Life, the universe and everything

[wittgenstein]

I realize that all encompassing philosophies are frowned upon. However, I see nothing wrong with speculating. Anyway, here goes;
1.Laws of nature do not exist in a Platonic realm, if anything they are descriptions of how things are rather than laws from some transcendental realm that move our reality to and fro.
2. As such if we postulate a creation ( in other words we do not believe in an infinite past) then there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, including the laws of nature.
3. If there are no laws of nature than everything is allowed
4. This explains how something can come from nothing.
5. Since this creation is not restricted by any law of nature almost everything actually happens.
6. This coincides with the many worlds hypothesis.
7. Most "universes" will be chaotic ( even their laws of nature will be chaotic, IE;not logical).
8. Only those " universes" that are capable of creating life will have life and the laws of nature of those universes must not be chaotic, they must be logical.
9. That is why we are amazed at the stunning "coincidences" that our universe seems to be made just for us.

I numbered my points so that I will not get general criticisms, but specific objections that can actually be helpful.

 

[kldickson]

Philosophical speculation about something that falls solidly into the realm of scientific observation is foolish.

What I have observed regarding most people's absurd notion that the universe is just made for one species on one planet in a backwater arm of a puny little spiral galaxy in the Virgo Supercluster is that most people cannot seem to fathom that the universe may, in fact, be currently beyond our ability to grasp entirely and that most people are psychologically uncomfortable with the fact that we are an insignificant species.

 

[octelcogopod]

one species on one planet in a backwater arm of a puny little spiral galaxy in the Virgo Supercluster

This is a good way to put it..

 

[kldickson]

In fact, I think if we run into another intelligent race from another planet sometime in the future, most of those people who harbor such ridiculous ideas about the perceived importance of the human race will shed them.

I'm almost hoping, if there's another intelligent race in the universe, which in terms of simple probability there probably is given the massive size of the universe and our limited knowledge of every single star and every single planet and every single galaxy, that we come into peaceful contact with them fairly soon, because I'm getting kind of tired of arrogance on the part of most human beings.

 

[wittgenstein]

kldickson, I'm confused .Are you saying that I said that the universe was created for us. If so you have no understanding of what I said. I said that if we have an infinite amount of universes, only those that are logical will support life ( since life is mechanical), therefore from our perspective ( sense we do not see the other chaotic universes) our universe will seem miraculously unlikely. However, we are not a miracle. Its just that we do not see all the logically random universes.

 

[wittgenstein]

Perhaps this will aid your understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
The anthropic principle is often misunderstood as saying that the universe was designed for us. However, it does not. Imagine a machine that spews forth randomly colored rocks . Also that we are looking for 300 red rocks that are positioned next to each other. Of course given along enough time eventually because of randomness 300 red rocks will be next to each other. Now suppose that one of those red rocks could talk and said," there must be a God* because all I see are red rocks to the horizon!" Of course the rocks opinion is absurd because it cannot see beyond its horizon and all those other colored rocks thrown randomly across the landscape.
* and that God must favor red rocks!

 

[wittgenstein]

Also, you mentioning other life than human is a red herring. I never specified human life..only life. I suppose that you could gripe about my using the term "we" but I was not giving "us" a special privilege. I was referring to our absurd contention that we are special.

 

[kldickson]

I think I see what you're saying a little better. Sorry; '
9. That is why we are amazed at the stunning "coincidences" that our universe seems to be made just for us.' raised my hackles because I jumped to the conclusion that you meant only human life instead of life in general.

But why assign a purpose, other than simply reason that life is one of many occurrences in the universe? Why say that a universe must necessarily progress toward those circumstances allowing for the formation of life? I think that much of the assertions of the anthropic principle assign far too much importance to the human being.

 

[kldickson]

Or life itself.

 

[WaveJumper]

2. As such if we postulate a creation ( in other words we do not believe in an infinite past) then there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, including the laws of nature.
3. If there are no laws of nature than everything is allowed

If absolutely nothing existed, how is everything allowed? What is 'everything' in a non-existence?

