Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[octelcogopod]

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".

I agree.. I think basically that right now we are incapable of thinking in "terms of the universe" things like infinite regress, the beginning of the universe etc are all things that may require a completely different approach.
It's hard to think about what the universe is, and why it's there, even with science, so maybe we need a transition..

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.

But if you say time didn't mean anything before the big bang, how could the big bang have happened? If time can be defined as moving things, then something must have had time before the big bang. Or the big bang just evolved out of nothingness.
Our concept and the way we view time may be wrong, but there has to be some kind of "thing" before and before and before..

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.

Which again explains nothing. In this thread we are not talking about living quality or anthropomorphic reasons, but rather a scientific and even philosophical why. A why that can be measured or even duplicated. Something that will explain it in a logical manner.

 

[kldickson]

Well, I'm not totally sure what you mean; if you're saying 'what made the universe come about', you've got the Big Bang, which is supported by such things as measurement of cosmic microwave background radiation. So we've got an event, which is being more clearly explained with each new piece of information about it. I'm not sure how detailed of a description you want.

You mention 'time'; how do you imagine 'time'? Time itself is distortable and highly tied to space, and there is more than one thread of inquiry which seems to suggest that there is no such thing as 'time before the Big Bang', which would make the phrase 'time before the Big Bang' a contradictory one, or that time before the Big Bang is meaningless in the sense that nothing before then has any sort of impact on events now and is inaccessible so we can only make broad and probably impossible speculations about it.

Philosophically, I think it's a bit absurd to philosophize about things that remain more firmly in the realm of science. I have, for what it's worth, fairly low regard of most philosophers, and the only ones I really have any modicum of respect for are the ones who let science guide their philosophizing.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, I'm not totally sure what you mean; if you're saying 'what made the universe come about', you've got the Big Bang, which is supported by such things as measurement of cosmic microwave background radiation. So we've got an event, which is being more clearly explained with each new piece of information about it. I'm not sure how detailed of a description you want.

The big bang only explains what happens right at the beginning and during the big bang, it doesn't explain why the big bang happened to begin with or where all the energy came from.

You mention 'time'; how do you imagine 'time'? Time itself is distortable and highly tied to space, and there is more than one thread of inquiry which seems to suggest that there is no such thing as 'time before the Big Bang', which would make the phrase 'time before the Big Bang' a contradictory one, or that time before the Big Bang is meaningless in the sense that nothing before then has any sort of impact on events now and is inaccessible so we can only make broad and probably impossible speculations about it.

Like I said above, if you are suggesting that the big bang simply erupted out of nothingness, then yes you are right, time is irrelevant. But if you think about it more closely, you realize that the big bang probably didn't erupt out of nothingness, but that rather it was there all along, either in another form, or a higher dimension or similar. And that's why 'time before big bang' makes sense.

Philosophically, I think it's a bit absurd to philosophize about things that remain more firmly in the realm of science. I have, for what it's worth, fairly low regard of most philosophers, and the only ones I really have any modicum of respect for are the ones who let science guide their philosophizing.

I agree.

 

[Pupil]

Well, I'm not totally sure what you mean; if you're saying 'what made the universe come about', you've got the Big Bang, which is supported by such things as measurement of cosmic microwave background radiation. So we've got an event, which is being more clearly explained with each new piece of information about it. I'm not sure how detailed of a description you want.

The Big Bang says nothing of whether the universe was created or not; it is a theory describing the evolution of the universe over time since it's hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago.

You mention 'time'; how do you imagine 'time'? Time itself is distortable and highly tied to space, and there is more than one thread of inquiry which seems to suggest that there is no such thing as 'time before the Big Bang', which would make the phrase 'time before the Big Bang' a contradictory one, or that time before the Big Bang is meaningless in the sense that nothing before then has any sort of impact on events now and is inaccessible so we can only make broad and probably impossible speculations about it.

Precisely. Speaking of time before the concept arose after the Big Bang is meaningless. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?"

 

[octelcogopod]

Precisely. Speaking of time before the concept arose after the Big Bang is meaningless. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?"

Not exactly. We can't say for sure that time was not a concept before the big bang.
If the big bang erupted out of something else, like a higher dimension, then it's fair to at least be open to the possibility that 'time' is not unique to our universe.
For me right now time is almost equivalent to motion anyway.

 

[kldickson]

Whether the universe was 'created'? 'Higher dimensions'?

