Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

  • Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Universe
In summary, the conversation discusses the limitations of human understanding in regards to the universe and its existence. Some believe that humans will eventually discover how the universe works, but the concept of a "why" is seen as a human creation and does not have to exist outside of ourselves. The conversation also touches on the desire for a purpose or meaning in the universe and how this search is often driven by religious beliefs. Ultimately, it is suggested that there may never be a definitive answer to the question of why the universe exists, as human knowledge is constantly evolving and limited.
  • #71
Nobody can be sure if humans will get to understand how the universe came about, and how it exists...etc. That's because we just "don't know". We might...and we might not. Nobody knows...just like we don't know what's the origin of everything (or origin of anything).
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #72
Time does not exist. The future does not exist, as it did not happen yet. The past does not exist, as if you could go into the past, it did not pass.

For further details, see my web page:
http://www.analysis-knowledge.com/msgTeaching.htm
Scroll down to the sentences: ""Time Does Not Exist, and the Incompleteness of Knowledge"
Current physical theory is that time does not exist. This paper gives simple clarifications of this idea. It incudes a discussion of God."
 
  • #73
aranoff said:
Time does not exist. The future does not exist, as it did not happen yet. The past does not exist, as if you could go into the past, it did not pass.

Time does exist...it is a working construct that actually is demonstrated to be useful/practical in our society. The future does exist, because if you're still thinking in 1 second from now, then obviously you can assume that there is a future in another 1 second after that...and so on. About that past...well, there's no need to discuss all these things much more, because past, present, and future are all defined in the dictionary anyway. So if you have trouble understanding these definitions, then please consult the dictionary.
 
  • #74
The "why" question does not make any sense. There is no "why does the universe exist" question to be raised, because there can (by definition) not be any reason for the existence of the universe, neither an (outside) cause.
 
  • #75
The "why" question is implying that the universe has human like motives. It's very easy for people to reflect human qualities onto physical phenomena, also known as the Pathetic Fallacy. There's only how, and not why. Asking why is a pointless question.
 
  • #76
Its obvious already that the universe is here for two reasons. One: to construct me. Two: to make beer for me.
 
  • #78
Why the universe exists is a good question, but i'd put the emphasis on why we exist.

First RNA --> Single cell organism --> Multicellular organism --> Fish --> Reptile --> Mammal --> Ape --> Hominid --> Homo sapiens --> ...


To me, this sequence looks like a path to somewhere and the three dots after homo sapiens would mean -- Superhuman --> God

Teleporting, transcending our physical existence in a digital or some energy form, all these scream becoming God to me. IMO if we survive as species, it'd be inevitable that we become gods. That's why there is something instead of nothing. Hail the future gods, while they are not extinct.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
I believe someday we will.
 
  • #80
What is the universe? A superposition of states that decohere? With no movement at the quantum level but just changing the state from one to the other? What we see as reality and a continuous process is simply due to the coarseness of our observatory apparatus. I am not positive that these superpositional states of the universe that are not yet decohered, exist outside of our minds at all.
 
  • #81
i was just going to post a thread on where does matter come from. I guess this is the right topic. Anyone have an answer? :)) For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. but some place in time something was created from nothing.
 
  • #82
Why? There is no why. There exists a universe during every Age of Kali.
ॐ​
 
  • #83
I'm currently involved in something of a logic stoush, with someone who claims to be a mathematician (studying string theory). The discussion has prompted me to pose the following questions about logic, the nature of "real and imaginary", and the nature of the infinite.

Q: Is logic imaginary, or real?
A: We imagine logic, and also believe that it really is "logical" - that it stands up despite our attempts to push it over, or "stress-test" logical arguments.

Q: Are numbers real or imaginary?
A: We imagine numbers, and we imagine that real actual events and objects have real values. Imaginary numbers are a logical classification of 'numbers', but we cannot show that numbers exist in actuality, except by 'projecting' them - onto paper, or just onto a logical process, which is entirely a product of our brains

Q: Is infinity real?
A: Infinity is as real as any number we imagine (i.e. it's really imaginary). We imagine it's always beyond any number we can count up to.
We can count 'backwards', so negative numbers are real in the sense that 'real subtraction' exists.
Because -1 is really a number, and a square root really exists for it, then i is a number too; it's classified as imaginary (it's an 'imaginary number' because we have to imagine 'real numbers' that we can assign to actual events and objects).

