so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[C-Nub]

Science could make a few educated guesses. I guess the most prominant amongst them is that ventured by string, or more particularly, M-Theory. The theory here, and it's a strictly mathmatical one, and should not in any way be considered confirmed, is that the 11 dimension 'membrane' that is our universe, to which all the cosmic, vibrating strings that generate matter as we experiece it are tethered (except gravity, which is an extra-dimensional force and left untethered) collided with another membrane, generating the energy necessary to start things in motion, but that is, once again, the how.

There is no scientific answer to 'why', at least not in the quest for purpose. Science holds, or largely seems to hold, the belief that the universe is pretty pointless, there's no great purpose, no conclusion that's being reached for. We do not exist for any one reason, we do because it is natural for us to do so, and that's it.

On the other hand, however, the entire Universe could absolutely be described as A diversity (or complexity) engine. People tend to limit this kind of thinking to evolution, in part because of the time scale involved and in part because the processes being discussed are a little murky, but in truth, the whole universe has been growing more and more complicated, intricate and diverse since it's origin. The natural order of things is one that fosters ever increasing levels of structure, using massive stars to create the variety of matter, using planets to combine the matter, and using smaller stars to provide the energy necessary for those planets to develop increasingly sophisticated cellullar groupings, the most complicated of which, us, are then put in a position to further complicate our world (and eventually others) with synthetics and infrastructure.

If the Universe as a whole could be said to have a purpose, that purpose must be in some way tied to the layered growth that has lead from a lot of really, really hot hydrogen becoming large, cellullar conglomerates of matter, free thinking colonies of billions that function with a degree of organization and efficiency that can't yet be duplicated in the synthetic world.

[ollagram88]

@byofrcs: the analogies you gave don't seem sufficient in answering the question because it still doesn't answer WHY there is a need for those particles, those stones to exist. why gravity has to exist. why ANYTHING has to exist.

if not one universe, let's suppose we have many. why do we have many universes (not why are there many as opposed to one; the nature of the question should be the same, i.e., why do we have these universes).

the "inevitable" argument only seems to answer the how because it's simply saying, given the right physical circumstances, "such and such" occurs.

Asking why is thus premature and we can thus reduce asking why to first investigating the causal circumstances of the universe - the how - as it is not logical to ask why without knowing that first.

this makes a lot of sense, scientifically, with the intent of seeking a natural explanation...

however, is it philosophically possible to answer this question? why does "existence even exist at all?" instead of just a non-existent world where we DON'T have atoms or matter or laws or universes... i'm not interested in how it all came to be, science can keep pushing back further and further and figuring out how we got all these things, but the underlying question of "why" we have it all still seems to remain unanswered.

---------------------

@c-nub:

There is no scientific answer to 'why', at least not in the quest for purpose. Science holds, or largely seems to hold, the belief that the universe is pretty pointless, there's no great purpose, no conclusion that's being reached for. We do not exist for any one reason, we do because it is natural for us to do so, and that's it.

this just sparked an interesting point. let's extend this analogy to me as a software developer, and a computer program that emulates the real world.

as the software developer, i create this program; this program is exactly like the real world. if you were to "run" this program, we would see the explosion of the big bang, the formation of planets and stars, the formation of the first carbon-based molecules, the evolution of these things... nematodes, bacteria, trees, fish, dinosaurs, gorillas, humans... we would see hurricanes, tornadoes, exploding volcanoes... all sorts of human societies and cultures form and all sorts of religions and philosophies and scientific hypotheses from people who ask why and how this "program" runs and exists... a virtual entity called Hitler would also be there, and the program would show his attempt to exterminate all the Jews... and this is only planet Earth so it's only taking a tiny portion of the memory of my program. let's not forget the rest of the universe(s) with all those galaxies and stars and planet... and hypothetically, maybe this program is set to run in cycles... or maybe once the program is done it restarts and randomly resets all the variables that form the backbone of the program...

and as you can see, it seems that the "science" contained within the program is only limited to the program, describing all the physical phenomena of the program. questions of "purpose" from the humans in the program appear insignificant, they're just a tiny portion of memory on my program. and just like you said, science deems this program purposeless. things just keep existing based on how i developed and coded this program. yes, there was no purpose for Bush to become president, or for Joe next door to become a priest because he felt it was his calling, or for Mars to exist, or for the "variables" that I (might have randomly) set for the universe(s) to be the way they are.

if the humans in the program want to ponder on WHY this program exists, not HOW it runs, what answers can they come up with? all the science in the world is limited to the program, being only able to describe the "code" behind everything.

the answer in this scenario is that i, the software developer, the "God," created it. i'm half-tempted to use this as the answer to the OP... unfortunately, this only aggravates the question because the why of my own existence, the software developer, comes into question... unless I, the software developer, am not graspable by the humans of my program because they are limited to their understanding within my program.

any thoughts?