Methinks you are attempting to drag religious discussion into this. I will warn you quite strongly against it. Not the least of which reasons being that I am an atheist and will happily debate you into the ground about it, if you attempt to justify it with some sort of religious ballyhoo.

Back on topic: If you mean 'what set the Big Bang off' when you say 'why the Big Bang happened to begin with', I suspect it is some physical aspect of the universe; I don't know whether this is totally true, but my first guess would be the natural entropy of the universe, and this explosive expansion would definitely increase the entropy of the universe. Someone with a more extensive physics background than me needs to help me explain this one.

Where all the energy came from? The best I can say is that it just is. Remember that energy and matter are interchangeable and that you can't make something out of nothing.

 

[octelcogopod]

Haha excuse me/ Religious discussion. Oh boy.

I'm mostly talking about the string theory aspects.
But even if string theory didn't exist, it's still quite odd that so much energy would suddenly burst into existence from nothingness.
As for your explanation that 'it just is' explains just about nothing, and can only be interpreted as some argument for an infinite universe.

When I talk about 'what set the big bang off' I do not mean the physics inside the universe. Like I said you can't just create so much energy out of nothingness.
In string theory at least the theory is that there are branes floating in the higher dimension and that these branes collided and set off a big bang.
This seems a lot more likely.. But of course I can't argue for or against its reality..

 

[kldickson]

octelcogopod, perhaps we don't quite have much of a good explanation for it yet.

At present, we don't have the technology to measure much of the things you're talking about; 'it just is' is the best explanation I can produce, given what information is available and logically sound. (And it is entirely possible for some concepts to be outside the purview of human perception, given our perception of time and space.)

I have reservations about embracing strings and branes as fact until there's more than just speculation about it, and indeed, about 'higher dimensions'.

 

[octelcogopod]

I wasn't about to embrace those things as facts either.
I was merely pointing out that time before big bang and the idea that things occurred before the big bang are indeed things to take into account.

 

[kldickson]

I think the notion that time existed before the Big Bang is largely one influenced by our perception of time.

 

[Anticitizen]

Precisely. Speaking of time before the concept arose after the Big Bang is meaningless. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?"

It may be meaningless in the sense of being an undefinable or nonexistent property, but the implications are far from meaningless. It introduces the possibility of alternatives to classical causality.

In the most common model of the Big Bang, one micro-instant (10^-43 seconds) after the Big Bang, the universe was thought to be the Planck Length, (10^-35 meters). At that time, it would have had a temperature of 10^32 kelvins, which is the upper limit for conventional physics. From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html"

The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 10^32 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today.​

Thing is, the moment before that instant, things should have been hotter. If the rules change for energy and matter at that point, it's not too big a stretch to consider that it does so for time as well.

So, it may be 'meaningless' to consider whatever happened before that point 'time' as we know it, but the implications shouldn't be ignored.

 

[octelcogopod]

That's true, but on a merely speculative level.. If the big bang didn't BANG from nothingness, then it MIGHT be possible that the things that make up our universe existed before the big bang. It's merely on a logical level.

Either the universe came from nothing
or
it came from something, and that something may be (and should be) created by at least some of the things in our universe.. And thus it is not unreal to think that time maybe existed before. This may be all false and we may have no idea but I'm just saying.

 

[kldickson]

Actually, if you want a value for the Planck time, it's 5.24x10^-44 seconds.

 

[Anticitizen]

The article was describing how long after the big bang event Planck temperature was reached, not the value of Planck time itself.

 

[kldickson]

My judgments about the 'elegance' of the theory aside ('elegance' is the last thing you should care about when discussing FACT!), they've already 'fused' the electromagnetic and weak forces into the electroweak force and are doing work to fuse the strong force into the electromagnetic and weak forces. The only problem that remains is fusing gravity with those forces.

 

[kldickson]

I'm not totally sure how discussion of Planck units ties into this.

 

[Anticitizen]

Because the Planck units represent the 'upper limit' of classical physics, which is breached by conditions concerning the Big Bang. The point was that since the laws of nature as we know them don't operate according to currently known models at that point, it should be considered that our models of time/causality may not, as well.

That's not to say there is necessarily no causality, or that the question of 'what happened before the big bang?' is meaningless, it just may mean that what we call 'before' (the antecedent) has a different relationship with what happens 'after' (the consequent) than what we traditionally mean when we say that 'X caused Y'.

