Why must the universe have a "beginning"?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Seemingly all matter within the range of human perception can be traced back to a specific origin. Your house was designed and assembled on site by construction crews. Your car was most likely manufactured in an assembly line in Detroit. The parts comprising your computer were constructed in various spots around China, India, and the United States.

Niether a house, a car, nor a computer are capable of independent manifestation; each requires a creator. Consequently, many (scientists included) automatically assume that this concept must likewise apply to the macro-universe and the various entities it comprises. Matter cannot just 'exist'. It must be created, hence the existance of this planet, that sun, those stars, and every galactical body in between.

But is it illogical, in regard to the universe and it's origin, to abandon this law under the presumption that the matter comprising our surroundings (not to mention our very being) has ALWAYS been here, in one shape or form? The perpetual universe theory (not sure if it has ever been assigned a specific name, so I will make one up) holds that all existing matter has/will be present throughout eternity, constantly evolving.

More specifically, is the state of nothingness metaphysically plausible? Can a realm be utterly void of all matter, particles, and forces associated with the physical world? A vacuum is the obvious solution, but scientists have long since determined that even these are comprised of certain various entities which will react with oncomming matter such as light. To imagine a state of nothingness is beyond the realm of human perception. We can picture a black void, of course, but even 'black' is considered to "something".

Whether our puny subjective minds can imagine such a state is another issue entirely, but more towards the real subject at hand; can the state of nothingness persist in the objective world? Could it have existed (or not existed, rather) before the presumed "beginning" of our universe?

[QED]

But if the the naturalistic perspective is abandoned, then other possibilities arise, possibilities that fit better with mankind's innate sense of "significance," "meaning," and purpose--his/her innate sense that he/she is more than just an insignificant mold, more than just a tiny, expendible cog in a great, impersonal machine, more than just an machine himself/herself.

So how come I don't have that innate sense of significance about myself? I don't think it's fair to speak for all mankind in this way. I'm quite sure I'm human, but I'm not in the slightest bit persuaded that there is something special about my self-awareness or intelligence -- other than by degree. I would like to suggest that this is a subjective feeling brought on by a couple of thousand years worth of philosophizing in the absence of a modern scientific understanding. The compulsion to view mankind as special seems to be particularly strong from the theist's perspective, but here's a challenge -- define what life in generalis. I think you'll find that it's not as easy as one might first think. Just about every definition that has ever been offered is ambiguous enough to allow things that we instinctively know not to be living to be counted.

[wgreen]

I'm quite sure I'm human, but I'm not in the slightest bit persuaded that there is something special about my self-awareness or intelligence -- other than by degree. I would like to suggest that this is a subjective feeling brought on by a couple of thousand years worth of philosophizing in the absence of a modern scientific understanding.

Do you feel like an insignificant cog in a great machine? From the naturalistic perspective, the universe is like a great kinetic sculpture, with whirling parts and rolling balls and ticking noise, with no purpose. We are all just little, expendible whirligigs on the great sculpture. At best, we are whirligigs that know we are whirligigs in a great, expanding and changing sculpture. Is that how you think about yourself? If not, how do you think about yourself (if I'm not getting to personal)?

but here's a challenge -- define what life in generalis. I think you'll find that it's not as easy as one might first think. Just about every definition that has ever been offered is ambiguous enough to allow things that we instinctively know not to be living to be counted.

Yes, it is difficult to define "life," and "matter" and "love" and "running," and many things. In fact, precise definitions in general are difficult, especially when we're dealing with fundamental concepts, and when we are trying to avoid ambiguous words in the definition itself. Of course, just because we can't articulate it doesn't mean we don't know it. We use such inarticulate knowledge all the time. But I'm not sure what you we're getting at with the "life" question.

[wgreen]

Oh, I definitely disagree on two counts. Firstly, I know of no contentious philosophy that doesn't have opposing evidence against it, and second if such contrary evidence did not exist, then it would be perfectly valid to hold to a naturalistic stance since it lacks any evidence against it

I was speaking particularly of "physical" evidence, though I'm not sure what I said doesn't apply also to philosophical "evidence." I think it is possible to construct a philosophical system that does not permit evidence against itself. One possible example, if I believe that I am a simulation on some great computer, I am not sure there is any way to contradict this.

whereas a non-naturalistic stance does have evidence against it (e.g., we don't go before God's throne on Capital Hill to pick our new president every four years).

Sorry, harvey, I don't follow the Capital argument. I'm not sure what you're saying.

It's a valid question, but I'm afraid that all the metaphysical naturalist has to do is say, "naturalism would be false if convincing evidence for supernaturalism were to be discovered. This would be convincing evidence against metaphysical naturalism."

I was asking for an example of such evidence.

[wgreen]

My take on this 'other' is the mere fact that we are cognate beings, we are aware of our own consciousness. The other IS our consciousness, what we observe as the manifestation of this consciousness is our sense of an individual self, our perceptions of the phenomenal world and our relationship to it.

