Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[WaveJumper]

I find it arrogant when people suggest that they know the mind, or have some special secrete knowledge of the supposed all powerful creater of the universe.

Where did i imply certainty about creator? It's the domain of religions and atheism that have all the answers. I don't subscribe to any of these extremes.

'Meaning' is a human concept which losses all importance outside of the reference frame of the one 'doing the meaning'.

Meaning is not the same as Why. You are changing the subject. Why is the reason/cause the universe exists in the way it does.

Which is exactly why so many of us can feel and mean so many different and conflicting things, and that those feelings of emotion have no effect on the outcome of any physical effect outside of human affairs.

What emotions? I was talking about a cause for the appearance of the universe. Stick to what i said and not to what you are comfortable to discuss.

I'm not really sure who it is that you are up in arms against... Are there scientists who are claiming knowledge they do not yet have? Are popular figures in the recent cultural movement speaking out against supernatural beliefs claiming a complete and/or coherent view of the development of the universe? Or is it lay-men, who happen to be atheists, that are shouting a distorted and confusing view of science?

I specifically said that i was opposed to people wo "know" definitively that there is no why to the question "why does the universe exist?". I know you understand that statement but i don't see why you are trying to steer the discussion in other directions - about cultural movements, supernatural events, etc.

Specifically, I would like to know who it is that makes this claim:

One cannot logically conclude from what we know from fields of science that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause.

The same ones who claim to know that there is no Why because Why's are a human concept(as if there existed something that was not). It's a kind of religion by itself.

By the way, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence. This has nothing to do with what you may feel about the 'meaning' of your life or the universe; by all means you can clearly feel that it 'means' whatever you like.

You don't know what supernatural means. You've made a definition that suits your beliefs and that excludes anything that you deem unacceptable. It's a kind of religious shelter from frightening concepts, is it not?

Is what is still unknown supernatural?

 

[WaveJumper]

Why is this thread still alive 9 pages later? The OP has a simple question with a simple answer: no.

Simple question? Hahahahahahahaha - grasping for air - hahahahahhahahaha...

If this is a simple question, what would constitute a difficult question for atheism? Or is there no such thing for the infinite explanatory powers of atheism?

How many children does the number 5 have? What color is Newton's second law? How long is a square circle? Why does the universe exist? They're all meaningless questions. Just because a question looks syntactically proper doesn't keep it from being a stupid question.

Oh you have figured it all out, great! Amazing work really, i rest my case now.

BTW, the above statement was a good example why Atheism is not just a mere disbelief in deities, but more of a dogmatic path to "truths".

 

[Pupil]

If this is a simple question, what would constitute a difficult question for atheism?

2 + 2 = ?

Or is there no such thing for the infinite explanatory powers of atheism?

I don't understand this question. It is too difficult.

Oh you have figured it all out, great! Amazing work really, i rest my case now.

Indeed! Exactly what I was saying!

BTW, the above statement was a good example why Atheism is not just a mere disbelief in deities, but more of a dogmatic path to "truths".

By George what a discovery! Brilliant! Webster has it all wrong. It's much more likely all atheists are a bunch of dogmatic louts with a brainwashing propaganda agenda!

Hats off, gentlemen.

 

[DaveC426913]

BTW, the above statement was a good example why Atheism is not just a mere disbelief in deities, but more of a dogmatic path to "truths".

Yeah, I think you're going to have to just step back from some of your claims. You may have preconceptions and generalizations about atheism invloing dogma and truth, but really it is just about not believing in a God or gods.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am against pushing the atheist agenda(as Truth) that somehow science implies that there is no Why(or cause/reason) for the existence of the universe.

Who here is pushing that agenda?

By the way, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence.

Except, of course, when atheism is the disbelief in a supernatural entity.

 

[Pupil]

Who here is pushing that agenda?

Me! (evil sounding) Muahahaha! The secretive Atheist Alliance wants everyone to be liberal, atheist, homosexuals who support socialism! Buahaha!

