Why does the universe exist at all?

[Az]

It's teh Whaleboy!!1

Waleboi wher da fuk iz you at? Don't you luv we forum no mo?!

[techumseh]

Originally posted by techumseh

Is there some kind of award for stumping OT?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No you didn't

OK, is there a prize for stumping Kuciwalker?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Ok. Ok. I'm just going to ****ing admit that I don't know the damn answer to this ****ing question.


Does anyone have any LSD?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by techumseh
OK, is there a prize for stumping Kuciwalker?

I was going to give you a gold star but I couldn't find it at the moment, so I am going to give you a pad on the back instead

[techumseh]

Ahh shucks!

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Existence most certainly does not imply creation. One cannot apply the "cause is necessary to consequence" argument to a supposed necessary universe consistenting of entirely contingent objects.

The resident Poly philosopher, good to see ya Whaleboy.

One of these discussions I may let you "win" your argument for your own limitations
How long are you going to believe your life really is meaningless and void of all value?
Careful - you may philosophise yourself out of existence altogether - LOL

Existence certainly implies desire - care to follow that one down its dusty little trail?

I would admit that if I see another coughed-up first cause argument, I will personally die.

How bout I argue that you are the first cause of existense? That way when you die you take it all with you.

As for a centre of the universe in a geometric sense, I am inclined to reserve judgement since if time began as an Einsteinian 4th dimension with the big bang, then logic as we perceive it also began then, since logic is predicated by cause -> consequence which is in turn dependant upon time. Time is something that we can regard as something of a tautology in argument.

How about the universe being the center of your consciousness? What a big bang that would be eh.

There is a fundamental difference between understanding what exists, and understanding [b]how[/i] something exists. I should be very careful about establishing limits to the achievements of science where no logical barriers exist to hold it back.

Could you tell me how you manage to think about how you exist? Could you tell me exactly what your consciousness is?
We could say its energy - in that case it would be eternal, what a head rush.

In Alabama they have it down
Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I was going to give you a gold star but I couldn't find it at the moment, so I am going to give you a pad on the back instead

A hump-backed tecumseh as faithful Igor to your Dr. Praetorius ?



You mean a pat.

But in many ways the film (Bride of Frankenstein) is stolen by Ernest Thesiger, as the fey Dr. Pretorious, who toasts the darker possibilities of science: "To a new world of gods and monsters!"

[child of Thor]

I find it very interesting that the more we delve into the mystery of life, the more we find it comes down to 1's + 0's so to speak. Which leads me back to thinking we are probably some kind of super-beings Sim-Life game or something like that.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by molly bloom



A hump-backed tecumseh as faithful Igor to your Dr. Praetorius ?



You mean a pat.

Yes, maaaster!

[Whaleboy]

How long are you going to believe your life really is meaningless and void of all value?
Careful - you may philosophise yourself out of existence altogether - LOL

You seem to be getting me confused... to ask the question "if life meaningless/valueless" is like, to bastardise Ayer, asking "what colour is Saturday?". In less cryptic terms, value is always subject-dependent (one might say, a function of supply and demand) and so meaning and value are dependent upon the existence of other people. IOW, the meaning of ones life depends upon the interplay of perceptions between the individual and society.

Existence certainly implies desire - care to follow that one down its dusty little trail?

The only place I can see you going with that is the Ontological argument for the existence of God, and we all know how much use that one is! Existence implies desire... contingent existence or necessary existence?

How bout I argue that you are the first cause of existense? That way when you die you take it all with you.

An ego trip and the destruction of the universe all in an afternoon. We may be on to a winner here!

Could you tell me how you manage to think about how you exist? Could you tell me exactly what your consciousness is?
We could say its energy - in that case it would be eternal, what a head rush.

A pretty heavy question that I can only really give a vague answer to. The best we can really do is say what it isn't, but that's fairly self-explanatory. I would probably side with Husserl and say that consciousness is a question of the perception of time, but that's a subject far more complex here. In terms of the universe, we can either talk of the consciousness as subjectivity in essense, transcendental theism, or solipsism, but none of those will do much to answer the question at hand.

The resident Poly philosopher, good to see ya Whaleboy.

What about Agathon? He gets paid to sleep with beautiful women and talk bull****. I, on the other hand, have just been dismissed for someone else's c0ck-up .

