Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

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

⚛​

 

[WaveJumper]

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

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".

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.

 

[Petradog]

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?

 

[Pythagorean]

you forgot the poll option "This question is meaningless outside of human thinking"

 

[Jacob Perry]

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.

 

[p764rds]

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.

 

[Blenton]

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.

 

[Brilliant!]

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

 

[p764rds]

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.

 

[Brilliant!]

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.

 

[Brilliant!]

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

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

 

[Brilliant!]

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.

 

[p764rds]

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.

 

[inspireme]

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...

 

[inspireme]

in reply to robertm 'why' page 1 btw

 

[p764rds]

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...

Yes, I objectify humans - I am an intelligent but external observer. Its me that I have separated from the Universe - not humans. And that aspect of a separate 'me' is my von neumann machine-like brain. I assume my brain is processing in an abstract way - its using mathematics, logic - but is stuck with 'data'.

I don't view 'atoms and energy' as the Universe, rather its the information that is behind it all.
I have completed my paper on this now.

 

[inspireme]

then I am sorry but i think your paper is flawed

 

[inspireme]

ever so slightly to deviate but... one train of thought I've been dabbleing with ...is that the universe has purpose and meaning...but we are not part of that purpose...just waste within it...a by-product of the intent...i think atheism and religion are both crumbleing around us ,,,,new fresh possibilities have sprung up...they are just visible and their meanings are beginning to form...is something greater than both those exstremes ?

 

[sylas]

I've just seen a really great video extract of an interview with Richard Feynman, which explains perfectly why I find questions like the one posted for this thread uninteresting.

It's not that the answer would be uninteresting, but there's no useful way to answer it. Any answer is a guess or presumption or belief; which is okay, but I'd much rather ask questions where there's a way to really make some progress towards answers. But Feynman says it better, of course!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0

This video starts out pretty much directly addressing the question of this thread!

 

[inspireme]

wonderful but at 2:14 and 28 seconds what was that in the bk-ground...fllew up from behind the mountain...hovered for a moment then shot off south at tremendous speed ?...ha..jk..point taken though..with enuff points maybe we can burst this bubble

 

[Martini]

The universe does not need a why.
"Why" is a human invention.

 

[inspireme]

humans are the universe and so is 'why'

 

[WaveJumper]

Will humans ever really understand why consciousness exists?

 

[inspireme]

Will humans ever really understand why consciousness exists?

if consciousness is a by-product of the universe ..waste to some as yet unfathomable creative endeavor then answering that may be humans only chance at eternity

 

[inspireme]

im currently righting a paper on my theories entitled 'Escaping gods Loving arms' that explores the idea futher...parts of it where wrote while i was completeley off my tits on a combination of alcohol and extasy...the latter half also drifts a bit ...but there is sufficient meat in there for me to publish it i think

 

[inspireme]

a previous paper of mine entitled 'Are drug induced spiritual experiences valid ?' is available now to d/l free as a text document or in audio format

 

[pgsleep]

there is no "why?"... no justification, nothing.. infinity can be applied inward as it is outward.. on that note we hardly exist in the first place. If we do have a role or purpose, it's only relevant to our own misconceived view of existence.. and in the end, even the soul decays... sorry.

-pete

 

[Count Iblis]

http://countiblis.blogspot.com/2005/11/universe-doesnt-really-exist.html" , so there is nothing to explain.

 

[JaredJames]

After reading all this I still see no reason for us needing a 'why'. Does there have to be a reason the universe is here? The 'how' questions I believe will be answered (or at least sound theories put in place in time), but i just don't understand the need for a 'why'. It is purely a humanity based question which we have created. By asking why the universe is here you imply there is a reason for it, as if there is a creator (this is where religion jumps in). You end up in a continuous bout of creator of the creator of the creator...

Is there no reason it couldn't just have happened by chance?