Except, of course, when atheism is the disbelief in a supernatural entity.

Well disbelief *is* a lack of belief (a subset of lack of belief). So as long as you get to "I don't know," (agnostic) you don't have a belief in a deity and are thus atheist. A lot of people don't like the stigma attached to the label, though, and choose to call themselves agnostic rather than agnostic atheist. Whatever floats one's boat I guess.

 

[baywax]

It would be interesting to actually find the purpose for the universe.

It could be that its an engine of some sort, powering a mosquito zapper.

In a case like that, we'd all have enormously bad karma. And it would be impossible to shake. In the Indian language, karma means motion. Were the purpose of our universe to be that of an engine designed to assist in killing living (very large) mosquitos, our motion... or karma... would be a-kilter... or out of balance. And this universe's 13.7 billion to 27.35 billion years of age might be a short life in comparison (to other universes).

 

[Hurkyl]

Well disbelief *is* a lack of belief (a subset of lack of belief).

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing. (If you merely lack belief, why identify yourself with a term that has been used to refer to disbelieve? I have seen this new usage lead to nothing but confusion)

 

[robertm]

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing. (If you merely lack belief, why identify yourself with a term that has been used to refer to disbelieve? I have seen this new usage lead to nothing but confusion)

Why is belief in supernatural entities considered the default position? Can one be considered to be 'disbelieving' a claim that was never believed in the first place? Should we say that we 'disbelieve' in Poseidon? Is this just semantics? WaveJumper:

Where did i imply certainty about creator? It's the domain of religions and atheism that have all the answers. I don't subscribe to any of these extremes.

I was making a general statement, the section you quoted was part of a larger sentence.

Meaning is not the same as Why. You are changing the subject.

My apologies, I was not aware of what definition of the word 'why' you were evoking.

Why is the reason/cause the universe exists in the way it does.

Is this not exactly what science is in the process of working out?

What emotions? I was talking about a cause for the appearance of the universe. Stick to what i said and not to what you are comfortable to discuss.

Beliefs about the universe are inseparable from emotional response in most people. Apart from a serious discussion of data, feelings about what constitutes a good or not so good idea as to the nature of the universe is nothing more than arbitrary emotional response.

You still have yet to say who it is that states as fact: "that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause."

Could it be that you are under a misconception about the current state of cosmological theory?

You don't know what supernatural means. You've made a definition that suits your beliefs and that excludes anything that you deem unacceptable. It's a kind of religious shelter from frightening concepts, is it not?

I do not fear any concepts, thank you.

Supernatural literally means outside of nature, which means that any phenomenon caused by a supernatural event are, by definition, no longer supernatural.

In practice, believers in common supernatural entities claim either that the entity is truly super natural which of course begs the question of how they came to know this; or they claim that the being is an active participant in nature which, by definition, means it is not supernatural.

So, the word is used to describe something which can not be observed/measured and has no effect and thus does not exist, or that a being is manipulating the universe in a manner which has so far eluded our best efforts to observe, much less quantify.

Is what is still unknown supernatural?

I did not suggest this in any way. We do, however, already know a great many things about what we see around us, and conclusions based on that knowledge can be made with as high a degree of certainty as one is ever capable of honestly stating, given the circumstances.

I would like to here any response you may have to the other points I made in my previous post, such as these perhaps:

No competent man of science claims to know even if origin is the right word to use to describe what we have observed regarding the big bang event.

The whole point of language is so that we are able to map our concepts onto events outside our brains, or maybe vice versa.

Our current understanding of the evolution of life on earth, including us and our brains, immediately relegates emotion and abstraction to an arbitrary process in the three pound mass of jelly of a particular primate species.

