The Universe Exists Because It Has To

[Evolver]

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.

 

[Evolver]

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."

 

[Evolver]

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.

 

[JoeDawg]

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.

 

[Evolver]

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]

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.

 

[Evolver]

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]

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.

 

[Evolver]

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.

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]

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

 

[Evolver]

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]

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.

 

[debra]

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.

 

[Evolver]

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.

 

[debra]

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?

 

[Evolver]

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?

That scenario can never be proven though. Ideas like brain-in-a-vat or philosophies like Solipsism can never be objective, because any evidence gained would only prove to be an illusion if the scenario were true.

 

[wofsy]

I do not see how existence can be a physical property independent of observed qualities. Can you explain that?

If you are saying that the Universe is intrinsically indestructible then that would explain its existence since for the same reason it could never have come into existence. So maybe you are implying that to destroy the Universe is somehow meaningless.

 

[Evolver]

I do not see how existence can be a physical property independent of observed qualities. Can you explain that?

If you are saying that the Universe is intrinsically indestructible then that would explain its existence since for the same reason it could never have come into existence. So maybe you are implying that to destroy the Universe is somehow meaningless.

I don't think I am saying that. In fact what you are saying is precisely what I am saying. I'm confused as to what your question is.

I'm saying that there is no ability for the universe not to exist, because that ill-defined concept is a man-made contrivance. We can't speak of things that 'don't exist' because they aren't real... they are concepts. The only thing that's physical about the universe is it's existence. All the laws, everything observable and measurable... every aspect of the universe exists, and for us to assume it could do otherwise is more our ill-perceived concepts than an alternative for the universe.

I think this is actually a less speculative approach to the idea because I make no assumptions about how the universe was created. I simply say it exists and that is an observable fact. You cannot prove anything that 'doesn't exist.'

 

[wofsy]

I don't think I am saying that. In fact what you are saying is precisely what I am saying. I'm confused as to what your question is.

I'm saying that there is no ability for the universe not to exist, because that ill-defined concept is a man-made contrivance. We can't speak of things that 'don't exist' because they aren't real... they are concepts. The only thing that's physical about the universe is it's existence. All the laws, everything observable and measurable... every aspect of the universe exists, and for us to assume it could do otherwise is more our ill-perceived concepts than an alternative for the universe.

I think this is actually a less speculative approach to the idea because I make no assumptions about how the universe was created. I simply say it exists and that is an observable fact. You cannot prove anything that 'doesn't exist.'

Well I was just guessing what you meant. I have thought the same thing and find the idea interesting.

My sense is - though I don't know much about philosophy - is that Plato was making the same point in the Phaedo. What do you think?

 

[Evolver]

Well I was just guessing what you meant. I have thought the same thing and find the idea interesting.

My sense is - though I don't know much about philosophy - is that Plato was making the same point in the Phaedo. What do you think?

Well, in the Phaedo, Socrates makes speculations about the immortality of the soul, which though his logic touches the same bases... he is assuming that there is such thing as a soul in the first place. That's a matter for a whole other discussion.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm saying that there is no ability for the universe not to exist, because that ill-defined concept is a man-made contrivance. We can't speak of things that 'don't exist' because they aren't real... they are concepts.

I do not see how you arrive at this logic except circularly.

Who says non-existence requires the presence of man?

Does that mean that polka-dotted ultra-bunnies from the planet Fnord must exist because their non-existence is a man-made concept?

 

[Evolver]

I do not see how you arrive at this logic except circularly.

Who says non-existence requires the presence of man?

Does that mean that polka-dotted ultra-bunnies from the planet Fnord must exist because their non-existence is a man-made concept?

Your Fnord Bunnies actually help my hypothesis. I'm saying the universe exists and there is observable evidence for that, I then stop there and cease all assumptions. There is no observable evidence for anything other than an existing universe... including your Fnord bunnies. (however cute they may be)

This is not circular, because it is cutting out guesswork of assuming something came before the universe. It relies solely on observable evidence.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your Fnord Bunnies actually help my hypothesis. I'm saying the universe exists and there is observable evidence for that, and I stop there and cease all assumptions. There is no observable evidence for anything other than an existing universe... including your Fnord bunnies. (however cute they may be)

This is not circular, because it is cutting out guesswork of assuming something came before the universe. It relies solely on observable evidence.

OK, so the universe exists.

What does that have to do with the universe not existing?

If I throw a 2-sided die and it lands on 1, are you telling me that, since it landed on 1, there is no possible way it could have landed on 2 instead?

 

[Evolver]

OK, so the universe exists.

What does that have to do with the universe not existing?

If I throw a 2-sided die and it lands on 1, are you telling me that, since it landed on 1, there is no possible way it could have landed on 2 instead?

Well, in essence is that wrong? Yes it could have... but the reality is it didn't. The reality then is that only the 1 was reality. The 2 was simply a possibility.

