The Universe Exists Because It Has To

  • Thread starter Evolver
  • Start date
1,328
0
I whole-heartedly agree with this statement... this is a much finer example than the first one you made.
This is one of the reasons why you can't say 'the universe has to exist'.
 

cristo

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,056
72
The bread cannot exist outside of the universe.
There is, by definition, no such thing as "outside the universe". This is something you keep mentioning, but it has no meaning.
 
118
0
There is, by definition, no such thing as "outside the universe". This is something you keep mentioning, but it has no meaning.
my point entirely.
 
118
0
This one of the reasons why you can't say 'the universe has to exist'.
No no no, you are taking what I'm saying in the wrong way. I'm not saying it HAS to exist, that was a conversation-starting thread title. I'm saying (as I have been throughout this discussion) existing is the byproduct of it's very physical laws. It's a basic rule set, and the properties of this rule set are the universe itself. Because, as Cristo has pointed out above, it is impossible to not exist.

If we are to progress at all, a certain level of induction must be tolerated. As Hume (and you) have stated, induction is inevitable. Well, then, that is the very nature of theory building that we must use. It would be like saying if only my lung could breathe water... well they can't, your lungs are a tool with inherent restrictions ans limitations. So too, is inductive reasoning. But it does not mean your lungs are useless.
 
Last edited:
1,328
0
existing is the byproduct of it's very physical laws.
No, physical laws are what we use to describe what exists.
the properties of this rule set are the universe itself.
You don't even have a complete rule set that describes the universe. How would you know? If randomness exists, your rule set is broken.
it is impossible to not exist.
That's just a language game.
 
118
0
No, physical laws are what we use to describe what exists.
What exists can also be explained as the physical laws. There is no difference.

You don't even have a complete rule set that describes the universe. How would you know? If randomness exists, your rule set is broken.
No, randomness itself could very well be the rule set. In fact, according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, the universe is probabilistic, which is already a form of randomness. Besides, in things like chaos theory even seemingly 'random' traits exhibit patterns after long enough repetitions.

That's just a language game.
Yes, well so is most of philosophy. A large portion of having an adequate discussion is finding similar grounds on which one defines things as. I feel this has been a large portion of our disagreement.
 
1,328
0
the universe is probabilistic, which is already a form of randomness.
No they are not the same... and they are not the same in a pretty major way.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,253
1,857
I've observed yours and JoeDawg's interactions on other threads, and you have a knack for teaming up and being buddy-buddy regardless of topic... so I have to take your criticisms with a grain of salt. Though I will still engage in an open conversation with you because you do offer insightful arguments:
Gentle as it is, it is still an ad hominem attack. What you are claiming is this:

On several past occasions I have observed that, when a poster claims that 2+2=5, you and JoeDawg team up and together claim: "No, 2+2=4". Obviously you two are in collusion, and I can't trust your input.

Make a valid argument and I will be right there beside you. I do it all the time.

You'll note that, rather than just "me too"-ing, I posted my own refutation. Address the argument, not the arguer.
 
Last edited:

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,253
1,857
... existing is the byproduct of it's very physical laws. It's a basic rule set, and the properties of this rule set are the universe itself.
But there are TWO states that satisfy your rules.

It's kind of like saying: if you are in the classroom, you must be seated. Well, I can grant that rule. But it does not mean I am in the classroom. Not being in the classroom (and therefore not being seated) is a perfectly valid state that satisfies the rule.

If there is no universe, and thus no physical laws by which it must exist, then that too meets the criteria you set forth.
 
118
0
But there are TWO states that satisfy your rules.

It's kind of like saying: if you are in the classroom, you must be seated. Well, I can grant that rule. But it does not mean I am in the classroom. Not being in the classroom (and therefore not being seated) is a perfectly valid state that satisfies the rule.

If there is no universe, and thus no physical laws by which it must exist, then that too meets the criteria you set forth.
I don't see how that analogy is poignant to what I have said, and much less how it drove you to arrive at your statement. The particular part that confuses me about your statement is that I don't see how a universe not existing satisfies what I have said above at all. There are no interacting forces or physical laws, as I have mentioned, if the universe did not exist. I'm not saying it may not be true, I'm just asking that you elaborate on it a bit because I'm still foggy on the correlation you are making.
 
Last edited:
118
0
No they are not the same... and they are not the same in a pretty major way.
I didn't say they were the same did I? I said it was a form of randomness. A definition of random, as provided by the dictionary is: "of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."
 
118
0
Gentle as it is, it is still an ad hominem attack. What you are claiming is this:

On several past occasions I have observed that, when a poster claims that 2+2=5, you and JoeDawg team up and together claim: "No, 2+2=4". Obviously you two are in collusion, and I can't trust your input.

Make a valid argument and I will be right there beside you. I do it all the time.

You'll note that, rather than just "me too"-ing, I posted my own refutation. Address the argument, not the arguer.
True, but on the off chance I was correct (not saying I am) I would be, myself, experiencing an ad hominem attack. I realize it is most likely not true, which I why I continued to converse with you and present my retort.
 
