An idea I had (Philosophy)

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like to run an idea I had by some people to see if there is anywhere where my logic breaks down. It concerns people's search for the reason for the existence the universe. Bear with me.

As I see it, there are only two possibilities for the existence of the universe.

Possibility 1: The universe has always been here. If this is the case, I believe any attempt to utilize logic to discover a reason for it will ultimately fail. If the timeline is infinite, we will never be able to trace things back to their point of origin. When we ask the question "Why is the universe here?" The answer will be "It just has", which is hardly an answer at all. I don't think people can even comprehend either eternity or infinity.

Possibility 2: The universe came into existence at a certain point in time, from its opposite of nothingness. However, nothingness should logically remain stagnant forever, as there is nothing there to disturb it. If a "change agent" is present to disturb it, it is no longer nothingness.

It seems to me, looking at it this way, that existence itself is a paradox.

If our logic fails to find a reason for existence, people will find their answers in other ways, giving us a myriad of religions and different way of thinking.

Am I missing something in all of this? Does my logic break down somewhere? Is it just a bunch of crap?

Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument.

I'll just break the argument as I see it down to points; correct me if I'm throwing any straw men at you. As far as I can make it out it is epistemic, of the form "suppose we comprehend the existence of the universe, then blah, and from blah we see that we do not comprehend the existence of the universe; contradiction".

Suppose that we can comprehend the existence of the universe. So this is part of our knowledge. Then since we apparently know from the law of excluded middle (!) that the universe either has always 1. been here, or 2. has not always been here, and since we know that the universe exists, from 2. we have that it exists now but did not exist at some time in the past.

Possibility 1.
(a) We know that the universe has always been here
(b) In order to know why the universe exists, we must know that the universe was created at a given point in time
(c) In order to comprehend that the universe exists, we must know why it exists
Contrapositively,
(b') If we know that the universe has not been created at any given point in time, we do not know why the universe exists
(c') If we do not know why the universe exists, we do not comprehend its existence

Since we know that the universe has always been here, we know that there is no point in time where the universe did not exist. Thus by (b') and (c'), we do not comprehend the existence of the universe.

Perhaps the argument you give regarding possibility 1. is in its own right an argument that the universe either has not always been here or we cannot comprehend its existence. I say perhaps because I agree that it would be if I did not have any issues with it. More on that later.

Possibility 2.
(a) We know that the universe exists now but did not exist at some point in the past
(b) If we know that at a given point in time the universe did not exist, then at that point in time nothing existed
(c) If something has appeared then it was created by something
(d) If something exists and did not exist in the past then it has appeared
Contrapositively,
(c') If something is not created by something then it has not appeared
(d') If something has not appeared then it either does not exist or it always existed

By (a) and (b) we know that at some point in time nothing existed. But then by (c') it has not appeared, so by (d') and (a) the universe does not exist, so we do not comprehend its existence.

So then if we comprehend the existence of the universe, we do not comprehend the existence of the universe. This is a contradiction.

Now. First off, I'm not sure this constitutes a paradox so much as it (if it was sound) constitutes a proof that we cannot comprehend the existence of the universe.

The argument underlying possibility 2. is interesting from my perspective, especially if you regard energy as being a "thing". After all, we tend to expect (c') from what we appear to know about how things work: physical things, be they energy or matter, cannot appear from nothing or disappear entirely. Then under certain assumptions about what the physical universe is and what things are, either the hypothesis "energy/matter cannot appear from nothing" does not always hold, or (a) does not hold. (b) as far as I can tell is uncontroversial, as is (d) which I consider to be a definition of sorts.

That said, what is the universe and is it a thing? And what makes something a thing? I've been tiptoeing away from a stance on either of these issues, but they're still there if you want to say anything substantial with this.

The argument underlying possibility 1. is questionable, as I see it. I have qualms about (b). Why can't we know the universe exists and know why the universe exists without the universe having been created at any particular point in time? While I might puzzle with (b) for a while, I really cannot believe in (c). In general, in order to know why something exists, you must first know that it exists, that's uncontroversial to me, but the converse does not generally hold. We know that light and gravity exist (say), but the question of why is much harder. Maybe your idea of what it means to comprehend something is stronger than mine.

It's not a matter of logic. It's a matter of observation and evidence. Read up on your cosmology.

Wow Hector, that's very interesting what you said about not necessarily knowing something exists just because you know HOW it exists.

I was very complacent with the idea that an unoriginated beginning couldn't be possible based on our observations that everything needs to originate from SOMETHING.
So yeah, I was just content to use that to assert the notion of an inconceivable beginningless existence. And now, thanks to you, I'm going to have to think some more about that.

I think that by observing how things work, the basic laws of the universe - we can then assert what CAN'T be possible. And as nothing observable can exist without originating from something else, wouldn't it follow that unobservable phenomena would exist likewise?

I sort of believe that the universe created itself, in a sense. There is an intelligence to the universe; not psychological, but in some kind of other-worldly way, if that at all makes sense.

That being said, I also believe that there is a certain intelligence applied to nature. That doesn't mean I'm going to view the universe or nature as a god. I think the "god did it" argument is simply a cop-out to people who don't like to think about these things in depth.

Whenever I hear the word "god", I always think of a mythological anthropomorphic being with omnipotent power. I don't want to view the universe or nature in that sense, but I'm also weary of applying the term "intelligent designer" because some of its "designs" are from from perfect. The philosophy of deism comes to mind as well. The idea that some being put forth the necessary ingredients to start life on earth and let it go from there sounds reasonable to me.

Going back to my original statement that there is some kind of intelligence applied to nature and to the universe at large, this prompts me to believe that nature will always work itself out in the end.

Hi Descartes, if there is such a law as 'matter cannot be either created or destroyed' then you've just contradicted yourself by saying that forests can be burnt down (ie destroyed) and then they repair themselves. A seed must be created from something (ie another tree) and the continuous cycle continues onto the seedling being created from the seed and on it goes.

There's no intelligence. It's a basic law of cause and effect.