 

[Pupil]

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing. (If you merely lack belief, why identify yourself with a term that has been used to refer to disbelieve? I have seen this new usage lead to nothing but confusion)

No, disbelief is a subset of lack of belief. Not holding a positive belief in something and denying something are both lacking positive belief. Another way to put it is disbelief = lack of belief + assertion of the negative. You can't think something is false and not have a lack of belief in the that something.

Atheism has changed usage somewhat in the last 10 years because there definitely isn't a God requires absolute certainty -- something no empirical claim has. The same is true for the definition of theism. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm" .

 

[DaveC426913]

No, disbelief is a subset of lack of belief.

disbelief = lack of belief + assertion of the negative.

I do believe these two statements are contradictory.

If B is a subset of A, then how can B = A + C?

 

[JoeDawg]

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

Disbelief is simply an unwillingness or inability to believe something is true, that invariably occurs when someone is presented with a preposterous claim. Equivocating belief and disbelief is playing games with semantics. It is not rational to expect that one will believe every claim made by others, nor is it rational to expect an individual to address seriously every ridiculous claim one is presented with. Belief on the other hand requires a serious commitment of one sort or another. So they are not equivalent.

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing.

Atheism was originally used in the perjorative sense, by those who believe in god-things. The word however comes greek, the 'a' translates as 'without', so 'lack of belief' or more simply 'godless' is perfectly acceptable. A baby or a dog could be said to be atheistic. And even one who believes in a god, but not gods, could be said to be atheistic.

The recent phenomena you describe is that of non-believers insisting on defining themselves, instead of simply accepting the labelling and insults of others.

 

[Pupil]

I do believe these two statements are contradictory.

If B is a subset of A, then how can B = A + C?

That equality is not meant to be a set theory statement like the one before it, but

Another way to put it

If you still don't understand, or that equality confused you a bit, think of it like this: If you have a bubble called "lack of belief", and you look inside that bubble, you'll find another bubble called "Why Lack of Belief" and inside that bubble there will be "No Evidence to Confirm Belief" and "Disproof of Belief." You have to go into the bubble lack of belief plus a little further down into "Disproof of Belief." That "Disproof of Belief" area is another name for disbelief, and it's a subset of lack of belief bubble.

That's probably more confusing. It'd be easier to draw a graph, but I'm too lazy.

 

[vectorcube]

well, suppose one day, physicists are able to derivable all the laws of nature from a single ultimate equation. One can still ask why the equation is true. Why should there be a universe describable by this ultimate equation. There is always the alternative. There could be a world describable by Newtonian mechanics, or a world describable by some other mathematical structure. Suppose string theory is the correct theory that describes this universe. We can ask why this theory is true. Why should there be a world govern by the equations of string theory. No theory in physics exhaust all logical possibilities in theory space, because the laws of nature are not logically necessary.

 

[p764rds]

No theory in physics exhaust all logical possibilities in theory space, because the laws of nature are not logically necessary.

'The Laws of Nature' are referring to our space-time that we are living in. Gravity, speed of light etc etc.
If the universe is made from 'information' then all these laws are *design features* and
could have been designed differently.
Who or what can design? Its easy - intelligence can do that. (we could for example)
Where is this 'intelligence'? Easy - in information.
Where is information? Not in space or time because it creates space-time (& our entire physical universe). Space-time is entirely fabricated from information.

Who created information, logic and mathematics? Now we are asking different questions because they are not really 'objects' - there aren't any 'objects' behind space time.

 

[WaveJumper]

Who here is pushing that agenda?

Would i not be considered pushing a religious agenda if i came from an islamic background and claimed:

"The answer to the question is rather obvious - Yes, there a reason why the universe exists and it is Allah who raised the skies without support, then assumed His throne, and enthralled the sun and the moon so that each runs to a predetermined course. He disposes all affairs, distinctly explaining every sign that you may be certain of the meeting with your Allah."


I don't think this statement is either acceptable nor can it be defined as simple "lack of belief in atheism".

