Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[sysreset]

We'll be gone long before our solar system, much less the universe, ends -- and when the last human takes his/her last breath we won't have understood much of what we experienced up to that instant. But, what the heck, we gave it a shot.

One thing we do comprehend accurately is the enormity of the universe, and how devoid of sentient life most of it is. We also comprehend that over the enormous epochs of time in past and future history, human existence and awareness of the cosmos is a mere flicker. Discovering fundamental laws of physics is a significant accomplishment for a civilization and merits celebration, not dirision.

 

[the408]

This is my first post-
I am not a physicist, and it interests me to see such conflict amongst you over the words why and how. Am I not mistaken that many prominent physicists pride themselves on the self attribution that they now answer the hows and why's of life, and philosophers struggle with linguistic problems only (hawking,etc)? Robertm, and the one or two of you who have defended his words, argue an arbitrary linguistic manipulation.
Robertm you say that the "How" is to be discovered inevitably, but the why is futile. Holocene you make a logical, and important point in your post 15: you say that how and why mean the same thing in your question. Your language allows for the very mis-interpretation viewable within everyones posts, however you make an essentially correct assertion.
Original scientists, physicists, and the like originated all of their postulates and maxims from questions that are able to be formulated with the use of "Why": Newton-why did the apple fall onto my head? Copernicus- why do the planets orbit as such? And from these questions new whys are then created and articulated from the old ones they answered. Even today, it is the "WHY" that propels development in Quantum Physics-such as, 'why' are we unable to determine the motion, and location of sub atomic matter at the same time? Why is it one, or the other?
Why and how CAN mean the same thing given the specific context that allows for it: at other times, they make very distinguished questions to which separate, and distinct answers are required.
Should the answer to "how", as regards the universe, ever be discovered: a statement that is asserted by you, Robertm, and your supporters: a complete negation of your futile "why" is the consequence...
Once the "How" is discovered, all that is left to understand is "Why" it happened. After all, "Why" is a fundamental, necessary, and incontestable attribute of your beloved cause and effect mechanized reality: the "How" of things are assumed with the assertion of cause and effect: all that remains is understanding "Why" certain causes generate their various effects: perhaps you'd rather I say, "How" certain causes generate their various effects? :p

 

[Blueprint]

I enjoyed reading that the408 welcome to teh PF boards :)

I'm thinking why you registered is more important than how -.-

 

[vinityfair]

Barfolomu. Sorry for my opaqueness, and poor articulation. My position is that there are no possible procedures to assign unequal truth values to any set of answers to the question, which set can include logically inconsistent propositions, as well as heroically absurd ones. My position entails that any particular claim to know is not knowledge, and I suggest it should not be used by the claimant to impact on the lives of those who do not accept the claim. My silliness remarks were written on the (possibly unjustified ) assumption that anybody who would ask such a why question must have a motive other than seeking knowledge, much as the intelligent design set has a motive in asking its question. Clearly I overstepped the mark in castigating Physics Forum for raising the question, as some may view it as motivated by knowledge seeking rather than by myth endorsing.

 

[robertm]

This is my first post-
I am not a physicist, and it interests me to see such conflict amongst you over the words why and how. Am I not mistaken that many prominent physicists pride themselves on the self attribution that they now answer the hows and why's of life, and philosophers struggle with linguistic problems only (hawking,etc)? Robertm, and the one or two of you who have defended his words, argue an arbitrary linguistic manipulation.
Robertm you say that the "How" is to be discovered inevitably, but the why is futile. Holocene you make a logical, and important point in your post 15: you say that how and why mean the same thing in your question. Your language allows for the very mis-interpretation viewable within everyones posts, however you make an essentially correct assertion.
Original scientists, physicists, and the like originated all of their postulates and maxims from questions that are able to be formulated with the use of "Why": Newton-why did the apple fall onto my head? Copernicus- why do the planets orbit as such? And from these questions new whys are then created and articulated from the old ones they answered. Even today, it is the "WHY" that propels development in Quantum Physics-such as, 'why' are we unable to determine the motion, and location of sub atomic matter at the same time? Why is it one, or the other?
Why and how CAN mean the same thing given the specific context that allows for it: at other times, they make very distinguished questions to which separate, and distinct answers are required.
Should the answer to "how", as regards the universe, ever be discovered: a statement that is asserted by you, Robertm, and your supporters: a complete negation of your futile "why" is the consequence...
Once the "How" is discovered, all that is left to understand is "Why" it happened. After all, "Why" is a fundamental, necessary, and incontestable attribute of your beloved cause and effect mechanized reality: the "How" of things are assumed with the assertion of cause and effect: all that remains is understanding "Why" certain causes generate their various effects: perhaps you'd rather I say, "How" certain causes generate their various effects? :p

