How amazing is it that we exist?

[five]

I just had dinner with my family and I sat down at my computer to kill a few minutes before we head over to the extended family's place for some desert...and I read over a reply to a post I made on an astronomy forum...and I thought, "How incredible is it that our existence, the existence of the universe even came to be?"

The fact that anything exists at all is really fantastic.

I just had to get that out...it was really relating to my thoughts on a topic regarding the creation and evolution of universes:

I'm sure most of you have heard of Lee Smolin before, who discusses a theory regarding the multiplication of universes through black holes and natural selection in the macroscopic scale.
Here's a link to a summary:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/smolin.html

I read a comment (I believe it's actually in that article) by a critic that it would be necessary for these universes to appear in strange dimensions, and it's likely that they would collide with eachother. It's an interesting argument against the theory, but is it really necessary for these universes to just appear elsewhere?

If we consider the immense time dilation caused by the gravity of the black hole, it's possible that it won't reach singularity until the moment the universe is destroyed in the first place. [Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding at any point] Applied to the idea of the "big rip," would it be possible that these black holes reach singularity and breed a new universe at the point of destruction of the old one? Not to say that all the black holes that are left would exhibit this behaviour, but perhaps the most massive of them. If this is the case then it may not be necessary for these new universes to exist in other dimensions or anything strange like that, they would appear where the old one was destroyed...even if just one results from the old one.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ip_030306.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

A reply suggested that perhaps if this were the case then we could part of an infinite, ever-expanding metaverse and that the only thing that can overcome the gravity of a black hole is the expansion of space itself.

Just had to get it out.

 

[Abbadon]

There was an author that wrote some science book, and a teacher friend of mine had it on book-on-CD. We listened to it in the car, and the first chapter basically congratuated you for existing. All of your ancestors, since the beginning of life on the planet, were not stillborn, did not die of disease, violent trauma, were not eaten, and were intelligent enough to find food, attractive enough to find a mate, that likewise did not die, was intelligent enough to get food, attractive enough to find a mate, and both were healthy and lucky enough to have at least one child that didn't die. And this has happened repeatedly since the beginning of life on the planet.

The guy went on in a good bit more detail than that, and really kind of made you glad to be sitting in your chair.

 

[JGL53]

...A reply suggested that perhaps if this were the case then we could part of an infinite, ever-expanding metaverse and that the only thing that can overcome the gravity of a black hole is the expansion of space itself.



Just had to get it out.

five, the idea of a so-called multiverse is very persuasive to me. Actually, it would still be a "universe" except our observable universe would only an infinitesimal part of it.



I don't wish to offend anyone's religious sensibilities but, to me, this idea regarding the nature of ultimate ontology is far more awe-inspiring, mind-blowing, and generally existentially invigorating than the idea of a personal god and his creation.



The most informative website I’ve found on the subject of the multi-universe concept is by a cosmologist named Max Tegmark. You could google the words “ Max Tegmark multiverse” to find his site.



The site is quite elaborate and it takes a few hours to really thoroughly explore it. Check it out and let me know what you think.

 

[JonF]

One of the most fundamental questions about nature that science will never be able to answer is, “why isn’t the universe empty?” It is pretty neat that we exist.

 

[five]

I'm gonna address all the posts here...

There was an author that wrote some science book, and a teacher friend of mine had it on book-on-CD. We listened to it in the car, and the first chapter basically congratuated you for existing. All of your ancestors, since the beginning of life on the planet, were not stillborn,
[clip...]

Well not only that, but the fact that our universe has the proper settings that it didn't just cool to nothingness, that gravity is such that it can facilitate the generation of stars, planets, and galaxies...and in turn that these stars can be unstable and explode and generate heavier materials and eventually wind up with us.... The fact that anything exists at all is just amazing...and then we came to a point where we can look at ourselves, and our universe, and say "Wow." you know? A lot of people take this for granted, but the sheer fact that we do exist is absolutely incredible.

five, the idea of a so-called multiverse is very persuasive to me. Actually, it would still be a "universe" except our observable universe would only an infinitesimal part of it.

