Fate

[Dan]

Existence and philosophical ideas about it aren't based on empirical data or results, because those are themselves results of existence and reality. The only premise for your concluions about the nature of existence should be the idea that something might exist.


If any universe can "exist" without your perception or aknowledgement of it of it, then you are essentially saying that an infinite of universes exist, because there are an infinite number of possible universes that don't include you. In fact pretty much everything you could possibly think of would then exist by your defition. A universe of absolutely no matter/energy would exist according to that defintion. What wouldn't exist then? What is the point if everything automatically exists? What is the criteria for non-existence according to you? Does an imaginary rock floating in its own imaginary empty universe in imaginary time exist according to you?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Idunno. Anything I have to say about multiple or infinite universes is pure conjecture and doesn't really influence my view of reality. Mostly I'm just trying to say that, at the least, there are elements of our own universe that are unknown to us and that have no conceivable impact on our lives. They're still out there. Our perception of them has no immediate effect on anything but us.

 

[Dan]

Idunno. Anything I have to say about multiple or infinite universes is pure conjecture and doesn't really influence my view of reality. Mostly I'm just trying to say that, at the least, there are elements of our own universe that are unknown to us and that have no conceivable impact on our lives. They're still out there. Our perception of them has no immediate effect on anything but us.

I am not saying perception or observation, but interaction or effect. If an aspect of the universe really has no effect on us at all, it means that if you had the exact same universe except that part wasn't there, then you could never know the difference. You couldn't measure the difference with telescopes or go there with spaceships and see the difference because it will never affect you. It's like if Kipling's cat fell into a black hole, that information can no longer be known from the other side.

To put it another way, what does it mean for something to be part of our universe? It means it follows certain laws and interacts with other things in our universe right? Well interactions are like a web, everything is connected. A butterfly flaps its wings it has effects and interactions until it reaches you. You don't perceive the butterfly but you interact with it because it is connected to the universe. For something to have absolutely no interactions with you, there would have to be a division somewhere in the universe where no interactions crossed that border, no mass, no photons, no energy, no forces, no gravity waves. That sounds a lot to me like anything beyond is no longer part of the universe.

I think you still see reality as an objective environment that contains your identity, but you need to start asking questions about the nature of that environment, and how objective it really is. The truly objective environment would be a null state without time or dimensions of space. Stars and galaxy's aren't the default state of things unless you have some interaction or need of them.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I am not saying perception or observation, but interaction or effect. If an aspect of the universe really has no effect on us at all, it means that if you had the exact same universe except that part wasn't there, then you could never know the difference. You couldn't measure the difference with telescopes or go there with spaceships and see the difference because it will never affect you. It's like if Kipling's cat fell into a black hole, that information can no longer be known from the other side.

Right. And that's why I draw a line between "doesn't exist" and "is imperceptible."

To put it another way, what does it mean for something to be part of our universe? It means it follows certain laws and interacts with other things in our universe right? Well interactions are like a web, everything is connected. A butterfly flaps its wings it has effects and interactions until it reaches you. You don't perceive the butterfly but you interact with it because it is connected to the universe. For something to have absolutely no interactions with you, there would have to be a division somewhere in the universe where no interactions crossed that border, no mass, no photons, no energy, no forces, no gravity waves. That sounds a lot to me like anything beyond is no longer part of the universe.

Right. But this isn't what I'm taking issue with - you specifically said that existence depends on observation, and I'm still not even entirely sure what you think "existence" entails.

I think you still see reality as an objective environment that contains your identity, but you need to start asking questions about the nature of that environment, and how objective it really is. The truly objective environment would be a null state without time or dimensions of space. Stars and galaxy's aren't the default state of things unless you have some interaction or need of them.

I'm not trying to say that the universe does, beyond a shadow of a doubt, objectively exist in the state we perceive it. Of course, there will always be a gap between how we see the world and how it truly is, because our perception of it is informed to some degree by our biases. Rather, my supposition is that it either does objectively exist in some state, or it doesn't. I'm simply much more inclined to believe that it does, and that that existence is somewhat congruent with the way I perceive it, and that it would continue to exist in some state without my interaction, or any other humans'.

Default state? I don't really see where you're coming from with that. The universe is the way it is because it is the way it is. Maybe it didn't have to be this way, or maybe it was bound to be. Maybe this was the only "shot" it got at existing. Maybe it's only one of an infinite number of possible universes. These aren't questions I give a whole lot of thought to because I don't have (or haven't sought :v) the evidence to back up even so much as an informed guess. There are probably many people in this thread more qualified to talk about this than I am, but if there's one thing I can say with some amount of confidence, it's this: we are in a universe, that universe exists in some state, and we exist within the universe. That, as opposed to the universe existing solely because we are here to confirm its existence.

 

[Dan]

I guess it all comes down to that question I asked earlier: Why do we have this universe instead of something different or nothing at all? If you don't see the answer to that question, or can't make the conceptual leap from the anthropic principle to what I have been saying for the last 2 pages, then the rest of everything that I say will sound like nonsense to you.