[beingofone]

I, on the other hand, have just been dismissed for someone else's c0ck-up

No wonder why you seem so serious in your post.
Sorry to hear that dude. Just to let you know I think, regardless our differing views, you are exceptional in your keen intellect.
After all you grasp my thoughts

You seem to be getting me confused... to ask the question "if life meaningless/valueless" is like, to bastardise Ayer, asking "what colour is Saturday?". In less cryptic terms, value is always subject-dependent (one might say, a function of supply and demand) and so meaning and value are dependent upon the existence of other people. the meaning of ones life depends upon the interplay of perceptions between the individual and society.

I don`t think I am getting you confused - I am just offering conundrums.
Postulate being on a deserted island alone.
Then ask the question.

Oh and BTW - Ayer, right before he died, had a near death experience in 1989 that changed his perspective dramatically.

The only place I can see you going with that is the Ontological argument for the existence of God, and we all know how much use that one is! Existence implies desire... contingent existence or necessary existence?

Actually that is not where I was headed with that line of thinking but I can see why you would think so.
Contigent or necessary existence is priori postulation.
At best tautology, after all I am sure that your life and existence is burning the fuel of desire, else you would not be posting or alive at all.

An ego trip and the destruction of the universe all in an afternoon. We may be on to a winner here!

LOL - LOL
A subtle form of solipsism that has quite a kick when you introduce value.

I would probably side with Husserl and say that consciousness is a question of the perception of time, but that's a subject far more complex here.

Ah - then stop measuring time and realize it has a momentum all on its own, the eternal moment you might say that never seems to end or begin.
Or is it always beginning and ending - hmm

In terms of the universe, we can either talk of the consciousness as subjectivity in essense, transcendental theism, or solipsism, but none of those will do much to answer the question at hand.

Unless it is embraced or should I say surrendered to as all that is - it would then be the first and final cause.
The Alpha and the Omega so to speak. It would then defy all subjectivity.
If there is only one consciousness you can be or will ever be aware of, where is the comparisons in such an understanding eh?
No room for an ego trip there - after all an ego needs comparisons to survive.

You take care
namaste

[child of Thor]

and to the thoery of it all being a program, and you can see that like in GTA-SA, its possible for us to Mod our own program, e.g. genetic info and the possibilities that is giving us etc.
So maybe somewhere the 'programmers' sim universe(tm) might also be getting banned in its version of australia

bleep bleep 10011011100..........

[Whaleboy]

Sorry to hear that dude. Just to let you know I think, regardless our differing views, you are exceptional in your keen intellect.

Ahh thankies! Tis a good opportunity for me to find a job in a bar .

Postulate being on a deserted island alone.
Then ask the question.

Ahh tis a good one... in my mind that would depend upon whether this person has lived as you or I, in a society with other wretched humans, or whether all he has known is this desert island (in a similar way to the allegory of the cave). In the latter case (which is perhaps more useful though I'm curious to see if you'd agree on that) I would say that the idea "meaning of life" contains the notion of "life" which is largely irrelevant if he known nothing else and given no preconception of what is "alive".

An interesting consequence of strong atheism is that "life" becomes something dependent upon intent, in other words the intent of a creator. That we call an object a "living" form is indicative of the geocentric designer in us; that we expect a designer to the universe. Without a "God", there is no fundamental difference between life and non-living objects. That I can speak of "life" in everyday conversation and consider myself alive is due to the emotive moral/religious conundrum that we all use as models in our daily life... (for example, modern seafarers might still use an Aristotlean model to navigate by, even though in reality it has been superceded by Copernicus, Kepler and the like).

Why do we use these models? To cope in society. Therefore the desert island problem is perhaps unfair in the first instance I provided, and absurd in the second instance where it is all the subject has known.

Oh and BTW - Ayer, right before he died, had a near death experience in 1989 that changed his perspective dramatically.

Protecting a 17 year old Naomi Campbell from Mike Tyson? (Tis true... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayer)

At best tautology, after all I am sure that your life and existence is burning the fuel of desire, else you would not be posting or alive at all.

Do you mean that in terms of egoism? In other words, would you consider self-interest/want/desire to be a necessary consequence of existence? I should say in that case that while egoism is a fundamental consequence of existence, it leads to want in a society whereby want is a function of what other people have, and need is predicated by a want (i.e. I need to breathe because I want to live). However, could "existence" be a meaningless question out of the context of society? It's an interesting question.