Absolutely...and the more that I think about it, the more I think that, perhaps, this may be pointing in a direction we need to investigate. String theory is a wonderful idea, and mathematically it's fantastic, but the complexity of it may be its downfall.

I don't wish to offend anyone's religious sensibilities but, to me, this idea regarding the nature of ultimate ontology is far more awe-inspiring, mind-blowing, and generally existentially invigorating than the idea of a personal god and his creation.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about a solution that doesn't require any divine intervention.

The most informative website I’ve found on the subject of the multi-universe concept is by a cosmologist named Max Tegmark. You could google the words “ Max Tegmark multiverse” to find his site.

I'll take a look, thanks.

One of the most fundamental questions about natural that science will never be able to answer is, “why isn’t the universe empty?” It is pretty neat that we exist.

Sure is.

 

[elman]

five, the idea of a so-called multiverse is very persuasive to me. Actually, it would still be a "universe" except our observable universe would only an infinitesimal part of it.



I don't wish to offend anyone's religious sensibilities but, to me, this idea regarding the nature of ultimate ontology is far more awe-inspiring, mind-blowing, and generally existentially invigorating than the idea of a personal god and his creation.



The most informative website I’ve found on the subject of the multi-universe concept is by a cosmologist named Max Tegmark. You could google the words “ Max Tegmark multiverse” to find his site.



The site is quite elaborate and it takes a few hours to really thoroughly explore it. Check it out and let me know what you think.

It is awe inspiring and even reasonable to think maybe it is not all accidental.

 

[five]

It is awe inspiring and even reasonable to think maybe it is not all accidental.

I've never really considered life or existence to be accidental, per say. Not that I believe that the universe requires a higher power to have come to be, but I'm more inclined to believe that we are here as a result of a series of events billions of years in length. There's nothing really random or accidental about it...just causality.

And the thought that perhaps our universe is not a one-time thing, but rather a naturally occurring event in infinite space-time is incredibly exciting to me. Be this in the form of m-theory, or string theory, or any number of the multiverse theories that are out there....I think this is just a fantastic time in the arena of cosmology and philosophy.....lots of "Mental Masturbation" material as someone put it in one of the G.A. threads

 

[robotneil]

Pretty amazing that we were created.

 

[TeddyKGB]

One of the most fundamental questions about nature that science will never be able to answer is, “why isn’t the universe empty?”

That does not look much like a scientific question.

In any case, there are several answers to that question, depending on perspective. One of which is, "otherwise, you would not be sitting here asking it."

 

[TeddyKGB]

Pretty amazing that we were created.

In what sense? If God is what he is claimed to be, it does not seem like it should be much of anything out of the ordinary.

 

[elman]

I've never really considered life or existence to be accidental, per say. Not that I believe that the universe requires a higher power to have come to be, but I'm more inclined to believe that we are here as a result of a series of events billions of years in length. There's nothing really random or accidental about it...just causality.

And the thought that perhaps our universe is not a one-time thing, but rather a naturally occurring event in infinite space-time is incredibly exciting to me. Be this in the form of m-theory, or string theory, or any number of the multiverse theories that are out there....I think this is just a fantastic time in the arena of cosmology and philosophy.....lots of "Mental Masturbation" material as someone put it in one of the G.A. threads

Being here because of millions of little events over billions of years, any one of which could have gone the other way is what I am talking about when I say accident. An accident can be caused as in an auto accident. If there is no creator and no purpose for our existing, I don't get as exicited about that as you do. I want my existence to have more meaning and my destiny to be more than the meaning and destiny of a stink bug. It does not comfort me much that the universe or matter will continue in some form after I die. If there is no God it is unimportant to me what is or is not afte I am gone.

 

[TheGMan]

That does not look much like a scientific question.

In any case, there are several answers to that question, depending on perspective. One of which is, "otherwise, you would not be sitting here asking it."

