how can we best explain our existence ?

J

Jireh777

Registered Member
how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.
 
Spud Emperor said:
I prefer no. 1
It seems self explanatory to me.
Click to expand...

most scientists would disagree with you.

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Bang_came_from_a_singularity_where_did_the_singularity_come_from[/url]

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.
 
Jireh777 said:
how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.
Click to expand...


i don't equate our existence with the existence of our universe. we don't know what lies beyond that. we don't even know what's included in it. our perception is so limited.
 
how can we best explain our existence ?
Click to expand...

To each human it means something different for we are all born unique in the cosmos and lead different lives along our path.
 
There is another option:

The universe had a local beginning (the Big Bang), but is eternal.
 
Jireh777 said:
how can we best explain our existence ?
Click to expand...

With science...our best explanation today will surely change in a few years. So trying to make a real granular explanation is beyond our current capability and may always reside beyond our abilities.
Jireh777 said:
what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?
Click to expand...

A dream, a thought, a possibility.
 
Jireh777 said:
how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.
Click to expand...
4. The universe is eternal and is contingent on another eternal element (much like, supposing we had an eternal fire, it would also have eternal smoke ... which of course would be contingent on the fire)
 
Vilenkins work appears to be based on the earlier work of Guth (the father of inflationary theory) - "The Inflationary Universe".

While both conclude that there could be an infinite number of big bang style universes, and hence the super-universe (includes all component multi-verses) will exist eternally, both somewhat arbitrarily choose to start with a single instance.

In the recently made PBS program "the Stephen Hawkings universe" or similar title, Hawkings presents the multi-verse concept but certainly does not offer how each BB begins. It is implied that the cause of each is a natural event that we do not understand yet. He of course also offers the eternal cyclic big bang and big crunch cycle that also generates an infinite universe, i.e. no beginning or end.
 
jireh,

how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.
Click to expand...
We know of absolutely NOTHING that has a cause so there is zero support to conclude that the universe must have a cause.

All our observations tell us is that everything we know is the result of transformations from other resources, material and/or energy, and that nothing is ever created or destroyed. A cause in this respect simply means a transformation from other forms.

From this we have no evidence to suggest that the entire universe has not always existed, since we have no evidence that something can come from nothing, i.e. the implied meaning of "cause" in the OP.
 
Sorta have to say 2 and 3. Believe in the big bang, but there was a cause.
 
This guy did a good job, IMO:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm

He says it comes down to either you believe in a god (or other external source of energy) and universe was created by an event, or you MUST accept that the universe always existed because something cannot be created from nothing. He also points out that we may not know how because we think in cause and effect, but it is the only logical conclusion because it is the simplest answer.

I accept his answer for now, but it seems as tough to accept on faith as it does that the universe was created...interesting.
 
The big bang was a universe that did not always exist, yet it came from a pre-big bang energy-matter-space-time conglomerate. Something must come from something, but that doesn't mean that it always existed.
 
pit,

Something must come from something, but that doesn't mean that it always existed.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. If there was a point where nothing existed then there would have been nothing to provide a cause and we couldn't be here.

Therefore it necessarily follows that something has ALWAYS existed. And since we know the universe exists and we have no evidence that gods are possible then an infinite universe is the primary candidate.

Introducing a god concept as a cause of the universe because of the concept that everything must have a cause is a purely redundant step since now we have the problem of what is the cause of such a god. If the answer is that the god doesn't require a cause then that defeats the argument that everything must have a cause and we can return to the original issue - what caused the universe - well if not everything needs a cause then an infinite universe again becomes the primary candidate.
 
Lori_7 said:
i don't equate our existence with the existence of our universe. we don't know what lies beyond that. we don't even know what's included in it. our perception is so limited.
Click to expand...

I gotta say it Lori: excellent point. And I completely agree with you.

However, if I had to choose, option #1 is the most reasonable.
Moreover, option #1 can feasibly contain option#2, assuming cyclic 'Bangs'...
 
lg,

The universe is eternal and is contingent on another eternal element (much like, supposing we had an eternal fire, it would also have eternal smoke ... which of course would be contingent on the fire)
Click to expand...
In this case the smoke is not eternal since it must have begun after the fire that caused it. I am assuming here that "eternal" means of infinite duration and hence has no beginning. In this sense something eternal cannot be contingent on anything else.

If the universe is eternal then it cannot be contingent on anything else since that would void its state of being eternal.
 
Cris said:
lg,

In this case the smoke is not eternal since it must have begun after the fire that caused it. I am assuming here that "eternal" means of infinite duration and hence has no beginning. In this sense something eternal cannot be contingent on anything else.
Click to expand...
If the fire is eternal, its not clear how the smoke could begin after it (since the fire has no beginning) ... although it is clear how it would be contingent on it

If the universe is eternal then it cannot be contingent on anything else since that would void its state of being eternal.
Click to expand...
If you have an eternal object that exhibits potencies, those potencies are also eternal, albeit, contingent on the said object
 
lg,

If the fire is eternal, its not clear how the smoke could begin after it (since the fire has no beginning) ... although it is clear how it would be contingent on it
Click to expand...
Perhaps the analogy breaks down since fire comes before smoke is possible. The analogy creates a paradox since smoke must come after the fire so both cannot be eternal, i.e. there is a necessary temporal element making the entities slightly out of phase because of the cause and effect relationship. But this raises the concept of an eternal entity being contingent/dependent on another eternal entity: I believe the definition of eternal makes such a relationship nonsensical. Either one is truly dependent on the other, i.e. caused by it and must therefore have existed for a shorter time and therefore cannot be eternal (it had a beginning), or both are independently eternal and therefore there is no contingency.

In which case if the universe is eternal it cannot be contingent on anything, whether eternal or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top