 

[vectorcube]

'The Laws of Nature' are referring to our space-time that we are living in. Gravity, speed of light etc etc.
If the universe is made from 'information' then all these laws are *design features* and
could have been designed differently.
Who or what can design? Its easy - intelligence can do that. (we could for example)
Where is this 'intelligence'? Easy - in information.
Where is information? Not in space or time because it creates space-time (& our entire physical universe). Space-time is entirely fabricated from information.

Who created information, logic and mathematics? Now we are asking different questions because they are not really 'objects' - there aren't any 'objects' behind space time.

Looking at you answer is the most confusing thing ever. I wonder if you are really being serious.

laws of nature don ` t refer to any particular point in space, or time.

What do you mean by the universe is made of information? Give me some examples.
What is intellgence? What is fabricated from information mean?

 

[WaveJumper]

You still have yet to say who it is that states as fact: "that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause."

If it has a cause, how can the emergence and existence of the universe be meaningless? If there is cause, there is a why. You are contradicting yourself.

Could it be that you are under a misconception about the current state of cosmological theory?

No, you fail to realize that humans understand cause-effect[/b] logic. A universe that was caused by an event, has a reason Why for its existence.

No competent man of science claims to know even if origin is the right word to use to describe what we have observed regarding the big bang event.

Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?

The whole point of language is so that we are able to map our concepts onto events outside our brains, or maybe vice versa.

This is oversimplification. It does not take into account the fact that language is a tool in which we can describe the universe in a meaningful way. Either way, it doesn't follow that there was no cause/why for the emergence of the universe the way it did.

Our current understanding of the evolution of life on earth, including us and our brains, immediately relegates emotion and abstraction to an arbitrary process in the three pound mass of jelly of a particular primate species.

Sure, that's one way to look at it if you are able to suppress 'uncomfortable' questions like:

What caused the universe?(which is what we perceive now as "anything and everything")
Why is the universe comprehensible?
Why are the laws of physics and physical constants the way they are, so that a universe like ours can emerge and unfold through its 14 billion years history?
What drove the emergence of consciousness?
Why is the universe predictable?
Etc.

 

[p764rds]

What do you mean by the universe is made of information? Give me some examples.
What is intellgence? What is fabricated from information mean?

I have written about this so many times -
http://BestManEver.Wordpress.com for a fuller version.

 

[Hurkyl]

Disbelief is simply an unwillingness or inability to believe something is true ...

I got my definition "mental rejection of something as untrue" straight from www.merriam-webster.com. Of course, this is all irrelevant, because I get to choose the meaning of the word I used -- and I used "disbelief" to mean what I stated above as its definition.

The word however comes greek, the 'a' translates as 'without', so 'lack of belief' or more simply 'godless' is perfectly acceptable.

I didn't make my claim blind -- I actually spent a few minutes searching the internet first. What I found suggested the Greeks used it as denial of the existence of the Gods. Also, that "theism" is a back-formation: it didn't appear until two millinea after "atheism" -- so it doesn't make sense to try and translate "atheism" as the synthesis of "a" and "theism".

 

[Hurkyl]

Would i not be considered pushing a religious agenda if i came from an islamic background and claimed:

Yes, you would. However, it doesn't answer my question.

 

[vectorcube]

I have written about this so many times -
http://BestManEver.Wordpress.com for a fuller version.

I am not trying to be offensive or anything, but why would you want to engage someone in this forum, and expect them to read all that?

 

[Hurkyl]

If there is cause, there is a why.

Please define "why".

 

[WaveJumper]

Please define "why".

We all understand cause and effect logic, don't we?

"Why is there a universe the way we see it?"

- An event we are currently unfamiliar with, caused it.

This statement worded like that does not suffer from the extreme explanatory powers of atheism and religions.

 

[vectorcube]

Please define "why".

I honest think you are being funny. In context, the "why" question amounts to why there is a universe at all. There is nothing logically necessary there need to be a universe, nor is it necessary that there need to be a universe describle by QM and general relativity.