 

[WaveJumper]

Without an understanding of what space and time really are from all fields of physics(not just classical mechanics), all attempts to convince the skeptics that atheism have got everything right or that Allah or Christ poofed the universe into existence are just hilarious empty talk. This thread is done as far as i am concerned, the monger in me wants to sit back and watch the 'explanations' flow in(based on the old outdated, somewhat atheist-friendly Newtonean worldview of the universe)

 

[octelcogopod]

Without an understanding of what space and time really are from all fields of physics(not just classical mechanics), all attempts to convince the skeptics that atheism have got everything right or that Allah or Christ poofed the universe into existence are just hilarious empty talk. This thread is done as far as i am concerned, the monger in me wants to sit back and watch the 'explanations' flow in.

What is this talk about atheism and how does it fit in here?
And who here has tried to explain anything? If you are referring to any of my posts I was simply airing some of my thoughts. Not to be taken as 'explanations.'

 

[WaveJumper]

What is this talk about atheism and how does it fit in here?
And who here has tried to explain anything? If you are referring to any of my posts I was simply airing some of my thoughts. Not to be taken as 'explanations.'

No, no, i wasn't referring to any of your posts, sorry, i think your posts are balanced and making sense. I was referring to this gem:

"The question of 'why' anything exists implies purposed creation, reason, and logic in the subject of the why. This tends to fly in the face of science but walks right through the door of the church"Also this:

"The OP has a simple question with a simple answer: no."And this insight:

"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."

 

[octelcogopod]

Don't apologize, I'm relieved.

 

[baywax]

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.

No, this statement "Why is there a universe the way we see it?" is answerable via complex neuroscience equations and even a bit of psychiatry. But for the most part, the answer resides in genetics and the natural selection of traits that work toward the survival of our species.

The reason (answer to the "why") we see the universe the way we do is because our senses have evolved to see it that way. And, apparently, they continue to adapt to the barrage of information we continue to implode upon ourselves. All part of the karma that comes with knocking off universe sized mosquitos.

 

[baywax]

"Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?"

I don't think the question is meaningless.

For example, a child might ask..."why is the sky blue?" Immediately you search for the refractory and prismatic reasons behind the blue sky. You do not assume the child is asking for a purpose explaining the blueness of the sky such as "so the leaves look more orange against the sky". Or "because its the blue part of Paul Newman's eyes... looking down on you".

Similarly, understanding why the universe exists means understanding how it came to be... without a doubt. Big bang... something from nothing... how ever it was formed... will we ever understand why this universe exists?

 

[vectorcube]

A scientific theory S is a deductive system in which postulates of such a theory is taken as primitive. The model M of S is what makes every statement of S a true statement in S. The model of S in the actual world. All logically possible words Mi with theory( deductive system) Si. Surely, there is nothing logically necessary about the existence of this world for any 2-tuple ( Mi, Si ) is possible. Why should there be a universe with such and such mathematical structure govern by such and such theory, when there all so many choices to choice from in the set of all logically possible worlds? Why did god pick a such and such particular mathematical structure, and built a universe around it? Could it possibly be that all logically possible worlds exist?

 

[getitright]

I don't think it's any more possible for us to understand why the universe exists than it would be for bacteria to understand why the petri dish exists. The fact of the matter is that our perception is so limited by so many different things that what's "really" there will never be known to anyone species.

Animals without eyes can't comprehend sight, but we can... I don't see why there wouldn't be billions of different things happening that we're missing out on and always will.

tchitt got the spirit of the argument better than I did. I used the word 'faith' to be at peace with those things we don't understand. I put no limits on what we could learn but privately hold the belief that we will blow ourselves up before that could ever happen.

It matters not if you have extreme religion or total science. This sword is sharp on both edges and much harm has been done in the name of both extremes. My point is to search for truth in nature, math, science, AND faith. And Athiesm is a faith - it is just the acknowledgment of no 'diety' other that nature itsself. BTW I'm a Baptist - and it doesn't matter one iota in the discussion.

 

[vectorcube]

AND faith. And Athiesm is a faith - it is just the acknowledgment of no 'diety' other that nature itsself. BTW I'm a Baptist - and it doesn't matter one iota in the discussion.

Why faith? It seems to be the wrong word. Why not just say you think god exist. There is nothing wrong with such a belief.

 

[octelcogopod]

It matters not if you have extreme religion or total science. This sword is sharp on both edges and much harm has been done in the name of both extremes. My point is to search for truth in nature, math, science, AND faith. And Athiesm is a faith - it is just the acknowledgment of no 'diety' other that nature itsself. BTW I'm a Baptist - and it doesn't matter one iota in the discussion.