1,328
0
I didn't say they were the same did I? I said it was a form of randomness. A definition of random, as provided by the dictionary is: "of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."
That is not what YOU wrote.

The universe could be probabilistic without being random.

But forget it, you're either dense or a troll, or both, I'm done.
 
118
0
That is not what YOU wrote.

The universe could be probabilistic without being random.

But forget it, you're either dense or a troll, or both, I'm done.
"No, randomness itself could very well be the rule set. In fact, according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, the universe is probabilistic, which is already a form of randomness. Besides, in things like chaos theory even seemingly 'random' traits exhibit patterns after long enough repetitions."

That is exactly what I said... I, in fact, said it could be random... I completely embraced the concept. I then went on to say it's already probabilistic which is a step towards randomness and away from determinism.

The fact that your ability to communicate has failed and you have resorted to personal attacks makes me glad that you are done.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,253
1,857
True, but on the off chance I was correct (not saying I am) I would be, myself, experiencing an ad hominem attack.
That is not what an ad hominem is.
 
118
0
That is not what an ad hominem is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but an ad hominem attack is when the person is attacked rather than the subject matter they are presenting. If it had been true you were teaming up against me on principle alone, that is what would have been occurring.

That being said, I truly don't think that is the case. I am still curious about your argument you have presented about my proposal, and I would like to hear more.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,253
1,857
I don't see how that analogy is poignant to what I have said, and much less how it drove you to arrive at your statement. The particular part that confuses me about your statement is that I don't see how a universe not existing satisfies what I have said above at all. There are no interacting forces or physical laws, as I have mentioned, if the universe did not exist. I'm not saying it may not be true, I'm just asking that you elaborate on it a bit because I'm still foggy on the correlation you are making.
I think that may be because I am foggy on what your premise/claim is, even though you feel you've expressed it at least twice.

It does sound like you're saying that the universe, if it exists, can only exist in the form it currently is, because that's what the laws of the universe say. It seems to you it then follows that the universe must exist, since otherwsie these "laws of the universe" would be violated.

My counterargument is: these laws are inviolate in two scenarios, not just one:
- if the universe does exist, then these "laws of the universe" are as we see them; no laws are violated
- it is also true that "the laws of the universe" are not violated if the universe does not exist.

I think I'm leaning toward the idea that I'm just not getting your premise of this thread.
 
118
0
I think that may be because I am foggy on what your premise/claim is, even though you feel you've expressed it at least twice.

It does sound like you're saying that the universe, if it exists, can only exist in the form it currently is, because that's what the laws of the universe say. It seems to you it then follows that the universe must exist, since otherwsie these "laws of the universe" would be violated.

My counterargument is: these laws are inviolate in two scenarios, not just one:
- if the universe does exist, then these "laws of the universe" are as we see them; no laws are violated
- it is also true that "the laws of the universe" are not violated if the universe does not exist.

I think I'm leaning toward the idea that I'm just not getting your premise of this thread.
I think the confusion I'm experiencing about your counterargument is I don't see how the laws of the universe would not be violated if the universe did not exist.

I will attempt to elaborate more on my hypothesis, and I apologize if I have not already done so. What I'm saying is that there is no such thing as 'not existing'. Not existing is not a defined concept, and nothing does not exist, nothing is a concept not a reality. The only things that can be scientifically proven and studied are those that exist.

Now, if a certain amount of induction is inevitable (as Hume and JoeDawg have pointed out) then it will be inevitable to attempt an inductive approach to my hypothesis. Could the universe switch it's laws up tomorrow and completely defy all branches of science we have compiled thus far... yes, it is possible. But let us assume this is not true, or else our discussions on Physics Forums are all for naught anyway. :wink:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming my hypothesis is scientific fact, but I am making an attempt to recognize physical qualities of the universe. The only physical qualities/laws of the universe that we have discovered to date, are those that have consequences of existence. I am not reasoning in a circular manner, I am not saying the universe exists therefore it must exist. If it came off in that manner I apologize and that was an error in me relaying my idea. What I'm saying is that by observing the very laws of the universe, we see that existence is a result. This result is no different than saying matter attracts matter via gravity, it is a law of the universe with physical results. The combination of the physical laws (or perhaps one yet undiscovered) has the physical result of existence. That is what I'm attempting to prod at.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,253
1,857
I think the confusion I'm experiencing about your counterargument is I don't see how the laws of the universe would not be violated if the universe did not exist.
But you said yourself that the laws of physics are a property of the universe. No universe = no laws = nothing violated.

There is much speculation about other ways the universe can have evolved with different physics. For example, the vacuum energy can have settled at a different value. Atoms would have never formed.



I will attempt to elaborate more on my hypothesis, and I apologize if I have not already done so. What I'm saying is that there is no such thing as 'not existing'. Not existing is not a defined concept, and nothing to not exist.
Well, I guess that's the crux: a semantic issue. Just becuse we haven't defined the concept doesn't mean the universe has to oblige.