 

[Hurkyl]

I honest think you are being funny.

It sounds funny, but I'm being deadly serious. People use "why" in all sorts of strange ways that often appear completely meaningless if not highly presumptuous.

I'll tell you what I think "why" means: it is a request to conclude 'something' as a logical consequence of 'other 'things', typically with some implicit restriction on what sorts of 'other things' are acceptable to use.

Unfortunately, that implicit restriction is often something like "it must be something I (think I) intuitively understand".

 

[vectorcube]

It sounds funny, but I'm being deadly serious. People use "why" in all sorts of strange ways that often appear completely meaningless if not highly presumptuous.

I'll tell you what I think "why" means: it is a request to conclude 'something' as a logical consequence of 'other 'things', typically with some implicit restriction on what sorts of 'other things' are acceptable to use.

Unfortunately, that implicit restriction is often something like "it must be something I (think I) intuitively understand".

Your answer is confusing, but i do think you are right that various people use the word "why" in very lose ways. Let me tell you how i use "why". When i say "why X". I am requesting for the necessary and sufficient reason for X. Suppose i ask why the apple fall. The necessary conditions would be to invoke some law of nature( such as general relativity), and the initial high of the ball from Earth etc. From the these two piece of information, i can conclude that apple would fall toward the gound. What i just describe is called the nomological deductive model of explanation. To be even more clean:


To ask why X is to given P1, P2 ...PN Such that the follow hold:


1. P1
2. P2
.
.

N PN
______

therefore X

where one of the Pi s contain at least one law of nature. The Pi s are partitioned into laws of nature, and initial conditions.


I hope such expanation is not too confusing. If you have problems, please do ask me. I am not trying to confusing anyone.

Here is a link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological_model

 

[p764rds]

If it has a cause, how can the emergence and existence of the universe be meaningless? If there is cause, there is a why. You are contradicting yourself.







No, you fail to realize that humans understand cause-effect[/b] logic. A universe that was caused by an event, has a reason Why for its existence.










Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?





This is oversimplification. It does not take into account the fact that language is a tool in which we can describe the universe in a meaningful way. Either way, it doesn't follow that there was no cause/why for the emergence of the universe the way it did.






Sure, that's one way to look at it if you are able to suppress 'uncomfortable' questions like:

What caused the universe?(which is what we perceive now as "anything and everything")
Why is the universe comprehensible?
Why are the laws of physics and physical constants the way they are, so that a universe like ours can emerge and unfold through its 14 billion years history?
What drove the emergence of consciousness?
Etc.

What caused the universe?
I assume you mean the physical space-time universe? One logical suggestion is:
The physical universe steps in an evolutionary way. Starting out as compressed
particles and through 3D movement (entropy) it steps to a horrible spread out ending.
Now, assume that intelligent entities (like us) existed - made of information - and that
at the end of the universe space-time, these entities would be destroyed. They cannot
escape from information, because they are made from information. So, on the demise
of information, they are finished.
If they are intelligent (very very intelligent) and want to survive, then they would devise
a way back from death wouldn't they? How? A team of clever engineers sits round a table
and works out a particle structure, a 3D structure, speed of information (light, gravity) and sets up consistent laws of physics.
Once the program is written, they only need to 'seed' it. Such beings would have a means
of starting this program off (sthg like a quantum computer maybe) and could initiate the program to create a Universe that would eventually create themselves again. It would be *designed* that way. Again, fundamentally its intelligence doing it.
This is just one method it could have happened - see Nick Bostrom's work for others. There
are many possibilities.

Why is the universe comprehensible? Its designed that way - or the model would fail.
Mathematics and logic is comprehensible and that's what fabricated the physical Universe,
so of course its comprehensible.