Infinity is a number we can't 'count to', in the same sense we can't see beyond the most distant objects in any direction, but can imagine that 'most distant we can see' is not actually the most distant, there are objects we can never see beyond the ones we can. Infinity really logically exists then. Mathematically of course, 'real' numbers are a logical classification.

Try telling a mathematician that all the numbers they can think of, are imaginary.
Of course they are; where do numbers really exist? In the imagination of logical minds, which reside in real brains. This guy keeps mistaking logically 'real' with actually real.
 
  • #84
sirchasm, you might be interested in this thread from earlier in the year: [thread=215118]The Question : is mathematics discovered or invented?[/thread]
⚛​
 
  • #85
42

I'll have a Guinness please.
 
  • #86
baywax said:
If it doesn't transform us all into a black hole, wheeeeeee!.



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

Hahaha... right. You do know that if it does transform into a black hole no one is going to notice it. It will be massive...for it's size, but it wouldn't transform US into a black hole, nor would it transform anything except the mazons into a black hole.

Back to the topic.

Of course we will understand WHY the universe exists. Now some may argue that "why" is arbitrarily a human creation, and thus doesn't apply to all mechanical reasoning; however I postulate that anything with a mechanical reasoning also has a philosophical reasoning after you understand the mechanical reasoning itself. Existence is where this gets relatively tricky.

The definition of "why" was defined earlier in this discussion as "what reason for," or "for what reason?," For what reason does anything exist? It exists because (if you believe in evolution) because of evolution, and or (in the case of technology) a sentient being "invented" it, or it is essentially the result of something (an event) prior. ZZzzzz I have to go but I will finish my thought when I have time. (It sounds like I'm explaining determinism hahaha)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

What universe?

Or rather, which universe?
 
Last edited:
  • #88
Nice article on the existence of the universe from the Guardian by Paul Davies - a physicist in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, Sydney


"So the bottom line is this. Once we go far enough down the multiverse route, all bets are off. Reality goes into the melting pot, and there is no reason to believe we are living in anything but a Matrix-style simulation. Science is then reduced to a charade, because the simulators of our world - whoever or whatever they are - can create any pseudo-laws they please, and keep changing them."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/23/spaceexploration.comment
 
Last edited:
  • #89
Paul Davies said:
Science is then reduced to a charade, because the simulators of our world - whoever or whatever they are - can create any pseudo-laws they please, and keep changing them.

Interesting link, but I don't think that science is predicated on any idea that the laws of physics never change or are necessarily predictable. Look at how easily some adopt the notion that quantum phenomena are non-deterministic - yet no one considers sub-atomic physics to be a charade.
⚛​
 
  • #90
CaptainQuasar said:
Interesting link, but I don't think that science is predicated on any idea that the laws of physics never change or are necessarily predictable. Look at how easily some adopt the notion that quantum phenomena are non-deterministic - yet no one considers sub-atomic physics to be a charade.
⚛​


True randomness makes as much sense to me as infinity, zero and nothingness. My mind can't picture a true uncaused random event. I always get a headache, it's like trying to figure out why 2+2=5 in a universe that's built around the law that 2+2=4.
 
  • #91
WaveJumper said:
True randomness makes as much sense to me as infinity, zero and nothingness. My mind can't picture a true uncaused random event. I always get a headache, it's like trying to figure out why 2+2=5 in a universe that's built around the law that 2+2=4.

Zero does not make sense to you? Try telling the waiter that when your credit card gets denied. :rolleyes:

It must be impossible for you to imagine a beginning to the universe, which would necessitate an uncaused event.
⚛​
 
  • #92
CaptainQuasar said:
Zero does not make sense to you? Try telling the waiter that when your credit card gets denied. :rolleyes:


HAHA, I'll slip him a scientific explanation - "Don't worry pal, the money is stored into a zero-dimensional singularity and will reappear out of nothingness. Wait for the uncaused event":rolleyes:.