Ah - then stop measuring time and realize it has a momentum all on its own, the eternal moment you might say that never seems to end or begin.
Or is it always beginning and ending - hmm

Or if time in the "tick tock" sense is something we can use as a baseline, our perception, our feeling or experience of the gap between tick and tock is how our consciousness works, and emotions could simply be different "packages" of perception of time. Logic is fairly obvious of course, since time -> causality -> logic.

Unless it is embraced or should I say surrendered to as all that is - it would then be the first and final cause.
The Alpha and the Omega so to speak. It would then defy all subjectivity.

Indeed, in that case it wouldn't make much sense for the beholder to speak of objectivity since the subjective is absolute to the beholder... but then, what of communication and society?

If there is only one consciousness you can be or will ever be aware of, where is the comparisons in such an understanding eh?
No room for an ego trip there - after all an ego needs comparisons to survive.

Indeed! Could it be that we interact with other people as objects, and only give them meaning as "alive", "human", or "loved" internally?

child of Thor: Did you enjoy seeing CJ get jiggy?

[beingofone]

Tis a good opportunity for me to find a job in a bar

Philosophy doesn`t have many good pick up lines - LOL

(which is perhaps more useful though I'm curious to see if you'd agree on that)

By all means the best model.

I would say that the idea "meaning of life" contains the notion of "life" which is largely irrelevant if he known nothing else and given no preconception of what is "alive".

If the guy that has not known society is alone, he must value his life and attribute meaning to it as he is alive yes? He may not engage in the question that Brian (Techumseh) posed but he does engage his thoughts in remaining alive.
It is inherent in all life to live.

An interesting consequence of strong atheism is that "life" becomes something dependent upon intent, in other words the intent of a creator. That we call an object a "living" form is indicative of the geocentric designer in us; that we expect a designer to the universe.

That thought is not exclusive to strong atheism

Without a "God", there is no fundamental difference between life and non-living objects.

I would say that is a concept used as a mode of comparisons in the abstract. The only true comparisons are the subjective i.e you and this. There are no other comparisons that could be made.

That I can speak of "life" in everyday conversation and consider myself alive is due to the emotive moral/religious conundrum that we all use as models in our daily life...

Unless you were all alone in the woods and a grizzly bear shows up. The comparison of being alive and not would be self evident then.
The grizz would probably be thinking "I wonder what he tastes like?".

I said

At best tautology, after all I am sure that your life and existence is burning the fuel of desire, else you would not be posting or alive at all.

Whaleboy

Do you mean that in terms of egoism? In other words, would you consider self-interest/want/desire to be a necessary consequence of existence?

Good question, Yes I mean that desire is inherent in existence in and of itself. The universe is, because of a desire to be.

I should say in that case that while egoism is a fundamental consequence of existence, it leads to want in a society whereby want is a function of what other people have, and need is predicated by a want (i.e. I need to breathe because I want to live)

You have done some serious soul searching eh?
Another way to look at egoism is a fundamental reaction to the belief in limited resources or the belief in a isolated existence in a threatening environment.
There is plenty of air to go around.

However, could "existence" be a meaningless question out of the context of society? It's an interesting question.

You are made of the same cosmic soup so to speak as the universe yes?
Think in terms of the universe as you being the working model of the whole.
Fractals dude - fractals.

Or if time in the "tick tock" sense is something we can use as a baseline, our perception, our feeling or experience of the gap between tick and tock is how our consciousness works, and emotions could simply be different "packages" of perception of time. Logic is fairly obvious of course, since time -> causality -> logic.

I understand and agree. This is due almost entirely of our tremendous ability to recall experience with minute accuracy. It then gives us the illusion, because we are the smartest species, of history.
Time is a method of recounting our past, giving us the perception as if it were reality. Not to bad for Earth walkers.

but then, what of communication and society?

Still a function of your own awareness - just with a paradigm shift

Indeed! Could it be that we interact with other people as objects, and only give them meaning as "alive", "human", or "loved" internally?

After you Sherlock Holmes it down - that is all there is.
I do find however great satisfaction in caring about others. Not for their sake do I practice the wisdom of "love thy neighbor as thyself" it has nothing to do with the other person - it makes me OK with me if ya know what I mean.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Disagree a little - the universe is of limited size, though it is expanding. It's the nothingness surrounding it that are of unlimited size.

The nothingness around it doesn't have a size. It's of undefined size.

[molly bloom]

Q. Why does the universe exist at all ?


A. To be vexatious.