But my point about the universe is different. I am attempting to point out that there is no proof for something to 'not exist'. Not in the sense that things that 'don't exist' might be real (like your Fnord Bunnies case). But rather, that 'not existing' isn't a real element of any physical part of the universe. Everything we observe and measure does exist. We assume there is an alternative to existence... I am simply cutting off that assumption.

 

[DaveC426913]

We assume there is an alternative to existence... I am simply cutting off that assumption.

Based on what? Why is it not valid?

 

[Evolver]

Based on what? Why is it not valid?

I'm not saying it's not valid, but that theory is responsible for finding the proof. The proof that the universe exists is readily available, an alternative proof is not. I am simply applying Occam's Razor to the equation and not adding speculative complexities.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am simply applying Occam's Razor...

Oy. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=373583"...

 

[Evolver]

Oy. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=373583"...

That person was referring to a cliched and diluted use of Occam's Razor. I'm not saying nature is necessarily simple. There is very clear evidence that the universe exists (and does so in a very complex way). But to propose any alternative without proof is just as viable as any other alternative. The universe could have been created by giant purple salamanders just as readily as it can be said that it is possible for it to not exist. I only invoke Occam's Razor because saying the universe exists is based on proof. All else is assumption.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is an attempt to recognize a base physical property of the universe itself that also describes why it must exist according to this property.

How about a sick twist on Descartes instead?

We are the universe becoming aware of itself [albeit just a tiny part of the universe ]
I think, therefore I exist.

 

[Evolver]

How about a sick twist on Descartes instead?

We are the universe becoming aware of itself
I think, therefore I exist.

Sick is your opinion, but I don't go so far as Descartes when he spoke of Solipsist beliefs. Is it wrong to build ideas on previous philosophies and ideas? You are suggesting you've uniquely come up with every idea you've ever had?

Einstein could not have made SR and GR without Newton's previous work (among many others).

 

[wofsy]

Well, in the Phaedo, Socrates makes speculations about the immortality of the soul, which though his logic touches the same bases... he is assuming that there is such thing as a soul in the first place. That's a matter for a whole other discussion.

I didn't mean the immortality of the soul per se but the notion of the inability to create new ideas - that they exist immortally because they are indestructible - that all ideation is therefore really memory. When did the Pythagorean theorem become true and when was it false before that?

 

[Evolver]

I didn't mean the immortality of the soul per se but the notion of the inability to create new ideas - that they exist immortally because they are indestructible - that all ideation is therefore really memory. When did the Pythagorean theorem become true and when was it false before that?

Well this is getting a bit off topic, but I understand what you're saying. Ideas though, are human constructs, not properties of the universe. They are comprehensions that are understood. The Pythagorean Theorem is a human notion. An observation and way of explaining relations of human ideas. A Euclidean perspective is just a representation of aspects of the universe created for human minds to understand... an analogy to describe what they see around them. It exists only in our minds as a metaphor.

Perhaps treating the universe as anything other than a metaphor is impossible simply by the way in which we observe it. I do have another thread which attempts to address just that: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=368284

 

[debra]

Well this is getting a bit off topic, but I understand what you're saying. Ideas though, are human constructs, not properties of the universe. They are comprehensions that are understood. The Pythagorean Theorem is a human notion. An observation and way of explaining relations of human ideas. A Euclidean perspective is just a representation of aspects of the universe created for human minds to understand... an analogy to describe what they see around them. It exists only in our minds as a metaphor.

Perhaps treating the universe as anything other than a metaphor is impossible simply by the way in which we observe it. I do have another thread which attempts to address just that: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=368284

If the universe is based on mathematics and logic implemented in information, then the metaphor is largely gone - remains in subjective human judgments I suppose. I am no longer subscribing to the 'we can never know' school of thought. And indeed Pythagoras Theorem was indeed true before he discovered it.

The level at which we abstract the truth varies and the high level abstractions are just that - abstractions. So, we can abstract a human as a mad dance of atoms (and not really human), has some truth I suppose - but its shallow.
At the very low levels the truths are (IMO) mathematical and logical, and I can ask is that an abstraction?

If one wants to say that mathematics and logic are abstractions, then I am forced to agree.

So is mathematics and logic an abstraction of a deeper truth? What is the deeper truth if any?

 

[wofsy]

then before humans discovered it the Pythagorean theorem was not true - nor was it false. Hmmmm.

 

[Evolver]

I am no longer subscribing to the 'we can never know' school of thought...

...If one wants to say that mathematics and logic are abstractions, then I am forced to agree.

I may be misunderstanding you, but these two statements seem contradictory. Could you please elaborate to help me follow your line of logic?

So, we can abstract a human as a mad dance of atoms (and not really human), has some truth I suppose - but its shallow.

Shallow? As in a moral sense? I do not follow. I don't think the universe cares as much about morality as humans do.