I may have not been clear on my opinion of the futility of why.
Why is one of the most important questions one could ever ask. However, it is not always the right question to ask.

Why implies a reason for something. Not a physical empirical reason, but a human reason. There is no 'reason' for the universe's existence. So unless one is advocating an egocentric universe there will never be any reason for the universe's existence.

However there is most certainly a what, how, and when that one can discover that points to the reasons that the universe is here. Like you said the408, my main point is most certainly one of semantics.

Instead of 'why does the apple fall' one should ask 'what is the cause of the apple's behavior'
I.e. " What are the underlying reasons for the existence of the universe?"

Discovering the underlying mechanics of everything is the the only question to answer. Once we have a so called theory of everything and have answered every observable effect there will be no more questions to answer, no why. Personally I'm not so sure that a state of knowledge as such will ever be reached.

There is no why to the movement of atoms(or anything else) they simply behave in a certain manner due to their physical construction brought about by certain processes that can be described in a similar manner. Attempting to apply a human why to the universe is ridiculous.

We, as intelligent and thoughtful humans, are supposed to be moving away from many of our evolutionary flaws that cloud our true judgment so as to keep us alive. Not looking to apply arbitrary philosophical meaning to things that have no ability to care weather or not we know anything about them.

Try this, picture the universe. Everything, forwards and back in time as far as may be possible. Now, take humans out of the universe. Picture yourself not as a sentient part of the universe but just like any other particle, star, galaxy cluster, whatever you prefer. Now in this situation, ask again, is there a why/reason for everything surrounding you?

 

[baywax]

About 97 percent of humans don't know there is a universe. They think its all heaven or hell or tomato aspec and little pointy stars. Or, they don't notice anything because they're too busy complaining or finding food or primping themselves in the mirror.

 

[robertm]

Or, they don't notice anything because they're too busy complaining or finding food or primping themselves in the mirror.

What a sad fact...

 

[baywax]

What a sad fact...

Its only sad if you think there is a useful purpose to understanding the mechanisms of the universe as it is portrayed today by 3 percent of the population. If there is no purpose served then the 97 percent are not missing anything.

But I think there is a great purpose to understanding the workings of the universe... not the least of which is that knowing something about it makes you realize you are a very small part of it... and that whether you recognize the universe or not won't matter too much.

 

[robertm]

Imagine what the world would be like if those statistics were reversed... Maybe that's the next evolutionary leap...

There will never be anything more important than the search for knowledge, no petty disputes, no wars, nothing can ever take president over the advancement of knowledge. When there are more people who realize this than who prescribe to todays mode of thinking, the human race will actually have a chance at surviving for an appreciable amount of time.

 

[baywax]

Imagine what the world would be like if those statistics were reversed... Maybe that's the next evolutionary leap...

There will never be anything more important than the search for knowledge, no petty disputes, no wars, nothing can ever take president over the advancement of knowledge. When there are more people who realize this than who prescribe to todays mode of thinking, the human race will actually have a chance at surviving for an appreciable amount of time.

Knowledge of ignorance, pettiness and dispute is valuable knowledge as long as its in retrospect. Without the experience and knowledge of ignorance etc... these conditions go unchecked.

edit: So, in this way, ignorance is valuable.

 

[robertm]

Very true, but I don't need any modern examples to be convinced. Enough time has passed and enough history has been gathered to show the ignorance that humans are capable of. And I don't want any part of it. And neither should anyone who has the ability to think rationally.