EDIT: i suppose if the humans had some sort of evidence from me, such as me leaving signs somewhere in the program or somehow communicating with them, then they could answer the question haha.

[C-Nub]

I have some thoughts. The first is, though, that you have added a complex hypothetical situation, making it a philisophical question as opposed to a scientific one. You've had to 'invent' a creator, or programmer, to whom we could direct these questions, or at least, who's motives we can speculate upon in order to address the 'why' as you see it.

Such a creator could be building such a world to play, to see how it forms under these variables, or for any number of legitimate reasons, as well as those that are purely for entertainment or boredom suppression.

But I don't believe in a creator, I don't believe in a designed universe with a set of motives what we're doing. If we need to create or hypothesize facets to our universes' history in order to validate the question of 'why', then I stand pretty firmly by my original point, that it isn't one that can be answered, and really isn't one that should be asked. We can never find an answer, there is no one out there to answer it. IF we want to narrow our focus, and ask why a particular object is here, or why it behaves the way it does, then that's different. If we wish to address the existance of the entire cosmos in terms of purpose, then we have to direct our attention to something outside to cosmos for an answer, and we have no such things, so the question is moot.

[byofrcs]

@byofrcs: the analogies you gave don't seem sufficient in answering the question because it still doesn't answer WHY there is a need for those particles, those stones to exist. why gravity has to exist. why ANYTHING has to exist.

if not one universe, let's suppose we have many. why do we have many universes (not why are there many as opposed to one; the nature of the question should be the same, i.e., why do we have these universes).

the "inevitable" argument only seems to answer the how because it's simply saying, given the right physical circumstances, "such and such" occurs.

Asking why is thus premature and we can thus reduce asking why to first investigating the causal circumstances of the universe - the how - as it is not logical to ask why without knowing that first.

this makes a lot of sense, scientifically, with the intent of seeking a natural explanation...

however, is it philosophically possible to answer this question? why does "existence even exist at all?" instead of just a non-existent world where we DON'T have atoms or matter or laws or universes... i'm not interested in how it all came to be, science can keep pushing back further and further and figuring out how we got all these things, but the underlying question of "why" we have it all still seems to remain unanswered.
........

The only answer to "why" is "how". You cease asking "how" when you ask "why". Why is this ?. Because you are asking someone else who knows how to give you the answer to your why.

Why the Stone ?, Why Gravity ? are answered as how the stone came into being, or how gravity came into being and so on.

I will now present 3 scenarios (they have a point),

1) Can this recursive inquiry of "how" stop ?. Yes (I believe) that it will stop when you end with a truth. The scientific method approaches truths slowly (and asymptotically so how leads to another how). Mathematics shows one way in that it can have truths but these are representations. We need a new discipline (and it isn't Religion !) that combines these (watch me now get prwned by completeness theory) - a Theory Of Everything. My theory is that because asking "how" is halted by reference to a law (or truth) then all hows are halted by a Theory of Everything. The question is ? if this the same halting problem that we know and love ?.

2) Truths from Religion are of no use as they just add as many "why" than they offer "how". It presents truth like politicians. A trust-me truth. Heck even if you had God in front of you and asked "Why" then you could still ask "why" for each of the answers given until old'smitey yells "BECAUSE" and casts you into Hell for eternity, where you ask "Why Me ?".

3) To reiterate though: Asking why is trying to identify a purpose. We cannot know that purpose until we identify how. When we have all the hows in a row then we will know why. When someone then asks us why we can tell them how. If they then keep asking us why then we eventually yell "BECAUSE" and tell them to search Google or something.

By now you should see; the problem is the language we use that creates the logical flaw.

In my example 1), 2) and 3) above the answer provided should have been so-self consistent that it would not be logical to then ask "why". Why ? because the answer would be complete.

So we ask why simply because we humans operate with an incomplete axiomatic theory of everything, and that includes all of science, maths and religion.

Why ?. BECAUSE !.

[QED]

this just sparked an interesting point. let's extend this analogy to me as a software developer, and a computer program that emulates the real world.

Excellent idea, but of course you've introduced "intent" at the outset. This means that there is an answer to "why?" even if it's "Just to see what would happen -- and I didn't expect to see you guys show up!".

The alternative is difficult for some people to imagine because they are so used to intentional agents being the only causal agents in town. Nature is full of causes but by one huge leap of analogy some people assume that it must all be traceable back to some prime intender. Until this kind of anthropomorphic reasoning can be properly defended we must simply accept that "why?" is not always a valid question.

