I like to introduce a new issue, regarding the question which I regard as one of the most fundamental questions one could ask, namely:
Why is there a world?
I think this question is a crucial one, and in our development of our consciousness, I think all of us have asked this question.
First, just consider what the question means. Let us try think the unthinkable. A world, where there is no sun, no earth, no galaxies, no gas, no light. What would it be like? Well it is certainly difficult to imagine.
And some my refer to it as "a void" or "empty space". But it goes even further then that. There wouldn't be anything material (including energy), nor space, nor time. Is that possible to imagine?
Well you sure have to take some time to consider it. Would it have been possible, that there was no world?
What fascinates me also is, where does this question come from, why do we - as human beings - question these thing? Is this somehow wired into our brain/mind? Or is it a necessary step in our mental growth, to see the world as it is? I remember asking me this kind of question at the age of maybe 4 or 5.
I wonder if anyone else, have ever wondered or struggles with this question, and what answer they got up with.
I think that in principle, all given answers regarding the existence of the world and our own existence, in some sort, are ways to answer this question. And indeed it is a very hard question, because it questions the most basic premises and things, everything consists of, including one-self.
And by the way: the only conclusion I could draw in my attempt to answer the question was, that if there was not a world, then there would not be a "me" either, so the question came to question my own existence.
Basically and in principle, I think the question is answered in two distinct directions.
a) The world is something uncaused (it has always existed and will always exists, in whatever form), so realy the type of question is unanswerable.
b) There was some kind of superbeing, that caused the world to come into being. So, this is typically a way theism answers the question.
Personally I think and I just suppose, people find more relief in anwer b) as in a) for various reasons. Yet, in my own daily consiousness, I accept the logic and rationality of anwer a). I consider myself to be a materialist
The only thing real consists of matter in some form, in eternal movement and change, have space and time as necessary modes of existence.
Yet, I think, no-one is realy absent or unaware of the type of unanswerable questions, that can dig up in ones lives, and one way or the other, we might all find relief in some sort of personal belief.
I think there is where I stand, and there is what belief is for, to find some sort of (temporal) relief in believing something that is out of rational thinking. This is some sort of "internal need" for our personal well beings as social and emotional beings, and is very usefull in terms of social and emotional communication between people. But no need for a belief system in a way as religion has evolved.
For large part of my life, I considered that when dealing with the issues of how life on earth evolved and how the universe evolved, science was the best explenation for this. At least, science does not refer to a book written long ago, or the word of a supposed creator, but just digged into the question and material, and made experiments and theories, to make sense of it. That has now become for most of us, the way we look at the world.
But in a way, of course, science comes up with a lot of anwers, but can't answer the type of question I just raised, namely why is there a world.
We sure know a lot through science, even if some of this knowledge can't be stated as "hard facts", but are evolving and sometimes speculative theories. Like we know that the world we live in, the universe is in a mode of expanding, and for that reason was once in a very rare condition, in which all "matter" (which at that time were not protons or anything like that) was once very close together, and under extreme fysical conditions.
As explained by cosmologist and physicists, the universe as we know it, and everything in it and consists within it, even the time and space framework that constitute it, were all "created" in this artefact of nature.
What the scientist cannot answer, and maybe can never answer, is what was the cause of this to happen. Simply, because there can be never evidence of it (since the creation of the universe, also created our time frame, the question as what happened "before" that is simply unanswerable), although there exist theoretical models for this state.
Physics and cosmologists have gone a long way, to answer these kind of questions, and sure made a lot of progress of this puzzle we are dealing with. In a way they have made the unanwerable question into something that can be dealt with experimentally and/or theoretically. They don't say, they got the final anwer, but they have made us understand what raising the question in fact meant.
What is the moral of this story? Well, I think, even if we have come up, on theoretical fundaments and based on well tested experiments proofed theories a good (but still incomplete) "picture" of what an answer might look like (but involving a LOT of theoretical, physical and mathematical understanding, which is near to impossible to understand for the non-scientific community), the framework for the answer to the question has been laid out properly, we need to consider that for most people such an answer is simply not understandable and uncomprehensible (and this includes myself too, I have only done 2 years of physics study, and can't completely follow all the underlying physics and math), so for the human purposes we came up with that question in the first place, we need an answer that satisfies our human needs, and not just the intelectual side of it.
I am sure that is what most people currently holds or attracts in some sort of belief system or religion, because in some way, people find a better answer there. It would be undoable to teach anyone the insight that science can give them currently today, and if we would have all the knowledge that the science community has today, to someone who is completely unaware of any physical theory and mathematical theory (and just recognize you need to read a big pile of books on such theory to just be able to grasp a small fraction of it) of how the world came into being, I think one would come up with some simple and rudimentary sayings like what is told in the biblic book of genesis or the islamic book qu`ran, or whatever creation "myth" is availabe in the world.