Let me see if I understand you. We are aware of our own consciousness, and we feel that we have transcendent significance because we perceive our own consciousness as being transcendent? I can see how we might perceive our consciousness as being separate from the physical world, so we believe that some part of ourselves is separate. That makes sense, although I'm not sure who's doing the observing. But where does the transcendent significance come in?

By the way, I am not saying that there is no way to explain such things as a sense of purpose/significance, personality, love, justice, etc. in naturalistic terms. I am saying that such explanations amount to calling such feelings illusory. My feeling that I somehow transcend the physical, that my love for my wife and children is more than chemical reactions in my brain, that my revulsion for the treatment of the people of Darfur is more than evolutionary conditioning, that my sense of responsibility to future generations is more than evolutionary tinkering, etc. is all an illusion. It's all an illusion. A trick that evolution has played on us. We are no different from mice, hitting levers to get treats.

I guess Weinberg said it best "The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."

But I don't think he was right... I don't see how science lifts it at all. It's all the same either way, with or without scientific understanding.

It is logically possible that it is an illusion. In fact, from a naturalistic perspective, it is the only possibility.

It is not, however, the best option. A better option would be one that would call it, not an illusion, but a reflection of reality.

[QED]

Do you feel like an insignificant cog in a great machine? From the naturalistic perspective, the universe is like a great kinetic sculpture, with whirling parts and rolling balls and ticking noise, with no purpose. We are all just little, expendible whirligigs on the great sculpture. At best, we are whirligigs that know we are whirligigs in a great, expanding and changing sculpture. Is that how you think about yourself? If not, how do you think about yourself (if I'm not getting to personal)?

Having given some thought to the question of what will evolve in a universe like this, it seems to me that something like a me is pretty much inevitable sooner or later. That is, with universal physics as a given, there are bound to be stars, planets and biochemistry. The various flavours of the Anthropic Principle ensure that we can't read anything particular into these apparently remarkable givens, and with the only way of resolving the ambiguities thrown up by any self-selection effects being to acquire a seemingly impossible vantage point outside of this universe, it seems we may never come to know our true context.

But I can see plenty of examples of unplanned existence and the principles of evolution make it clear that the absence of purpose is a natural and surprisingly common feature of the world. In fact, all the logic of natural selection points towards the rather "single minded" goal of non-specific existence built from whatever materials are at hand. So it's even taking things too far to think of myself as part of a kinetic sculpture when that would imply the existence of an artist. Sure it might be temping to say that the artist chose his materials very carefully so that the sculpture would create itself -- but we simply do not have enough information to make this deduction.

but here's a challenge -- define what life in generalis. I think you'll find that it's not as easy as one might first think. Just about every definition that has ever been offered is ambiguous enough to allow things that we instinctively know not to be living to be counted.

Yes, it is difficult to define "life," and "matter" and "love" and "running," and many things. In fact, precise definitions in general are difficult, especially when we're dealing with fundamental concepts, and when we are trying to avoid ambiguous words in the definition itself. Of course, just because we can't articulate it doesn't mean we don't know it. We use such inarticulate knowledge all the time. But I'm not sure what you we're getting at with the "life" question.

Well, I happen to think there are a lot of false assumptions being made in these debates. I think these often lead us to false dichotomies. Perhaps, for example, it's wrong to think of things as either living or not. Perhaps this is why we struggle to articulate a formal definition for life. When you say it's an example of inarticulate knowledge, this is just the sort of place we might expect to see false assumptions being made.

Mankind has one perspective on the universe but I seriously doubt that it's the only one. It's a darn big place and it might not be the only place either.

[wgreen]

The various flavours of the Anthropic Principle ensure that we can't read anything particular into these apparently remarkable

I think that "ensure" is at least a bit strong here, as "fine tuning" has influenced prominent scientific/philosophical minds to wonder about purpose, etc.: Paul Davies (see The Mind of God) and Anthoney Flew (I think this one a strong factor in his so-called "conversion"--see his interview at www.god4science.com/design.htm), to name just a couple.
And as you said...

Sure it might be temping to say that the artist chose his materials very carefully so that the sculpture would create itself -- but we simply do not have enough information to make this deduction.

When you say it's an example of inarticulate knowledge, this is just the sort of place we might expect to see false assumptions being made.

What does this mean? Are you saying that there is some false assumption in what I said about inarticulate knowledge? If so, what is it?

[wgreen]

and with the only way of resolving the ambiguities thrown up by any self-selection effects being to acquire a seemingly impossible vantage point outside of this universe, it seems we may never come to know our true context.

Why do you think we need an "outside" vantage point? I agree that we do, but I'm curious as to why you say we do.

Sure it might be temping to say that the artist chose his materials very carefully so that the sculpture would create itself -- but we simply do not have enough information to make this deduction.

Why is naturalism the default?