 

[vectorcube]

I realize that all encompassing philosophies are frowned upon. However, I see nothing wrong with speculating. Anyway, here goes;
1.Laws of nature do not exist in a Platonic realm, if anything they are descriptions of how things are rather than laws from some transcendental realm that move our reality to and fro.
2. As such if we postulate a creation ( in other words we do not believe in an infinite past) then there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, including the laws of nature.
3. If there are no laws of nature than everything is allowed
4. This explains how something can come from nothing.
5. Since this creation is not restricted by any law of nature almost everything actually happens.
6. This coincides with the many worlds hypothesis.
7. Most "universes" will be chaotic ( even their laws of nature will be chaotic, IE;not logical).
8. Only those " universes" that are capable of creating life will have life and the laws of nature of those universes must not be chaotic, they must be logical.
9. That is why we are amazed at the stunning "coincidences" that our universe seems to be made just for us.

I numbered my points so that I will not get general criticisms, but specific objections that can actually be helpful.

You are confused in thinking nothing is the ground state in which anything can come. Out of nothing, nothing comes. It is also a mistake to think the laws of nature constrict "nothing". Laws of nature as you say are descriptions, so there would not be any laws of nature if there was nothing to beginning with. Remember, laws of nature only makes sense if there was something that the law quantify over. There is no law if there is nothing to quantify over.

 

[JoeDawg]

1.Laws of nature do not exist in a Platonic realm

Apart from Platonist ideas there is the problem of distingishing the description from its manifestation.

2. As such if we postulate a creation ( in other words we do not believe in an infinite past) then there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, including the laws of nature.

The word 'creation' implies a creator, and the phrase 'absolutely nothing' leaves no place for a creator to stand.

3. If there are no laws of nature than everything is allowed

This gets back to distingishing between description and manifestation. If nature has no framework, or constraints then all events are random. Even random events can fit a pattern however, or seem to. And one could just as easily claim nothing is allowed.

4. This explains how something can come from nothing.

Nothing is an ill-defined term. Its an absraction. Applying it to the physical ignores the fact that it is an abstraction.

5. Since this creation is not restricted by any law of nature almost everything actually happens.

Everything and nothing are meaningless here. If nothing exists it is everything, and if you are talking about everything, then the very notion of a thing, something distingishable from other things, loses all reference.

6. This coincides with the many worlds hypothesis.

Only in a semantic way.

7. Most "universes" will be chaotic ( even their laws of nature will be chaotic, IE;not logical).

Chaos means not predictable. Its not about logic.

8. Only those " universes" that are capable of creating life will have life

If there are multiples universes, then one universe is not everything, so there is no escape from causation. Also universes don't 'create' anything, they are everything.

9. That is why we are amazed at the stunning "coincidences" that our universe seems to be made just for us.

I'd say that reduces down to simple egotism, nothing really metaphysical needed.

 

[vectorcube]

Apart from Platonist ideas there is the problem of distingishing the description from its manifestation.

What is that?

Even random events can fit a pattern however, or seem to.

This is a contradiction.

Nothing is an ill-defined term. Its an absraction. Applying it to the physical ignores the fact that it is an abstraction

I disagree. Nothing denotes the empty world( a world without anything).

 

[JoeDawg]

What is that?

Is gravity simply a description, or something that exists? If it is both, how is the description different from that which exists?

This is a contradiction.

Ever looked at clouds? Many would agree that the shapes of clouds are not meaningful, and yet we can see patterns, images, and objects in their shapes. A pattern is observed, its randomness is simply how it came into being.

I disagree. Nothing denotes the empty world( a world without anything).

An empty world is not nothing, its a world with nothing in it.

 

[WaveJumper]

Ever looked at clouds? Many would agree that the shapes of clouds are not meaningful, and yet we can see patterns, images, and objects in their shapes. A pattern is observed, its randomness is simply how it came into being.

Clouds aren't completely random, they obey the laws of physics and the environmental constraints. Their "randomness" is more related to our ignornace of all the processes behind their dynamical behaviour.