A bit off topic maybe but I wanted to say that atheism is not faith per se.
Atheism is when you don't believe in a God yes, but faith to me implies social, moral and spiritual guidelines, of which atheism has none.
Atheism just asks you to believe in whatever you think is right based on the evidence you see, and it also denies any human-made god.

 

[vectorcube]

A bit off topic maybe but I wanted to say that atheism is not faith per se.
Atheism is when you don't believe in a God yes, but faith to me implies social, moral and spiritual guidelines, of which atheism has none.
Atheism just asks you to believe in whatever you think is right based on the evidence you see, and it also denies any human-made god.

This is incorrect. Atheism is belief that there is no god. Evidence does not factor into the issue. No amount of absence of evidence may someone conclude there is no god.

 

[octelcogopod]

This is incorrect. Atheism is belief that there is no god. Evidence does not factor into the issue. No amount of absence of evidence may someone conclude there is no god.

Still not the same thing. You believe there isn't an invisible pink elephant over your head. No amount of absence of evidence may you conclude there is not one.
God is a myth, a tale.. And not believing in him is not equal to faith or anything like that. It just means no evidence of god exists, so I don't believe in it.

 

[WaveJumper]

Still not the same thing. You believe there isn't an invisible pink elephant over your head. No amount of absence of evidence may you conclude there is not one.
God is a myth, a tale.. And not believing in him is not equal to faith or anything like that. It just means no evidence of god exists, so I don't believe in it.

What do you mean by God? What evidence do you have that the Big Bang wasn't caused by intelligent beings(probably not very different from us). What objections can you raise against the simulation argument? Statements like this:

God is a myth, a tale..

only go to show how much faith and hope is involved in atheism. Strong atheism is in fact pure religion. Not that i mind religious beliefs, but it has to be clear that it is faith-based, as opposed to claims that somehow it is rooted in science. It is not.


I don't think Strong atheism is doing atheists a favour.

 

[octelcogopod]

I think that atheism isn't so much a rejection of god, as it is a logical disbelief in that which hasn't been proven.
I am an atheist not because I am against god or religion, but because it is a natural extension of an area of reality which I have knowledge of.

I do not believe that there is an invisible spoon on my desk. Sure it may be there, but until I can see some kind of observable or other evidence, I do not believe it.
Not only that, but I find it pointless and unecessary to even include the invisible spoon in any kind of debate. God is like everything else that doesn't exist.. I don't believe in it until it is somehow proven. Just like the spoon.

I am not an active atheist so to speak, nor do I label myself as an atheist. I just know that I am an atheist by nature, since god has not been proven. But in that sense I'm also an "a-spoonist" "a-pink elephantist" and so forth.

 

[Pupil]

This is incorrect. Atheism is belief that there is no god. Evidence does not factor into the issue. No amount of absence of evidence may someone conclude there is no god.

You're using a definition no (or incredibly few) atheists use. Atheism is a lack of belief (see post 149, 150, 152, http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm" ).

I detest having to explain this over and over again, but no amount of evidence -- for anything -- gives absolute certainty. You can not say invisible blue Ogres aren't floating above your head, that the sun will rise, Zeus exists, or that you aren't a brain in a vat with absolute certainty. You do the best with the evidence presented and make conclusions from there. Atheism is a lack of belief in the claims about God, and by definition nothing more.

 

[Hurkyl]

disbelief in that which hasn't been proven.

"Disbelief in that which hasn't been proven" is the same thing as "belief in that which hasn't been disproven".

 

[octelcogopod]

"Disbelief in that which hasn't been proven" is the same thing as "belief in that which hasn't been disproven".

I still think there's a difference.
There are a lot of things that haven't been disproven. In fact everything that hasn't happened or doesn't exist, hasn't technically been disproven.
There can be invisible objects in my room, but if I do not believe in them, is that the same type of belief as believing in them? Especially when there is no evidence for them?
I have to acknowledge that I can't prove that god doesn't exist. And all I really believe is that we shouldn't assume he exists before anything has been proven or observed.
I do NOT believe that he does NOT exist. Although I do believe god is a man made concept and if there is anything remotely like an omnipotent being out there that it's nothing like the god in the bible. So in that sense I do not believe in the man in the sky.

 

[Hurkyl]

I still think there's a difference.

That's because you seem to keep flip-flopping between "belief that something is not there" and "don't believe that something is there".