CaptainQuasar said:
It must be impossible for you to imagine a beginning to the universe, which would necessitate an uncaused event.
⚛​



I don't believe in miracles but then energy turning to consciousness that has the capability to observe other energy continuously turning to consciouness is considered "natural", so i am lost what is miracle and what is not. The whole thing with our existence and something out of nothing makes as much sense as 5/0. BTW, this forbidden mathematical operation describes the origin of the universe pretty well.
 
  • #93
This is quite late to your thread and I don't want to start a new one so:

Just because the big bang happened doesn't mean there really wasn't time or space before it. I think that things were much denser in the past, but does everyone agree that both time and space were still existent at the time of -14 BYA?

I think that both time and space are certainly infinite, and that there actually was a "time" "before" the big bang. We are onlly limited to our solar system, wouldn't it be great if we could test laws of physics in another solar system or galaxy?

I don't think we're ever going to understand why the universe exists, let alone how it was made from the beginning.

The reason is because there with certainty was no beginning. There will also be no end. Perhaps this is what makes it a truly virtual computer that could either be very small or very large, but we have no idea cause we can't zoom out far enough can we?

Do you believe me? Does my assumption seem the most probable reality?
 
  • #94
you forgot the poll option "This question is meaningless outside of human thinking"
 
  • #95
Asking why the universe exists is like asking why we care. We just do and we don't like to not know things. I don't think humans know as much as they think they know about the universe. I understand that in this since, you mean how does the universe exist. This is limited to definition of existence. The universe has things we classify as living and not living so maybe it does but doesn't exist. Maybe some things we have pinned as living, plants for example, are not living at all. Existence is an impossible thing to grasp no matter how hard you try.
 
  • #96
Yes, we will understand why the Universe exists because the universe made us and we could make a Universe ourselves soon. We are clever enough (well, not all of you out there..) it needs quantum computers and a knowledge of logic to put together a consistent system and that is a Universe.
The Universe was created with 'intelligence' of some sort and we have the same sort of intellegence ourselves.

At the most basic level the Universe is a gigantic sea of moving numbers (actually data) and we live in this sea. It has no mass, no particles and no size - just numbers. Its not hard to replace a sea of atoms with a sea of numbers in our minds, just need to remove 3D space as well. Mathematics does not need space-time (plato knew that).

The numbers create an illusion of space and matter and fields - and, of course, a very good illusion.

eg 2109809830291830912 processed with 948572938759384 results in 39847392874293874 - its a rule.

The numbers are an intelligent design which we ourselves are capable of doing. We could already get a reasonable first draft design for a shaky Universe.
 
  • #97
Possibly, but not probable with our current physiology. I'd say we would have to evolve further than we are now, getting rid of useless instincts, increase brain capacity. That or integrate our minds to computers.
 
  • #98
Evolution doesn't guarantee "increased brain capacity". Evolution simply favors those characteristics that are suited for a certain environment. If anything, I would count on some type of mental devolving. Life's luxuries and the laziness they afford make for a pretty safe and mediocre existence. Mental giants are the minority by their very nature, so "average" and "mediocre" are the words you can use to describe the bulk of the people who procreate.

Of course, I'm generalizing like crazy here, so feel free to unconsider what I've said.

I like Juan Enriquez's idea of "Homo Evolutis". Basically, as a species we have reached the end of significant, natural evolution. But that's nothing to be worried about. Because, though we may be reaching the end of our evolutionary track, we have the mental power to continue artificial evolution. We are now "Homo Evolutis", a species capable of their own evolution.

Here's an interesting vid on the idea: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html
 
Last edited:
  • #99
Brilliant! said:
I like Juan Enriquez's idea of "Homo Evolutis". Basically, as a species we have reached the end of significant, natural evolution. But that's nothing to be worried about. Because, though we may be reaching the end of our evolutionary track, we have the mental power to continue artificial evolution. We are now "Homo Evolutis", a species capable of their own evolution.

