so the question is "why"

ollagram88 · Post by **ollagram88** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:20 pm

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.

QED · Post by **QED** » Mon May 26, 2008 6:51 am

ollagram88 wrote: @QED:

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

Why thanks! This is definatley a first for me

ollagram88 wrote: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?

We might never know for sure, and as has been suggested, this should be satisfying in its own rights. Drawing inferences beyond this point cannot result in a more satisfying answer. However "absolutely nothing" can be captured analytically and in some analysis it is determined to be unstable; Metaphysically it can seem just as plausible that "everything exists" so long as it really is infinitely inclusive. Many of these ideas are only counter-intuitive, which is only to be pejorative to our intuitions.

ollagram88 · Post by **ollagram88** » Mon May 26, 2008 12:45 pm

mmm.. interesting interesting interesting. well thanks all.

and QED, i'm sure your insights are always greatly appreciated here haha.

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Mon May 26, 2008 6:25 pm

"It is by us that God can know Itself." - Meister Eckhart

Perhaps thats a sufficient 'why'?

ollagram88 · Post by **ollagram88** » Tue May 27, 2008 7:19 pm

well the search for an answer goes back to the creationism debate. if science can't answer it, then i don't think the argument for God is nullified.

daedalus 2.0 · Post by **daedalus 2.0** » Tue May 27, 2008 7:40 pm

ollagram88 wrote:well the search for an answer goes back to the creationism debate. if science can't answer it, then i don't think the argument for God is nullified.

Thats a false choice. science is our best method of knowing, but somethings it can't touch (apparently, so far). philosophy and logic are quite good at addressing things science can't, and they don't need to invoke gods..

ollagram88 · Post by **ollagram88** » Tue May 27, 2008 10:36 pm

i wouldn't call it a false choice by saying the idea of God is NOT disproven. it is quite possibly false if we were to claim God was the answer, though.

or, what is the philosophical answer?

daedalus 2.0 · Post by **daedalus 2.0** » Tue May 27, 2008 11:06 pm

ollagram88 wrote:i wouldn't call it a false choice by saying the idea of God is NOT disproven. it is quite possibly false if we were to claim God was the answer, though.

or, what is the philosophical answer?

The statement was phrased: If...then...

"If science can't answer it, then (i don't think) the question of God is nullified."

Maybe science DOES answer it, yet, I don't think it ends the debate because Science has its limits And, I say that knowing that nothing is better than science at coming up with real answers. Science is truly is a wonder of human achievement. (That is, the "scientific method").

However, I suspect that meaning (myth/religion) are more complicated. They are art forms; poetry. They have their own truths because we care to see the truth in them, based on our own feelings. It doesn't make them True (philosophically Actual), just true to us at the time.

I believe science explains WHY we have these feelings, and can even show what part of the brain produces tham, etc. but I doubt it will be able to explain them as the individual experiences them. As J.Campbell says, "Myth is the experience of Meaning."

Since I am, begrudgingly, a Determinist, I could say that it could all be explained somehow, but I don't think science will be answering these things for millenia.

Of course, it could also happen tomorrow.

ollagram88 · Post by **ollagram88** » Wed May 28, 2008 2:26 am

yeah that's what i meant - i don't think the debate has ended either. i was in fact originally under the impression the "God as the uncaused first-cause" argument had been disproven already. the question still seems up in the air.

i have my own complex view of religion and to a great extent i'd certainly agree that myth is our experience of meaning, and is just as important as science/rationalism to the human condition. i think i got that from karen armstrong.

and yeah i suppose we won't live to know xD i'm confident though that much of what we think we know now about the universe will still be revolutionized over and over as history has always shown.

Quixotic · Post by **Quixotic** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:25 am

Why should there be a why?

If you use 'why' you may be assuming an intelligence which is simply not there.

As far as I am aware the 'reason' the universe exists is because 'nothing' is very unstable and prone to become 'something'.

As for 'why' this universe in particular? Well to invoke the anthropic principal, it could not have been any other way. As we are here discussing it, the universe in which we live has to be exactly as it is, otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it.

There is nothing to suggest we need to invoke a 'why', there is no 'reason' behind the universe, it just couldn’t have been any other way.

Consider also that the sum of all the energy in the universe is exactly 0, the universe is exactly as we would expect it if there is no 'why'.

To further enforce what others have said, if we assume there is a reason for the universe to exist (which assumes something outside which created it for a purpose) it is possible to think of an infinite number of theories as to the nature of the 'reasoner' and its reason for creating the universe,
None of which have any more merit than any other - so it would be mere speculation.

But as I said before there is no reason to think there is reason behind the universe.

Undertow · Post by **Undertow** » Wed May 28, 2008 6:11 am

Quixotic wrote:Why should there be a why?

If you use 'why' you may be assuming an intelligence which is simply not there.

(1) As far as I am aware the 'reason' the universe exists is because 'nothing' is very unstable and prone to become 'something'.

As for 'why' this universe in particular? Well to invoke the anthropic principal, it could not have been any other way. As we are here discussing it, the universe in which we live has to be exactly as it is, otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it.

There is nothing to suggest we need to invoke a 'why', there is no 'reason' behind the universe, it just couldn’t have been any other way.

(2) Consider also that the sum of all the energy in the universe is exactly 0, the universe is exactly as we would expect it if there is no 'why'.

To further enforce what others have said, if we assume there is a reason for the universe to exist (which assumes something outside which created it for a purpose) it is possible to think of an infinite number of theories as to the nature of the 'reasoner' and its reason for creating the universe,
None of which have any more merit than any other - so it would be mere speculation.

But as I said before there is no reason to think there is reason behind the universe.

(1) Really? Can you explain why? I'm no physics buff but I'm willing to learn if it's not too complicated.

(2) See (1).