[QED]

The various flavours of the Anthropic Principle ensure that we can't read anything particular into these apparently remarkable

I think that "ensure" is at least a bit strong here, as "fine tuning" has influenced prominent scientific/philosophical minds to wonder about purpose, etc.: Paul Davies (see The Mind of God) and Anthoney Flew (I think this one a strong factor in his so-called "conversion"--see his interview at www.god4science.com/design.htm), to name just a couple.

Well, perhaps it might help if I explain it in some more detail: the apparent "Fine tuning" that we are discussing here might indeed be enough to make us all wonder about the possibility of deliberate design; or purpose behind the universe, but only if we know for sure that everything we observe forms the entire arena of space-time that has ever existed. The reason for this is Anthropic in nature: to be a living carbon-based entity requires a stable region of four-dimensional space-time very closely matching our own. If such a region exists, our surprise to find ourselves in it should only be inversely proportional to the number of other regions existing with different conditions. We don't know this so we don't know how surprised we deserve to be.

We do know however that there are necessary restrictions on our scope for such observations -- for starters we know that we're isolated to our own region of space-time within our own universe (inside an light-cone extending some 13 Giga Light Years approx). The universe can extend beyond this region by an unknown amount, providing an unknown number of opportunities for different conditions. Then there is the question of the boundary represented by the singularity at t=0. This universe could be just one small bubble in a giant foam of other universes.

This definitely places us in an ambiguous position and that is why I said that the Anthropic Principle ensures that we can't read anything particular into these apparently remarkable coincidences. It fail to see how it could be stated in a weaker fashion, short of pandering to a particular philosophical viewpoint.

And as you said...

Sure it might be temping to say that the artist chose his materials very carefully so that the sculpture would create itself -- but we simply do not have enough information to make this deduction.

When you say it's an example of inarticulate knowledge, this is just the sort of place we might expect to see false assumptions being made.

What does this mean? Are you saying that there is some false assumption in what I said about inarticulate knowledge? If so, what is it?

The ambiguities raised by the self-selection effects I've described above mean that we can't assume that just because the conditions are right for us means that we were meant to be. Douglas Adams once told a story about a puddle who felt it was "very special" on account of the perfect fit, of the hole in which it was sat, to its outline.

Inarticulate knowledge tells us that there is a material world and an immaterial world, yet when we examine matter in fine detail we find that it is not composed of anything we would classically refer to as being material. This assumption, in my opinion, creates a false dichotomy around which many of these age-old arguments revolve; in particular the question of what is living and what is non-living.

Why do you think we need an "outside" vantage point? I agree that we do, but I'm curious as to why you say we do.

As I explained above not seeing the "bigger picture" means that we cannot draw safe conclusions about "purpose" from the appearance of fine-tuning.

Why is naturalism the default?

How many supernatural explanations do we incorporate in our understanding of the world compared to natural explanations? When we look back through the history of mankind we see that when supernaturalism has been the default it is frequently proven to be the wrong explanation. Why should we not learn from this experience?

[QED]

Bill, I've read but resisted joining your message boards (I spend too much time here as it is!) but there's so much to debate about the apparent design we see in things. Enigma started a very interesting topic here: "Spot the design, for fun and profit." If design can emerge sans intelligence and if we can't tell the difference (which is what this topic shows) then how much can we rely on our "gut feelings" about the role of a designer in the universe at large? If you're interested we might pick this up on the end of Enigma's topic.

[bernee51]

Let me see if I understand you. We are aware of our own consciousness, and we feel that we have transcendent significance because we perceive our own consciousness as being transcendent? I can see how we might perceive our consciousness as being separate from the physical world, so we believe that some part of ourselves is separate. That makes sense, although I'm not sure who's doing the observing. But where does the transcendent significance come in?

Who is doing the observing is the fundamental question. All that we claim we are (a man, a husband, a father - al that make up our sense of an individual self) are observations. They are objects in the awareness of the Self

By the way, I am not saying that there is no way to explain such things as a sense of purpose/significance, personality, love, justice, etc. in naturalistic terms. I am saying that such explanations amount to calling such feelings illusory. My feeling that I somehow transcend the physical, that my love for my wife and children is more than chemical reactions in my brain, that my revulsion for the treatment of the people of Darfur is more than evolutionary conditioning, that my sense of responsibility to future generations is more than evolutionary tinkering, etc. is all an illusion. It's all an illusion.

Where was the love of your wife before you met her? Where was the revulsion you feel for the goings on in Darfur before it came into your awareness? How 'real' is all that happened yesterday?

It has been said that only that is real which does not change or cease to exist - all else is illusion. What does not change or cease to exist? Consciousness.

We are no different from mice, hitting levers to get treats.

In the first two levels of existence (the geosphere and the biosphere) we are no different to mice. We differ in subsequent levels

It is logically possible that it is an illusion. In fact, from a naturalistic perspective, it is the only possibility.

As it is from the perspective of Vedanta.