In other words, for the purpose of relief and satisfation, the genesis book provides just the kind of answer, which does not require you to study physics and math for 10 years. But to be able to do that, and to circumvade all the important outcomes of the cosmological and physical theories and discoveries, and to make the answer easier, the off-trade is to introduce an entity (a creator or god), which existence cannot be fully understood and has mystical properties, and requires many textbooks to read, etc.
This is to answer the question as to why we cannot expect, as least not in the short terms, that the bible and/or qu`ran will be replaced with the mathemathical and physical explenations, in forms of mathematical equations decribing gravitational fields, quantum fluctuations, etc.
This is also to answer my relation towards deism/theism and the question of was there a creator, because as how I see things, this was not the fumdamental question to be asked, but was a way of answering the unanswerable.
It might very well be that what in the last centuries has been the task of religion, could in the long run be replaced with a more suitable form of knowledge, based on the very outcomes of experimental and theoretical studies performed in the last century, for the needs of human beings.
Provided of course, that the answer includes the more non-rational aspect of human nature, and the social and emotional sided of the question as well, which is not directly answered by physicists of course.
So, out of this necessity, there would be a need of a more "human based" theory or philosophy to answer such questions, and practically implement an answer to that. After all, we are all humans, and have human needs, and need a world that provides for each of us what we as humans need.
The kind of movement/philosophy I am referring to, would be better thought of as a social(ist) movement, based on materialistic and humanistic principles, and would more or less fulfill the same kind of purpose as religion had in the last 2/3 centuries, which the difference that we don't work for the goal of "going to heaven" or the "after life", but the life here and now, of human beings who have human needs to be fulfilled now.
For each to his/her needs, from each according to her/his abilities...
In social terms speaking, we might consider us still living in the middle ages, in respect of the economic/political structure we still embodie, where people still die of curable diseases, hunger, war, and suffer from all kind of economical/natural/political circumstances which are in part/large part denying the rights each human being should be entitled to.
So, let us enlighten us on this part, and involve in this work of freeing human kind of the current miseries and injustices still in existence. For human sakeand for human need. There is no other goal then the human goal.
Why is there a world?
I think this question is a crucial one, and in our development of our consciousness, I think all of us have asked this question.
First, just consider what the question means. Let us try think the unthinkable. A world, where there is no sun, no earth, no galaxies, no gas, no light. What would it be like? Well it is certainly difficult to imagine.
And some my refer to it as "a void" or "empty space". But it goes even further then that. There wouldn't be anything material (including energy), nor space, nor time. Is that possible to imagine?
Well you sure have to take some time to consider it. Would it have been possible, that there was no world?
What fascinates me also is, where does this question come from, why do we - as human beings - question these thing? Is this somehow wired into our brain/mind? Or is it a necessary step in our mental growth, to see the world as it is? I remember asking me this kind of question at the age of maybe 4 or 5.
I wonder if anyone else, have ever wondered or struggles with this question, and what answer they got up with.
I think that in principle, all given answers regarding the existence of the world and our own existence, in some sort, are ways to answer this question. And indeed it is a very hard question, because it questions the most basic premises and things, everything consists of, including one-self.
And by the way: the only conclusion I could draw in my attempt to answer the question was, that if there was not a world, then there would not be a "me" either, so the question came to question my own existence.
Basically and in principle, I think the question is answered in two distinct directions.
a) The world is something uncaused (it has always existed and will always exists, in whatever form), so realy the type of question is unanswerable.
b) There was some kind of superbeing, that caused the world to come into being. So, this is typically a way theism answers the question.
Personally I think and I just suppose, people find more relief in anwer b) as in a) for various reasons. Yet, in my own daily consiousness, I accept the logic and rationality of anwer a). I consider myself to be a materialist
The only thing real consists of matter in some form, in eternal movement and change, have space and time as necessary modes of existence.
Yet, I think, no-one is realy absent or unaware of the type of unanswerable questions, that can dig up in ones lives, and one way or the other, we might all find relief in some sort of personal belief.
I think there is where I stand, and there is what belief is for, to find some sort of (temporal) relief in believing something that is out of rational thinking. This is some sort of "internal need" for our personal well beings as social and emotional beings, and is very usefull in terms of social and emotional communication between people. But no need for a belief system in a way as religion has evolved.