What drove the emergence of consciousness?
Its all based on intelligence anyway (for example, one electron repelling another
is a logic process based on proximity. If Distance < X Then do Y )
This is a logical decision process, a primitive type of intelligence isn't it?
Intelligence underlies everything in the physical universe so its not surprising
that is able to emerge. Although I believe, personally, that it is in the *design*
to emerge. Newton said (The Universe is straining towards intelligence)

Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?
Again, its a type of intelligence that would want a Universe that would cause it. We are
near that aren't we. I mean we could get a team together and say - hey, let's design
something interesting here.
There are an almost infinite number of types of intelligence, and its only logical that
a type that wants to exist would try to do just that. The overall principles are quite simple,
and logical, but there is almost infinite complexity mixed in.

 

[robertm]

If it has a cause, how can the emergence and existence of the universe be meaningless?

In exactly the same way that high tides, clouds, moon dust, and bubbles are meaningless.

If there is cause, there is a why. You are contradicting yourself.

So, in your usage here, 'cause' is equivalent to 'why'? Nothing wrong with that, just trying to understand you better...

In what way have I contradicted myself? The quote of mine to which you responded in the above quote, was a question posed to you in order to clarify my understanding of your own position...

No, you fail to realize that humans understand cause-effect[/b] logic. A universe that was caused by an event, has a reason Why for its existence.

Here again, an equivalence between 'cause' and 'why'. Semantics really get me down.

I do not believe that I have claimed that determinism seems to be somehow broken in the big bang event, though that may be the case.

Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?

No, what follows is only that we have much hard work ahead of us.

This is oversimplification.

Of course, and probably incorrect on more than one level, however, one could devote many lifetimes to the study of the development of the communication skills of Homo sapiens; so, you must forgive me for being brief.

It does not take into account the fact that language is a tool in which we can describe the universe in a meaningful way.

This is, actually, what I was saying. You simply must be careful about what precisely it is that you mean when you say, 'meaningful'. Maybe we don't disagree as much as it may seem, perhaps a thorough treatment of your intended usage would be in order.

Either way, it doesn't follow that there was no cause/why for the emergence of the universe the way it did.

No, certainly not. Just an example of an accident of evolutionary history.

What caused the universe?(which is what we perceive now as "anything and everything")

First and foremost, the grammar of the question must be applicable to the situation we find ourselves in. Is this question, so to speak, "Not even wrong."?

Hand in hand, we may find ourselves evaluating the question and answering it (or another more appropriate); yet we can not stray far from the data in our attempts and remain serious. We are in for the long haul on this query.

Why is the universe comprehensible?

Again, is this even a good question? Seeing as humans are biochemical machines built to manipulate and propagate in our unique ways from the very same 'stuff' that makes everything else up; I think that it is simply a consequence of the evolutionary development of our brains.

Why are the laws of physics and physical constants the way they are, so that a universe like ours can emerge and unfold through its 14 billion years history?

Now this, I think, is indeed a good question that is being worked on the world over by a large number of professional physicists and cosmologists. I await with bated breath.

What drove the emergence of consciousness? Etc

Another good question, though maybe worded a bit funny. This is an excellent time to be following the fields of evolutionary biology and neuroscience, as these areas of study (among many others) are beginning to converge with great results. This, I think, of all your questions is the most likely to be answered within the next half century.

Seeing as consciousness is a quality of brains, and brains are organs like any other, we can already begin to grope for understanding as the fields of evolutionary development and genetics explode into the new millennium.

V.S. Ramachandran's work stands out as high quality and accessible insight into the mysteries of our minds.

 

[JoeDawg]

I got my definition "mental rejection of something as untrue" straight from www.merriam-webster.com. Of course, this is all irrelevant, because I get to choose the meaning of the word I used -- and I used "disbelief" to mean what I stated above as its definition.

I have no problem with your definition. But equating disbelief with belief is erroneous. Its like saying no-apple is a type of apple. When you believe something you are making a commitment, an affirmation, to that thing, disbelief, or lack of belief is not the same.

