. And Jones nearly outlawed the discussion in academia (Mainly because the only philosophers using the Objective Idealism and naive realism are very religious people) which seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution because it is outlawing a philosophy not a religion.

Can we talk about why you think it is ok to restrict a philosophical point of view through judicial fiat?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Naw, that was after my morning Ryker ryde which is as calming as it gets for me.

Yeah, maybe calm is overrated anyway.

Quote:

You did notice that he didn’t challenge them didn’t you?

Like always.

But he did state that he can believe what he wants no matter what the math says, and you can't disagree with that.

Unfortunately it is not very logical.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

The universe exists because you think it exists. The universe is a mental creation of all that you consciously acknowledge. Does your universe exist when you are in a state of unconsciousness?

1 Reply

@Licobob,

Licobob wrote:

The universe exists because you think it exists. The universe is a mental creation of all that you consciously acknowledge. Does your universe exist when you are in a state of unconsciousness?

So you exist because Licobob created you in his thoughts? and me too?

Or am I creating it all beause I felt like it or you, or is it a creation in the mind of Yehudi Menuhin or Cloris Leachman?

2 Replies

@chai2,

After careful researching, I found you exist only when tarantulas are located in near your favorite actor.

Of course this begs the question as to whether the tarantulas actually exist...

1 Reply

Why does the Universe exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know