 

[wittgenstein]

"I'd say that reduces down to simple egotism, nothing really metaphysical needed. "
Joedawg
Nope. Read the explanation of the anthropic principle. It is a common misunderstanding that the anthropic principle sates that the universe was designed for us.

 

[wittgenstein]

"But why assign a purpose, other than simply reason that life is one of many occurrences in the universe? Why say that a universe must necessarily progress toward those circumstances allowing for the formation of life? I think that much of the assertions of the anthropic principle assign far too much importance to the human being."
kldickson
I and the anthropic principle postulate the exact opposite of purpose. Since randomness and its relation to we humans is what the anthropic principle is about and what I have been talking about , how can you say that I have assigned far too much importance to the human being when randomness is the central issue of this thread?

 

[wittgenstein]

"Why say that a universe must necessarily progress toward those circumstances allowing for the formation of life?"
kldickson
Because out of a truly vast amount of universes ( perhaps even infinite) at least one will have the requirements for life to develop. Obviously, we will have to be in that universe or one like it (since we obviously could not have evolved from a universe where life was impossible). We then look around and see the "stunning coincidences” and conclude that we are special. However, that is a delusion because we cannot see the vast amount of other chaotic universes that are incapable of supporting life. We think that our universe must have been created on purpose, the way it is, and then we conclude that it was designed with us in mind. The anthropic principle explains the stunning coincidences by revealing that they are not coincidences at all. In the larger context only randomness exists.

 

[wittgenstein]

Perhaps this will make the anthropic principle easier to understand. Imagine a parade. On both sides of the street are crowds. Someone says ," WOW! What a stunning coincidence that they just happened to put a parade down a street that was crowded on both sidewalks! The anthropic principle would say," its not a coincidence at all."
In other words we exist in a universe that is set up to create life because we could not exist in any other kind of universe.

 

[JoeDawg]

"I'd say that reduces down to simple egotism, nothing really metaphysical needed. "
Joedawg
Nope. Read the explanation of the anthropic principle. It is a common misunderstanding that the anthropic principle sates that the universe was designed for us.

Huh?

I meant the reason for the 'common misunderstanding' is egotism.

 

[vectorcube]

Is gravity simply a description, or something that exists? If it is both, how is the description different from that which exists?

Gravity is what philosophers called natural necessity, or nomic necessity.

Ever looked at clouds? Many would agree that the shapes of clouds are not meaningful, and yet we can see patterns, images, and objects in their shapes. A pattern is observed, its randomness is simply how it came into being.

I am not talking about pattern recognition? If there is something truly random, then it is de re random. ( de re means object).

An empty world is not nothing, its a world with nothing in it.

To say nothing is in an empty world is to confusing nothing as a thing. What i stipulate is that the word nothing refers to the empty world.

 

[JoeDawg]

Gravity is what philosophers called natural necessity, or nomic necessity.

Which philosophers?

I am not talking about pattern recognition? If there is something truly random, then it is de re random. ( de re means object).

I don't see how this addresses what I wrote. Truely random or not, patterns can still exist within random events. They just don't have a causal relation.

To say nothing is in an empty world is to confusing nothing as a thing. What i stipulate is that the word nothing refers to the empty world.

You can stipulate what you like, but the word 'nothing' respresents an abstract idea, which means how it is applied is entirely context dependent. Talking about the 'truely' random, and absolute nothing, is empty idealism.

 

[wittgenstein]

"Out of nothing, nothing comes."
I disagree.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3y...1#v=onepage&q=void "no physical laws"&f=false
Also, if one believes that ' Out of nothing, nothing comes' then one must accept an infinite chain of causation.

"It is also a mistake to think the laws of nature constrict "nothing"."
vectorcube
I said the opposite. I said that a lack of any physical laws would make anything physically possible.