Here's an interesting vid on the idea: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html

Computers to my way of thinking are just as evolutionary as biological stuff like me and you. They are 'growing' just like we grew.
 
  • #100
p764rds said:
Computers to my way of thinking are just as evolutionary as biological stuff like me and you. They are 'growing' just like we grew.
Exponentially and inorganically?

If you segregate technology and view it alone, its path certainly does represent a type of evolution, but it's only similar to ours insofar as evolution's basic characteristics are considered. To be a little cheesy, I would call it e-Volution.
 
Last edited:
  • #101
I just realized I was very vague in that last post.

What I mean to say is that technology does not evolve in a natural way. It's based on ideas from men, which are executed by men. It's our knowledge and understanding that are improving, or "evolving"; faster, stronger, smarter, and more powerful technologies are just the by-product.
 
  • #102
Brilliant! said:
I just realized I was very vague in that last post.

What I mean to say is that technology does not evolve in a natural way. It's based on ideas from men, which are executed by men. It's our knowledge and understanding that are improving, or "evolving"; faster, stronger, smarter, and more powerful technologies are just the by-product.

define natural
 
  • #103
Pythagorean said:
define natural
I suppose I mean those things that exist or occur without pre-meditation, which would rule out manufacturing, amongst other things.

I mean to say that all products of a mind, any mind, are unnatural.
 
  • #104
Brilliant! said:
I just realized I was very vague in that last post.

What I mean to say is that technology does not evolve in a natural way. It's based on ideas from men, which are executed by men. It's our knowledge and understanding that are improving, or "evolving"; faster, stronger, smarter, and more powerful technologies are just the by-product.

I don't disagree with you strongly, I mostly agree with your advanced views, just I see us as made by the universe (evolution processess) and we make computers - so both are actually made by the universe itself - whatever that force/process is - some type of intelligence IMO but it leaves us alone to get on with implementing its grand clever design.

As I said before - we have a similar type of intelligence to the universe itself probably. We are not separate. Newton thought the universe was 'straining towards intelligence' as well as being made by numbers - wow!, both right probably.

Notice how computing 'makes itself valuable' and desirable to us. I knew it would do that at the outset when only geeks liked them. People told me they were just machines and would not even be good at chess!
How did I know the truth? Because they are Von Neumann machines that can 'think' - a dead ringer for evolution. Right on the path we tread.
They 'have to' or are straining to evolve more (they are intelligent, but not manipulative -its evolution doing it) and the mechanism to use? - we build them and they give us money and pleasure and run our businesses and transport etc. they are really 'wanted' by nearly everyone - that's in the plan or is the direction of evolution.

Its not that they are conscious and thinking about taking over - not at all like that - its that the universe evolution path has made them and they are Von Neumann machines and the universe itself must be a type of Von Neumann machine - a very very good model of course - quantum and multiple processors etc. So computers are simply damn good at being involved with life and evolution - they are so good that they can hardly fail to succeed.

Next step is to take on management functions (which they will do better than us) unless the next step is implants into our brains as suggested in a PHd paper as their mechanism for progress to genetic takeover. Maybe we will retain a few cells to remain in power or be like Davros or something.
 
  • #105
you talk about humans as if we are tourists within the universe separate from atoms ...looking in on a seperate,yet we are of atom...
 

Similar threads

I Clarification about the size of the Universe
    • Cosmology
Replies
5
Views
1K
B Why so many want, or are not disturbed by, a "deterministic" universe?
    • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Would we ever be able to fully understand the laws of the universe?
    • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
3K
B Low entropy early Universe and the heat death musings
    • Cosmology
Replies
5
Views
1K
A Why the fine-tuning argument for improbable existence is a fallacy
    • Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
2K
B Does dark energy's effect or strength vary over time?
    • Cosmology
Replies
24
Views
1K
B The observable and non-observable parts of the Universe
    • Cosmology
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
B The accelerated expansion of the universe; redshift and time/distance
    • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Why doesn't cosmic inflation violate conservation of energy?
    • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
2K
B 83 quasars right up against the Event Horizon
    • Cosmology
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top