And indeed he said it wasn't a question that science could answer.

And the anthropic argument has always struck me as akin to something like...

"Daddy, why does it rain?"

"Because if it didn't you wouldn't wonder why it did."

 

[five]

Being here because of millions of little events over billions of years, any one of which could have gone the other way is what I am talking about when I say accident. An accident can be caused as in an auto accident. If there is no creator and no purpose for our existing, I don't get as exicited about that as you do. I want my existence to have more meaning and my destiny to be more than the meaning and destiny of a stink bug. It does not comfort me much that the universe or matter will continue in some form after I die. If there is no God it is unimportant to me what is or is not afte I am gone.

That's certainly a more cynical view than I take. It would be nice to learn all we can while we're alive, and contribute something to the future, whether or not our souls are there to see it flourish.

 

[JGL53]

That's certainly a more cynical view than I take. It would be nice to learn all we can while we're alive, and contribute something to the future, whether or not our souls are there to see it flourish.

Well, whether elman’s reaction to the idea of a non-created universe is cynical or egotistical or what, I think that the error is in offering the dilemma between the two choices of either 1. god or 2. accident. I really think it's more complicated that that. There is also at least the All is One concept, not to mention the open-ended “we can’t know” view of the agnostic.



Of course, believers in a personal god believe that god “just is”, thus requiring no further explanation or justification. In other words, to ask "Why does god exist rather no god?" or "What is the PURPOSE of god's existence?" are types of questions that make no sense to a believer in a personal god.



But, what if it is the universe that "just exists"? Then to ask these same questions concerning the universe should make no sense either, yet "believers" still ask them. This illogic merely reveals their prejudice and preference and disregard for Occam's Razor - they seem to feel that multiplying causes beyond necessity is just fine if it boosts their egos, allegedly gives some ill-defined "meaning and purpose" to their otherwise pointless existence and life, or some such. (I might ask them "Does god exist for a purpose?" - if the answer is "no", I might then facetiously ask "Then, is god's existence likewise pointless and meaningless - as you claim yours would be if it had no purpose?".



In a causeless multiverse that just exists because it exists (just like the alleged personal god), you will have infinite possible "island" universes – the so-called bubble universe idea - where some universes will be devoid of life, but many others will have life, and where some will have planets that have life but maybe no intelligent life, other universes will have evolved intelligent life - like our universe with earth - and maybe many other planets in our universe - who knows.



Western monotheism, contrary to popular belief in the west, is not the end all and be all of religion. A personal god creating a universe for some unknown "purpose" is only one paradigm that explains the nature of reality we experience. Buddhism (to the degree it addresses ontological questions) and Taoism are based in the concept - literally - that the universe is One. Rather than pantheism, I would call their view panmonism (All is One). Think about that for a while without getting a headache.

 

[five]

But, what if it is the universe that "just exists"? Then to ask these same questions concerning the universe should make no sense either, yet "believers" still ask them. This illogic merely reveals their prejudice and preference and disregard for Occam's Razor - they seem to feel that multiplying causes beyond necessity is just fine if it boosts their egos, allegedly gives some ill-defined "meaning and purpose" to their otherwise pointless existence and life, or some such. (I might ask them "Does god exist for a purpose?" - if the answer is "no", I might then facetiously ask "Then, is god's existence likewise pointless and meaningless - as you claim yours would be if it had no purpose?".

I have asked the question, "why does the universe require a god? Why can God be infinite, but not the universe?" and it's been met with .. well .. mostly it's been ignored or "don't be silly" type responses.

In a causeless multiverse that just exists because it exists (just like the alleged personal god), you will have infinite possible "island" universes – the so-called bubble universe idea - where some universes will be devoid of life, but many others will have life, and where some will have planets that have life but maybe no intelligent life, other universes will have evolved intelligent life - like our universe with earth - and maybe many other planets in our universe - who knows.