I think that this is one of the few lessons that you do not need to personally experience to learn.

It just seems so utterly obvious that if survival and advancement are the goals, then war, bigotry, ignorance and the like should be shunned with the utmost vigor.

I hate the fact that the people who live for everything that rational people abhor, could ever hold me and my decedents back from achieving a higher state of knowledge and understanding. But hopefully old atlas will give a shrug and people with reason can win out in the end.

 

[baywax]

Very true, but I don't need any modern examples to be convinced. Enough time has passed and enough history has been gathered to show the ignorance that humans are capable of. And I don't want any part of it. And neither should anyone who has the ability to think rationally.

I think that this is one of the few lessons that you do not need to personally experience to learn.

It just seems so utterly obvious that if survival and advancement are the goals, then war, bigotry, ignorance and the like should be shunned with the utmost vigor.

I hate the fact that the people who live for everything that rational people abhor, could ever hold me and my decedents back from achieving a higher state of knowledge and understanding. But hopefully old atlas will give a shrug and people with reason can win out in the end.

Its gotten to a point where people like the historical Herod (ie: Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37–c.100) wrote about the period and recorded Herod's cruelty.) have become accepted in corporate and political circles. The number of incidents of infanticide, genocide and random violence is spreading around the globe.

This is the norm. People expect full on ignorance and viciousness. How could you turn that around and what does it have to do with understanding why the universe exists?

 

[robertm]

It has everything to do with the understanding of the universe. The social situation of the world in general makes or breaks the ability of a scientist to achieve. Just look at the dark ages. Because the full knowledge that we have obtained is and never will be thanks solely to one person, the longer that a stable and intelligent society exist, the more generations of humans their will be to seriously study and discover facts of the universe.

I am by no means denying the fact that ignorance and viciousness is the norm today, I am suggesting the fact that it should be obvious to shun any form of that behavior. And by shunning that behavior what could arise is a society that supports free inquiry and the search for knowledge as one of the most important means to insure the long term survival of the human race.

 

[baywax]

It has everything to do with the understanding of the universe. The social situation of the world in general makes or breaks the ability of a scientist to achieve. Just look at the dark ages. Because the full knowledge that we have obtained is and never will be thanks solely to one person, the longer that a stable and intelligent society exist, the more generations of humans their will be to seriously study and discover facts of the universe.

I am by no means denying the fact that ignorance and viciousness is the norm today, I am suggesting the fact that it should be obvious to shun any form of that behavior. And by shunning that behavior what could arise is a society that supports free inquiry and the search for knowledge as one of the most important means to insure the long term survival of the human race.

I mostly agree here but I also think there is the same amount of ignorance and cruelty as there was 2 - 3 - 10 thousand years ago. There are just more people today so it looks like there are more vicioius people when the number is the same per capita.

The worst of it is that today an "understanding" of the mechanism of the universe is available to over 2 billion people yet the importance placed on understanding it is very low. The observable laws and outcomes and reasons behind the outcomes taking place right before us in our universe seem to elude the very rich and elite... and they keep on going against preservation laws etc.. to keep their bank accounts full and their egos stoked.

The complete text is there for the reading (in studying nature)... how every person can survive comfortably and harmoniously with each other. The book is wide open and right in front of everyone. Yet, as was the case in the Dark Ages, or ancient times or the dirty 30s or the world wars or the recessions or Peak Oil... no one is taking the time to read the writing on the wall. They're a little too busy stroking the bank manager and placating their fears of "loosing it all".

 

[duo]

I don't really think it is a meaningful question.

 

[Holocene]

About 97 percent of humans don't know there is a universe. They think its all heaven or hell or tomato aspec and little pointy stars. Or, they don't notice anything because they're too busy complaining or finding food or primping themselves in the mirror.

Well said.

 

[baywax]

Well said.

Thank you.

Well, why the universe exists?

Because the universe is what happens after a big bang. Its a law of nature.

Before the big bang the laws of nature may have been very different, according to Prof. Hawking. The big bang which, thankfully, is definitely a constant and a law of nature that throws the cards in the air and produces a new set of rules, started the process of universe building. Then we get a universe like the one we know and love, now. This is why the universe exists, as it does, today, because it is a law of nature that decrees that there be a universe, usually, after a big bang.