This is a valid sequence in time from left to right:

Intentional>cause>effect>why?

Here cause and effect are like two sides of a coin and simply because of their definitions in language you can't have one without the other. Deeper still in our collective culture is a religious link between intent and cause that ultimately makes all causes intentional.

By granting that some things are truly unintentional:

Unintentional>cause>effect>[strike]why?[/strike]

Why becomes a wholly invalid question. I won't even go into what happens if our sequence takes place in a closed timelike curve.

[Simon_Peter]

The one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist?

What a fantastic question. Well Science does not answer 'why'. In order to understand this question, we must first understand why we are asking, Just curiosity? so we are asking why we are here because we are curious. Why are we curious about this question? Do we need a purpose? Why do we need a purpose? Let me explain, when you ask the question, of why we are here, you really must understand why your asking, once you answer the question, of why you need to
know why, you will have found your purpose, and you would have answered why you are here.

But if your asking why the human race is here, then thats another question entirely. Science has already answered this question, The human race is here because it is the natural consequence of the mechanics of the universe. However what science hasn't discovered, is how life began, where life began. But it answers this by saying that, we are here, therefore, it is possible, therefore, we must understand, about the mechanics of the universe, in order to determine the process of how life began, once they understand the process of this, they can speculate about why this process begun.

However if your asking why you personally are here, you can say that your father decided to have sex with your mother. However if your asking, what is your purpose, then only you can decide that.

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

No the question of why is not irrelevant, let me give you an example.

I do not know how a television works, but i understand the purpose of the television. It is for me to simply watch. However that is my purpose of the television. The purpose for business is to provide content, adverts and films for it. So this very question, what is the purpose of the television is differs between people. There is no one purpose in life. Why are we here? is it the survival of the species? Why do we need to survive?

Now that is a fantastic question

i'm not interested in the how

Then my friend you will never discover the why

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws.

We have physical laws, because we have physical laws. There is no why here, if we think of all the parallel dimensions, we can say that their physical laws will be different, and they will not comprehend our physical laws. An alien species, who consist of dark matter, will be asking how come we dont we need to eat? how can we walk through walls?

Simply because we can, its called the Anthropic principle

exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

Firstly there is no 'have to occur', because no one is forcing the big bang to occur. Secondly you insinuate, that there is a purpose to the big bang.

Regards
Simon

[Simon_Peter]

The one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist?

What a fantastic question. Well Science does not answer 'why'. In order to understand this question, we must first understand why we are asking, Just curiosity? so we are asking why we are here because we are curious. Why are we curious about this question? Do we need a purpose? Why do we need a purpose? Let me explain, when you ask the question, of why we are here, you really must understand why your asking, once you answer the question, of why you need to know why, you will have found your purpose, and you would have answered why you are here.

But if your asking why the human race is here, then thats another question entirely. Science has already answered this question, The human race is here because it is the natural consequence of the mechanics of the universe. However what science hasn't discovered, is how life began, where life began. But it answers this by saying that, we are here, therefore, it is possible, therefore, we must understand, about the mechanics of the universe, in order to determine the process of how life began, once they understand the process of this, they can speculate about why this process begun.

However if your asking why you personally are here, you can say that your father decided to have sex with your mother. However if your asking, what is your purpose, then only you can decide that.

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

No the question of why is not made redundant, because we understand the how, let me give you an example.

I do know how a television works, but i may not understand the purpose for it to work. That doesn't mean there isn't a purpose. Also just because a televsion can work doesn't mean that it has one purpose: to understand the purpose of the television. We must understand what it is doing at any given moment. Sometimes the purpose of a television is to give the owner money, what the television would be doing is many things, at the moment it could be being recycled, or it could be up for sale. It's purpose is also for me to simply watch. However that is my current purpose of the television. This purpose may change given the situation. I might get angry and the televisions purpose may, be there for me to simple punch. The purpose for a business is to provide content, adverts and films for it. So this very question, what is the purpose of a television, differs between people. There is no one purpose in life for a television. Just as there is no one purpose for humans, and we are much more complex than a television. When you ask why am i here? You must realize what your doing, at any given moment. However why is the human race here, that is an entirely different question, is it the survival of the species? If we want to determine that purpose we must ask ourselves, Why do we need to survive? I would like to here you using this chain of thought.

i'm not interested in the how

Then my friend you will never discover the why

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws.

We have physical laws, because we have physical laws. There is no why here, if we think of all the parallel dimensions, we can say that their physical laws will be different, and they will not comprehend our physical laws. An alien species, who consist of dark matter, will be asking how come we dont we need to eat? how can we walk through walls?