I didn't make my claim blind -- I actually spent a few minutes searching the internet first. What I found suggested the Greeks used it as denial of the existence of the Gods. Also, that "theism" is a back-formation: it didn't appear until two millinea after "atheism" -- so it doesn't make sense to try and translate "atheism" as the synthesis of "a" and "theism".

As I noted, originally, the was simply an insult.
So if you are using it in its original sense, then you are being insulting.
The word is embraced by atheists because the direct translation is descriptive, and the word has a history of slander, so taking that label is similar to what homosexuals did with the word 'queer'. It takes the power away from those who use it to insult and oppress.

Believers often use word games like this to equivocate. Its the same thing as saying scientists have 'faith in science', because scientists 'believe' in scientific method, even though religion and science have completely different standards.

 

[WaveJumper]

In exactly the same way that high tides, clouds, moon dust, and bubbles are meaningless.

There is a reason Why any of those exist in the way they do. "Meaning" is a subjective word that cannot be applied without mentioning what it's supposed to denote. We should shake off as much human "baggage" as possible when dealing with the beginning of the universe. Tides could be meaningful to someone writing a poem/song, clouds as well, etc. Essentially, 'meaning' is subjective, whereas reason/cause is not.

 

[octelcogopod]

A problem I can see with "why" is that it's infinitely regressive.
You can ask why forever and you can't hit a first why, because by definition that would have a previous why.

To talk about the origins of the universe and anything else that's out there (other higher dimensions for instance) is only fruitful if we have some tangible evidence to support it.
I believe talking about how or what the why means or works without this is like talking about a new color or something. We can't see it, can't understand it, no way to visualize it nor measure it.

 

[WaveJumper]

A problem I can see with "why" is that it's infinitely regressive.
You can ask why forever and you can't hit a first why, because by definition that would have a previous why.

With regards to our seamless development through the several million years history, one can guess that when and if we reach civilisation stage type 3 level(Kardashev scale), we may have acquired the technology and knowledge to re-create a big bang that would result in a universe with laws of physics(properties of particles) hospitable to the emergence of life.
Would our creations be looking up to the sky at night saying prayers to us, their God?

That was, however, a limited classical perspective on the universe. If we were to abandon the human "baggage" and apply quantum theory and relativity, a very serious question arises - what is it that we are trying to describe? We essentially don't know AT ALL neither what space is, nor Time outside of what we subjectively experience. This is more confusing than explanatory, but we don't know if those 2 concepts exist at all apart from our perception. And if they exist, how do they exist and why do they have those mind-bending properties we've uncovered in the last 100 years? Applying a Why to those 2 pillars of modern physics requires that we first come to an understanding of what the universe really is, outside of our very limited perspective. It's already surfacing in articles by physicists working on the future TOE that such a theory would entail something very radical that would have profound implications for the nature of reality and literally turn your world upside down. And it's not just those working on the TOE, most physicists are already aware that such a phase transition on how we view reality is inevitable and will likely bring about, or contribute to, a shift in our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the rest of the universe. It's likely that then we'll have better understanding of the why's/reasons and causes for what we are perceiving as a rock solid structure that exists and is evolving in time under the name "Universe".

 

[Anticitizen]

"I'm an agnostic."
"Are you a theist?"
"No..."
"So you're an atheist..."
"Err... um.. ah..."

I think some people just don't want to be called an atheist. If you don't know if there's a god or not, you're godless.

A problem I can see with "why" is that it's infinitely regressive.
You can ask why forever and you can't hit a first why, because by definition that would have a previous why.

That's true IF time, causality, etc worked the same way pre-big bang as post big bang. Some assert that the concept of 'time' before the big bang is meaningless. Causality as we view it relies on our conception of time, an antecedent preceding a consequent, etc.

 

[kldickson]

To suggest that the universe has some sort of purpose is to impose a nearly anthropomorphic - or even 'living' - quality on it, which is disingenuous to do.

The universe just is.