Problem solved... Thread Locked...

(How come it doesn't work when I say it?!)

 

[sysreset]

The universe is what happens after a big bang. Its a law of nature... it is a law of nature that decrees that there be a universe, usually, after a big bang.

I guess we could wrap up this discussion except for that word "usually" that crept in there. What happens after the other, more unusual big bangs is the nub of the question.

 

[vanesch]

One should have started with a similar question, will humans ever find out *if* the universe exists ?

 

[baywax]

One should have started with a similar question, will humans ever find out *if* the universe exists ?

vanesch, we may first have to define the use of "exists" before furthering that discussion.
Your idea of existing may vary greatly from mine or someone's grasp of existence in Borneo.

 

[baywax]

For instance, does an illusion exist?

 

[Daniel Y.]

Asking why there is a universe is like asking whether or not your pencil is married. I suppose if you wanted to you could ask such questions, but there really is no point; the why of the universe question has no more meaning than the pencil question.

 

[baywax]

Asking why there is a universe is like asking whether or not your pencil is married. I suppose if you wanted to you could ask such questions, but there really is no point; the why of the universe question has no more meaning than the pencil question.

Hi, I'm actually into polygamy with a group of pencils ranging from 3b to 1f.

 

[robertm]

Ha Ha ha! I have that that same problem, except my wives are pens ranging from 0.2 - 0.5mm ... at least you can sharpen yours!

 

[epenguin]

A century ago you might have been in a better position to answer it will never be understood, it is beyond science etc. The one who said it would be discovered would have had to admit he had no idea how or what.

But now we are getting things like inflation, theories of everything, string theory and cosmological understanding, with their experimetal/observational backups.

This might not be right, final, complete etc. but it is a huge advance in a fairly short time on having not a clue.

Therefore I think it is reasonable to think we shall have this understanding within the lifetime of most readers.

 

[kasse]

We can and have made models that explain in great detail and even more importantly, WHY the universe exists at all?

It's important to think about what kind of answer you're searching. What will be satisfactory? In general: what on Earth is a why-question?

 

[baywax]

It's important to think about what kind of answer you're searching. What will be satisfactory? In general: what on Earth is a why-question?

Yeah, why is half of the word "whine".

But, I think I've answered the question in a sequential sense where... because of the singularity of the big bang, the complexity of the universe developed.

The next why will be, "why did the big bang happen"... and I'd say it was a reaction to an imbalance going on between a remaining em wave of a previous universe and... the "void".

The worst thing about why questions is that they can go on forever... they're a trick that 3 year old kids use to annoy grown-ups.

 

[end3r7]

I think we are reading too much into the question, personally (granted we are in the philosophy forum).

When I read the thread title, I was thinking along the lines of "How did the universe come about?", essentially origin of the universe stuff, etc.

I don't know if we will ever know this stuff, or even if the data we can now gather can gives us enough information. I believe that the Scientific American had an article on this issue (something regarding the Death of Cosmology?).

Regardless, it should be interesting how far we can push our limits. The Large Hadron Collider could be giving us very interesting data in 2-3 months. My bet is that before all is said and done, we'll know a lot of how the universe came to be what it now is.

 

[baywax]

The Large Hadron Collider could be giving us very interesting data in 2-3 months. My bet is that before all is said and done, we'll know a lot of how the universe came to be what it now is.

If it doesn't transform us all into a black hole, wheeeeeee!.

The builders of the world's biggest particle collider are being sued in federal court over fears that the experiment might create globe-gobbling black holes or never-before-seen strains of matter that would destroy the planet.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/823924.aspx

 

[robertm]

Wow, they are already jumping on that, jeez I mean I saw it coming but I never imagined any action would be taken in till after the LHC cranked up... How incredibly sad, I wonder how much time and money that lawsuit is going to cost the team...

Not to mention the people bringing this lawsuit have a history of this doomsday nonsense, and they failed the last time. It will be quite an atrocity if some unqualified American crackpots are really given the power to halt a multi-billion dollar project in France/Switzerland.