Answer that question or at least try.

 

[morgs]

People have been pondering these things for centuries, if he can answer that question I'll eat everyone's hats.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I guess it all comes down to that question I asked earlier: Why do we have this universe instead of something different or nothing at all? If you don't see the answer to that question, or can't make the conceptual leap from the anthropic principle to what I have been saying for the last 2 pages, then the rest of everything that I say will sound like nonsense to you.

What do you mean "why don't we have something different?" If we did, we'd be asking the same question of that version of reality. If we "had" nothing, we wouldn't be asking any questions at all because we wouldn't exist. Again, I think the universe just is at some fundamental level. Whether or not it was predetermined to be this way or one of a set of possibilities I can't even grasp at with the knowledge I have. What I've been taking issue with for the last two pages is the idea that the universe depends on our observation to exist in any state. Is that, or is that not, what you've been proposing? I've been trying to get at this since the ****ing tree question.

 

[Dan]

I've said it a dozen times and you basically said it yourself, we aren't around to see any other universes, only the one that we exist in. So we only get the universe that supports our existence, or more specifically your specific existence. So only one specific universe can possibly exist, and it is the specific universe that supports your specific individual sense of identity. This is my answer to the question of why we have this instead of nothing or something different by the way - anything different and you aren't around to see it.

And that is what I mean by the universe depending on observation. If you in particular are not around to "see it" then it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that the universe requires observation in the sense that you have to visually see it for it to be there and everything disappears when you close your eyes, but it requires observation in the sense that your experiences and identity, whatever that may be, are supported by laws and states of the universe. If the universe doesn't support your existence, then it doesn't exist.

There, I think I have said the same thing over and over in as many different ways as I can think to phrase it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Right. I understand all that, but I still don't understand what you mean by "existence," because that's certainly not the way it's typically used. Would a universe that didn't evolve sentient life still be there in its purely material state or not?

 

[Remus]

Well Dan, after reading all your posts in this thread I can safely say that I agree only with this bit:

everything that I say will sound like nonsense to you.

 

[Eejit]

If any universe can "exist" without your perception or aknowledgement of it of it, then you are essentially saying that an infinite of universes exist, because there are an infinite number of possible universes that don't include you. In fact pretty much everything you could possibly think of would then exist by your defition.

An infinite number of universes may well exist where an infinite number of random events have had different results. That doesn't mean that there has to be a universe consisting solely of shrimp.

 

[15357]

An infinite number of universes may well exist where an infinite number of random events have had different results. That doesn't mean that there has to be a universe consisting solely of shrimp.

I think there might well be one, since the probability should be 1.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

There's two ways life can go - you become a drug-addicted underwater terror whom rises (literally and figuratively) bent on taking over the world and killing all the children, having begun your career murdering and harvesting the life-force of female orphans. Or you may become a savior to humanity, whom rises from an underwater city having saved and escorted orphaned girls possessing magical healing powers to make the world a better place.

The choice is yours. Just don't kill one little girl - it may send you down the wrong path.

 

[Dan]

An infinite number of universes may well exist where an infinite number of random events have had different results. That doesn't mean that there has to be a universe consisting solely of shrimp.

Why would the shrimp universe be excluded from all possible universes?

 

[CptStern]

Why would the shrimp universe be excluded from all possible universes?

sigh.

eejit at this point you're pretty much doing this by continuing this debate

 

[15357]

I thought it was a valid question; I don't see why the shrimpverse should be excluded.

 

[Eejit]

Mainly I'm saying that even with the physical laws seen in our universe there could be an infinite number.



Besides that, from what I understand there are certain physical constants necessary for a universe to form and be stable let alone give rise to life in any kind of recognisable way, e.g. with gravitational constant being too strong the universe wouldn't expand much post-Big Bang and would be ludicrously hot and radioactive, too weak and stars wouldn't coalesce to give rise to heavier atoms and of course neither would planets.

So to have a universe where shrimp can exist the notion of them filling the entire universe simply wouldn't be feasible.

 

[Remus]

Mainly I'm saying that even with the physical laws seen in our universe there could be an infinite number.



Besides that, from what I understand there are certain physical constants necessary for a universe to form and be stable let alone give rise to life in any kind of recognisable way, e.g. with gravitational constant being too strong the universe wouldn't expand much post-Big Bang and would be ludicrously hot and radioactive, too weak and stars wouldn't coalesce to give rise to heavier atoms and of course neither would planets.

So to have a universe where shrimp can exist the notion of them filling the entire universe simply wouldn't be feasible.

What he said.

According to M theory anything that can happen does happen in an infinity of universes. By things that "can" happen, it means only things that abide to the laws of physics. So you couldn't have something absurd like the shrimp universe, or a spaghetti monster universe, or a universe where batman is president of the galaxy etc.