Simply because we can, its called the Anthropic principle

why the big bang(s) had to occur.

Firstly there is no 'have to occur', because no one is forcing the big bang to occur. Secondly you insinuate, that there is a purpose to the big bang.

Regards
Simon

[ollagram88]

@c-nub:

yes, the analogy with the creator was simply just that, as you said - a hypothetical situation. i guess i threw out the creator there to spark some discussion (i don't necessarily believe in that either... and also because it's the best answer i could conjure up), but the main point was the try to say how people in the program seem only limited to accurately describing phenomena within their program, as the program (universe) allows. thus, it seems that unless there was evidence for a creator (of which we have none), science appears limited to only describing the how of phenomena. someone correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but i am assuming that the universe can theoretically be replicated by a computer program. this is important, because a computer program can only do what it is programmed to do.

@byofrcs:

it's possible to identify the why without the how. for example, an engineer can create products for the benefit of society, that is WHY the product exists. or perhaps it also exists because the product earns the engineer a paycheck to increase his chances of survival, and so he created the product.

HOW it functions, however, is simply a matter of understanding or discovering the math and science behind the workings of the product. how does the product transform potential into kinetic energy? how does the product transmit radio signals?

with regards to why, however, an engineer simply could NOT have created the product and the product would cease to exist.

now in the context of the universe(s), we can understand how this universe works. how do 2 H atoms and 1 O atom create oxygen? how the stars and planets formed? but why this universe even exists, AS OPPOSED TO NOT EXISTING, is still left unanswered. we can answer HOW the universe functions (how the conditions were right, etc.) but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is, the universe could simply have been nothing with NO conditions, NO math, NO matter, etc... but it's not.

now i know the engineer/product analogy implies a creator. unfortunately, i use this analogy because it appears to be the simplest and most logical answer i know of.

@simon_peter:

just to clarify, for the purposes of this topic, i'm not interested in anything about "purpose" for the human race or any of that kind of stuff.

so fast-forwarding a bit...

the big bang. why did it have to occur? am i really implying intent here? well let's ask another question - why did the big bang NOT occur. keep in mind that to talk about the "right conditions" and all that is still answering the how. another way to put it is, this could have been a matterless universe, but yet there's matter.

@QED:

saved for last because this best addressed the OP...

so now i understand the intentional and unintentional comparison which would nullify the engineer/programmer analogies and ultimately the creator.

if we want to remove questions of intent (assuming why automatically implies intent), then i'd like to perhaps rephrase the big question: HOW did we get all of this universe? the real question i want to ask is WHY we have universe(s), as opposed to absolutely "nothing."

i'm not trying to imply a creator out there had the intention of creating the universe. but if not the creator, then how do we have all these things existing? can something unintentionally EXIST (not occur)? if matter is neither created nor destroyed, then it must have always been here, but why has matter always been here as opposed to never have been here?

[OnceConvinced]

I could question each and not feel content with either answer. In fact I'd say that's exactly what I do. I question and don't feel content going on faith or believeing just because an option is there. What I do feel content with, believe it or not, is not knowing. Wonder is more beautiful than belief.

So as for "the" answer to why everything is. Don't sweat it too much, I'd say. It would seem it's impossible to come by objectively.

I think this is great advice. There's no reason why we can't learn to live with unanswered questions. It's surely better than manufacturing scenarios that we have no way of proving. That's what gets us lot of false religions and cults... as well as lots of crazy non-religious theories. Why not just accept the fact you don't know and move on?

I know that's easier said than done, but I think it shows a maturity accepting that there will probably always be mystery and that it is possible to live a satisfying life with that mystery.

But still, I guess it's fun to discuss it, isn't it?

[Undertow]

I could question each and not feel content with either answer. In fact I'd say that's exactly what I do. I question and don't feel content going on faith or believeing just because an option is there. What I do feel content with, believe it or not, is not knowing. Wonder is more beautiful than belief.

So as for "the" answer to why everything is. Don't sweat it too much, I'd say. It would seem it's impossible to come by objectively.

I think this is great advice. There's no reason why we can't learn to live with unanswered questions. It's surely better than manufacturing scenarios that we have no way of proving. That's what gets us lot of false religions and cults... as well as lots of crazy non-religious theories. Why not just accept the fact you don't know and move on?

I know that's easier said than done, but I think it shows a maturity accepting that there will probably always be mystery and that it is possible to live a satisfying life with that mystery.

But still, I guess it's fun to discuss it, isn't it?

Absolutely. Even though we can never realistically know, we can wonder and discuss.