 

[wittgenstein]

"8. Only those " universes" that are capable of creating life will have life and the laws of nature of those universes must not be chaotic, they must be logical.
9. That is why we are amazed at the stunning "coincidences" that our universe seems to be made just for us."
MEYou responded
"I'd say that reduces down to simple egotism, nothing really metaphysical needed."
JoeDawg

I think that you can see why I misunderstood and thought that what you were saying was an objection to my argument. So, I responded," Nope. Read the explanation of the anthropic principle. It is a common misunderstanding that the anthropic principle states that the universe was designed for us."
However, sense you responded to that with,
" Huh?
I meant the reason for the 'common misunderstanding' is egotism."

It becomes obvious that your response to my point 9 was not an objection to it. My mistake.

 

[wittgenstein]

See the site I gave to vectorcube (post 23)
I am provisionally siding with the big accident cosmologists with the addition that the reason the universe was created without a cause is because before creation there were no physical laws and hence anything that occurred was purely accidental.

 

[wittgenstein]

"6. This coincides with the many worlds hypothesis.'
ME
"Only in a semantic way."
JowDawg

Perhaps, you are using a stronger definition of 'coincides' * than me.The reason that I mentioned the many worlds hypothesis is because it coincides ( has things in common with) with the idea that from a physically lawless void anything can spring.

*That is perfectly OK. The problem with writing is that people cannot hear voice intonation. I did not say that insultingly.

 

[vectorcube]

Which philosophers?

David armstrong, causal realism

David lewis, systems view of laws of nature

Alexander bird, laws of nature as dispositions.

Google any of the three, and i am sure you will benefit from the study.

I don't see how this addresses what I wrote. Truely random or not, patterns can still exist within random events. They just don't have a causal relation.

Well, i see it as a logical contradiction to say something is random, and not random at the same time.

You can stipulate what you like, but the word 'nothing' respresents an abstract idea, which means how it is applied is entirely context dependent. .

What you ought to be concern with is not how certains words are used by the native english specker of the language. What you ough to concern with is how i used the word when it is defined unambigiously.

Talking about the 'truely' random, and absolute nothing, is empty idealism

To be honest. " abstract ideas" don` t even make the cut in modern analytic philosophy.

I don` t even know what "empty idealism" even mean. What you ought to know is that singular names refers to things in the world, and not mental entities you come up with in your head. This is for your own good, and a rule of thumb to do meaningful philosophy.

 

[JoeDawg]

David armstrong, causal realism

David lewis, systems view of laws of nature

Alexander bird, laws of nature as dispositions.

Honestly, I've never heard of any of these people, but I'm not a necessitarian and I find realist philosophers extremely naive.
Also I think confusing a human generated category with actual ontological substance is a mistake.

Well, i see it as a logical contradiction to say something is random, and not random at the same time.

I would agree, so glad I didn't say that. I specifically distingished between causation and pattern.

What you ought to be concern with is not how certains words are used by the native english specker of the language. What you ough to concern with is how i used the word when it is defined unambigiously.

And you ought to get a spell checker.

To be honest. " abstract ideas" don` t even make the cut in modern analytic philosophy.

Always been more continental, myself.

a rule of thumb to do meaningful philosophy.

Heheh, I'm sure it is. Glad you are here to set me straight.

 

[the_awesome]

You are confused in thinking nothing is the ground state in which anything can come. Out of nothing, nothing comes. It is also a mistake to think the laws of nature constrict "nothing". Laws of nature as you say are descriptions, so there would not be any laws of nature if there was nothing to beginning with. Remember, laws of nature only makes sense if there was something that the law quantify over. There is no law if there is nothing to quantify over.

Can I relate this question to something religious? Let's say creationism for example.

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

So a more sophisticated question might be: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

In Summary

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

 

[JoeDawg]

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

*If* The Flying Spagetti Monster as creator of time(and pirates), is outside of time. Since therefore His Noodliness has no beginning in time, he has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

False premise.


Oh, and if there is no time, before the universe is created, then the universe had no beginning *in time* either, and therefore the universe is outside of time.

There is some Time inside the universe, but that happened after the beginning. :-)
Aren't god-games fun?