I'm not sure that we will find an answer to the reason for the universe existing, which is really what I was elluding to in the original post. We may find that the universe is infinite, I just can't see something not being infinite, as hard as it is to absorb. Undoubtedly we are here, created or not, but there has to be a source for our universe, or the universe itself is infinite. Space-time may be infinite, with universes occurring within it due to singularities, or the universe may contain all of spacetime and itself be infinite. I'm not sure, I'm not sure that anyone's sure.

Here is one theory suggesting that the universe itself is infinite, and that the big bang is an illusion of the curvature of spacetime :
http://www.thecosmiccommode.com/

Despite it's funny name, it brings up a couple decent points..I don't know how serious these guys are, though.

Western monotheism, contrary to popular belief in the west, is not the end all and be all of religion. A personal god creating a universe for some unknown "purpose" is only one paradigm that explains the nature of reality we experience. Buddhism (to the degree it addresses ontological questions) and Taoism are based in the concept - literally - that the universe is One. Rather than pantheism, I would call their view panmonism (All is One). Think about that for a while without getting a headache.

I've been thinking about it for a while

 

[TeddyKGB]

And indeed he said it wasn't a question that science could answer.

Hmm. I seem to have had something in mind when I wrote that, something I can no longer recall.

And the anthropic argument has always struck me as akin to something like...

"Daddy, why does it rain?"

"Because if it didn't you wouldn't wonder why it did."

Some "why" questions are more straightforwardly answered than others. "Why does it rain?" can be taken to mean, "What conditions cause rain?" - a question with an empirical answer.

"Why does the universe exist?", however, is hard to interpret as anything other than, "For what purpose does the universe exist?"

 

[JGL53]

....Here is one theory suggesting that the universe itself is infinite, and that the big bang is an illusion of the curvature of spacetime : (the website regarding the "cosmic commode" theory)...

I just read the entire excerpt from the book and it makes sense to me. But what do I know, I'm not an astrophysicist or cosmologist. Anyway, my mind was kind of blown. I am now agnostic about the Big Bang Theory whereas before I pretty much accepted it as the best theory.



This guy is obviously well-educated - I find it hard to believe this book is (apparently) self-published.



BTW, there is a good bit of metaphorical language sprinkled in this essay that is obviously from the Vedanta (Hindu) world view, e.g., the “Eternal Present”, the “Great Game”, “seeking a return to Oneness”, etc. As metaphor and as a "just so" story, it speaks to me, unlike western monotheism.

 

[five]

I wasn't terribly familiar with the metaphorical quotes here and there, but I thought the overall idea was very intriguing, and original. And thinking about it, it does make some sense, though I'm not much of a cosmologist myself so I'm not able to go out and verify that the redshift is caused by hubble's constant and not the force of gravity acting on photons over great distances.

I like the idea of referencing gravity as a dimension rather than a force because it does lead to an explaination as to why the graviton has not been found yet, and why gravity is the odd-ball of the fundamental forces of physics.

I think, though, that he does mention that photons have mass; and if he says that, it's an erroneous statement. Though I'll have to search through his paper tomorrow...so I could be wrong on that point.

 

[TheGMan]

Some "why" questions are more straightforwardly answered than others. "Why does it rain?" can be taken to mean, "What conditions cause rain?" - a question with an empirical answer.

"Why does the universe exist?", however, is hard to interpret as anything other than, "For what purpose does the universe exist?"

But the anthropic argument is a straightforward answer to the rain question. And it certainly isn't ascribing a purpose to the rain. And saying that God created the universe is not the answer to a teleological "why". It deals with an efficient "why".

 

[TeddyKGB]

But the anthropic argument is a straightforward answer to the rain question. And it certainly isn't ascribing a purpose to the rain.

Bad choice of words on my part, perhaps. The anthropic argument is not the obvious answer, or the 'common sense' answer.

And saying that God created the universe is not the answer to a teleological "why". It deals with an efficient "why".

That does not usually prevent the theist from stopping his philosophical reductionism with God. Gods are usually surrounded by dogma anyway; ascribing a trivial purpose ("God was bored") is hardly out of phase.