The only things that can be scientifically proven and studied are those that exist.
Tha't why this is in Philosophy. Just because something can't be scientifically proven does not mean it does not exist, it just means science has nothing to say about it. There is a large list of things about which science has nothng to say, eg:
- God
- unicorns
- the conditions prior to the Big Bang
 
118
0
But you said yourself that the laws of physics are a property of the universe. No universe = no laws = nothing violated.

There is much speculation about other ways the universe can have evolved with different physics. For example, the vacuum energy can have settled at a different value. Atoms would have never formed.
I wholly agree that most of this is speculation, but then again so is most of science and philosophy. Science is continually replaced with new ideas as more information is made available, and philosophy is usually more speculative than science. This, I admit, is a topic that would be very difficult to prove, but it doesn't deter me from attempting to discuss it in all it's complexities. (and you either, and I thank you for your discourses.)

To address your no universe = no laws = no violation... that is true only to some extent. Because a non-violation can only occur with existent things, because it is in contrast with a violation of existent things. If the universe didn't exist, there is no opportunity for violations or non-violations of any principles to even come about. It cancels each other out in a sense, and furthers my idea that the universe, by nature and in accordance with it's physical laws, does exist and cannot do otherwise.

Well, I guess that's the crux: a semantic issue. Just becuse we haven't defined the concept doesn't mean the universe has to oblige.
Agreed. But in that sense, purple monkeys could start replacing the stars throughout the universe tomorrow with no reasonable explanation, simply because the universe existed in some manner that we could not fathom or predict. Though I attempt not to go this route as it is almost impossible to make any progress in it.

Tha't why this is in Philosophy. Just because something can't be scientifically proven does not mean it does not exist, it just means science has nothing to say about it. There is a large list of things about which science has nothing to say, eg:
- God
- unicorns
- the conditions prior to the Big Bang
I fully agree, though I attempt to approach philosophy in conjunction with scientific principles, thus is why I chose the philosophy section on the Physics Forums website.
 

Pythagorean

Gold Member
4,133
253
Tha't why this is in Philosophy. Just because something can't be scientifically proven does not mean it does not exist, it just means science has nothing to say about it. There is a large list of things about which science has nothng to say, eg:
- God
- unicorns
- the conditions prior to the Big Bang
Science has something to say about unicorns... it hasn't found any fossils. That's not the same as "disproven" but science still says plenty without proving/disproving. We often say "the evidence is suggestive of... (unicorns not existing)".

Also, see Richard Dawkins (and any of the panels of outspoken atheist scientists) on God. He holds the stance (as do I) that it's somewhat academically dishonest to be agnostic, unless your what he calls a TAP (temporary agnostic awaiting proof). Biology, cosmology, and physics have gone far to disprove the many claims proposed by any particular religion are necessarily false.

What it really comes down to is this: By definition, God better have a causal influence on the universe, otherwise he/she is not a god. If we can physically explain every cause, then there is no causal god.

The exception to this is a god that set up the big bang long ago, and hasn't interfered since, but this doesn't fit any religious ideas of god that I've heard of, and may actually be deist in principle.
 
119
0
I think you are ignoring the existence of intelligence in the universe as a mathematical / logical entity derived from algorithmic considerations. It does not have to be random processes creating objects - it could also be intelligent processes - why not?
We posses intelligence, so it can certainlky exist. Does not have to be biological.

Now, given that there are near infinite number of categories of intelligence, there is certainly one or more that would 'want' to produce a universe for some reason embodied in that category of intelligence. Our intelligence seems determined not to die (for some reason), so even we would be creators if we could I believe.

So given the available tools and an intelligence that 'wants' a universe we have the seeds of a mechanism to actually create one.
 
Last edited:
118
0
I think you are ignoring the existence of intelligence in the universe as a mathematical / logical entity derived from algorithmic considerations. It does not have to be random processes creating objects - it could also be intelligent processes - why not?
We posses intelligence, so it can certainlky exist. Does not have to be biological.

Now, given that there are near infinite number of categories of intelligence, there is certainly one or more that would 'want' to produce a universe for some reason embodied in that category of intelligence.

The question of how it initial conditions could have an evolutionary solution.
True, it is possible. But making that kind of speculation has no provable scenario. You are stating that some intelligence exists outside of our universe as it was able to create it from nothing. The fact that it exists outside of our universe means it can never be proven or disproven.
 
119
0
True, it is possible. But making that kind of speculation has no provable scenario. You are stating that some intelligence exists outside of our universe as it was able to create it from nothing. The fact that it exists outside of our universe means it can never be proven or disproven.

Not really, I am saying that in an informationally based universe, intelligence is within it (the information that is) and that intelligence can understand its own existence.
An outside entity of some sort is not needed or likely IMO.

I believe it can be proved in the same way that an intelligence 'stuck' in a computer simulation could abstract the truth of its own existence and be correct. Why not?
 

Related Threads for: The Universe Exists Because It Has To

Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
12K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top