 

[WaveJumper]

In principle, we can safely assume that a god of sorts can do anything. It can make a living organism from a handful of electrons and quarks. All he has to do to accomplish this is hide behind "Emergent properties". Emergent properties can be mixing water and sand to produce a laptop, or a cell phone or anything else. There is no limit to what can be accomplished(hidden) behind the emergent property label. Anything and everything. If we acquire a close to god status, one day we may be able to mix some carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to self-organise to an Airbus A380. All we have to do i learn how to cause the existence of certain properties that are not otherwise there. Such a manipulation ability would make us true Gods.

Sadly, this isn't going to happen.

 

[Sorry!]

*If* The Flying Spagetti Monster as creator of time(and pirates), is outside of time. Since therefore His Noodliness has no beginning in time, he has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

False premise.

I was once touched by his noodly appendage. So the premise is not false and you best believe it!

I think the problem doesn't come from saying god exists it comes from when we try to define what god is.

I.e. If it could be proven that 'god' necessarily exists it's a moot point to try and define and apply characteristics to such a thing. Am I making any sense?

 

[Sorry!]

In Summary

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

That's awesome... but what does it all mean? As well you should try and not limit your references to only Judaical beliefs. If you want to continue this conversation start a new thread. I'll be glad to post in it.

 

[Sorry!]

I realize that all encompassing philosophies are frowned upon. However, I see nothing wrong with speculating. Anyway, here goes;
1.Laws of nature do not exist in a Platonic realm, if anything they are descriptions of how things are rather than laws from some transcendental realm that move our reality to and fro.
2. As such if we postulate a creation ( in other words we do not believe in an infinite past) then there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, including the laws of nature.
3. If there are no laws of nature than everything is allowed
4. This explains how something can come from nothing.
5. Since this creation is not restricted by any law of nature almost everything actually happens.
6. This coincides with the many worlds hypothesis.
7. Most "universes" will be chaotic ( even their laws of nature will be chaotic, IE;not logical).
8. Only those " universes" that are capable of creating life will have life and the laws of nature of those universes must not be chaotic, they must be logical.
9. That is why we are amazed at the stunning "coincidences" that our universe seems to be made just for us.

I numbered my points so that I will not get general criticisms, but specific objections that can actually be helpful.

1. I always thought that they WERE the 'perfect' descriptions of what happens.
Eg. If I throw a ball up it will come back down. That is gravity correct... exist in the Platonic realm. The Law of gravity is what we have created to try and explain what occurs.

2. Why must absolutely nothing exist? I'm sure some modern day cosmological models go far ack prior to our universe creation. As well say that we as humans somehow construct a universe contained in a glass case. Nothing didn't exist prior to the universe in the glass case, we did...

3. How do you know that?

4. Well I guess if I grant you premises 2 and 3, which I haven't.

5. Ditto

7. Chaos doesn't imply not logical. In fact it seems MOST logical. Chaos simply implies that things are EXTREMELY sensitive to originating factors. Deterministic to the MAXimum.

8. Says who exactly? I am certain many people believe our own universe is governed by Chaos. Clearly whether or not our universe is dominated by chaos doesn't affect my existence.

9. Yeah it's been well known that people 'believe' the universe was created for us. I don't think it has to do with anything you said though. I think it has to do more so with humans psychological NEEDS.

 

[JoeDawg]

I was once touched by his noodly appendage.

Clearly, you're insane:)

I.e. If it could be proven that 'god' necessarily exists it's a moot point to try and define and apply characteristics to such a thing. Am I making any sense?

Like I said before, if no time exists before the universe exists, then you can't have a cause/effect relationship. So, assuming no time existed before the universe, the universe could not be created by a creator. Cause/effect requires Time. And if time did exist before the universe, then creator is not outside time and therefore is part of the universe. A creator is essentially an unnecessary contradiction.

But assuming you could define a creator as logically necessary, and extend our 'logic' beyond our universe to include such a thing, at its most basic, it wouldn't resemble the god of any human religion.

I suppose Deism might work... but since a deist god has no ongoing interaction with the universe... why bother? Deism's primary utility, when it was popular, was that it allowed people who were basically atheist to be considered religious in a time when being an atheist was *very* dangerous to your social standing... or even your health.