For large part of my life, I considered that when dealing with the issues of how life on earth evolved and how the universe evolved, science was the best explenation for this. At least, science does not refer to a book written long ago, or the word of a supposed creator, but just digged into the question and material, and made experiments and theories, to make sense of it. That has now become for most of us, the way we look at the world.
But in a way, of course, science comes up with a lot of anwers, but can't answer the type of question I just raised, namely why is there a world.
We sure know a lot through science, even if some of this knowledge can't be stated as "hard facts", but are evolving and sometimes speculative theories. Like we know that the world we live in, the universe is in a mode of expanding, and for that reason was once in a very rare condition, in which all "matter" (which at that time were not protons or anything like that) was once very close together, and under extreme fysical conditions.
As explained by cosmologist and physicists, the universe as we know it, and everything in it and consists within it, even the time and space framework that constitute it, were all "created" in this artefact of nature.
What the scientist cannot answer, and maybe can never answer, is what was the cause of this to happen. Simply, because there can be never evidence of it (since the creation of the universe, also created our time frame, the question as what happened "before" that is simply unanswerable), although there exist theoretical models for this state.
Physics and cosmologists have gone a long way, to answer these kind of questions, and sure made a lot of progress of this puzzle we are dealing with. In a way they have made the unanwerable question into something that can be dealt with experimentally and/or theoretically. They don't say, they got the final anwer, but they have made us understand what raising the question in fact meant.
What is the moral of this story? Well, I think, even if we have come up, on theoretical fundaments and based on well tested experiments proofed theories a good (but still incomplete) "picture" of what an answer might look like (but involving a LOT of theoretical, physical and mathematical understanding, which is near to impossible to understand for the non-scientific community), the framework for the answer to the question has been laid out properly, we need to consider that for most people such an answer is simply not understandable and uncomprehensible (and this includes myself too, I have only done 2 years of physics study, and can't completely follow all the underlying physics and math), so for the human purposes we came up with that question in the first place, we need an answer that satisfies our human needs, and not just the intelectual side of it.
I am sure that is what most people currently holds or attracts in some sort of belief system or religion, because in some way, people find a better answer there. It would be undoable to teach anyone the insight that science can give them currently today, and if we would have all the knowledge that the science community has today, to someone who is completely unaware of any physical theory and mathematical theory (and just recognize you need to read a big pile of books on such theory to just be able to grasp a small fraction of it) of how the world came into being, I think one would come up with some simple and rudimentary sayings like what is told in the biblic book of genesis or the islamic book qu`ran, or whatever creation "myth" is availabe in the world.
In other words, for the purpose of relief and satisfation, the genesis book provides just the kind of answer, which does not require you to study physics and math for 10 years. But to be able to do that, and to circumvade all the important outcomes of the cosmological and physical theories and discoveries, and to make the answer easier, the off-trade is to introduce an entity (a creator or god), which existence cannot be fully understood and has mystical properties, and requires many textbooks to read, etc.
This is to answer the question as to why we cannot expect, as least not in the short terms, that the bible and/or qu`ran will be replaced with the mathemathical and physical explenations, in forms of mathematical equations decribing gravitational fields, quantum fluctuations, etc.
This is also to answer my relation towards deism/theism and the question of was there a creator, because as how I see things, this was not the fumdamental question to be asked, but was a way of answering the unanswerable.
It might very well be that what in the last centuries has been the task of religion, could in the long run be replaced with a more suitable form of knowledge, based on the very outcomes of experimental and theoretical studies performed in the last century, for the needs of human beings.
Provided of course, that the answer includes the more non-rational aspect of human nature, and the social and emotional sided of the question as well, which is not directly answered by physicists of course.
So, out of this necessity, there would be a need of a more "human based" theory or philosophy to answer such questions, and practically implement an answer to that. After all, we are all humans, and have human needs, and need a world that provides for each of us what we as humans need.
The kind of movement/philosophy I am referring to, would be better thought of as a social(ist) movement, based on materialistic and humanistic principles, and would more or less fulfill the same kind of purpose as religion had in the last 2/3 centuries, which the difference that we don't work for the goal of "going to heaven" or the "after life", but the life here and now, of human beings who have human needs to be fulfilled now.
For each to his/her needs, from each according to her/his abilities...
In social terms speaking, we might consider us still living in the middle ages, in respect of the economic/political structure we still embodie, where people still die of curable diseases, hunger, war, and suffer from all kind of economical/natural/political circumstances which are in part/large part denying the rights each human being should be entitled to.
So, let us enlighten us on this part, and involve in this work of freeing human kind of the current miseries and injustices still in existence. For human sakeand for human need. There is no other goal then the human goal.
