Why Does The Universe Exist?

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I’m not suggesting we’re limited in our understanding by some religious edict or EU directive, but that there are hardwired physiological limitations to what we can know, because beyond them, the brain can’t function.

Indeed, we are creatures whose brains are possibly limited by the Bekenstein bound.

That’s not the holographic principle I’ve been trying to wrap my head around.

Indeed not - one probably needs to grasp the nature of a mathematical dual, particularly in the sense of an isomorphism.

The holographic principle is intimately linked to the concept of the Bekenstein bound by black-hole thermodynamics. It states that the entropy (or equivalently, the information content) of an object with mass-energy is proportional to the area of its bounding surface and not to its volume. This implies that volume can be considered an illusion and that one can alternatively describe the universe by a lower-dimensional object that encodes all the information about the higher-dimensional universe on its surface, somewhat in the manner of an optical hologram. However, the holographic principle has not been demonstrated theoretically for the 4D space-time of our universe (only for anti-de Sitter and similar esoteric-type spaces) nor has experimental evidence yet been forthcoming that confirms or refutes the proposition. The part I like about the holographic principle is that it implies that theories containing infinities, such as quantum field theory, must necessarily yield testable incorrect predictions at some level.

The following link contains a popular science article on the subject by Bekenstein:
https://ref-sciam.livejournal.com/1190.html
(Please note that the typography of the article has been somewhat mangled. For example, the powers 10^10, 10^23, 10^66 and 10^100 are displayed as 1010, 1023, 1066 and 10100, which is obviously misleading.)

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The term "It is what it is" is term that means conformity to something that is factual that the speaker cannot explain.

Such as we know why the sky is blue.

The Is person will only say "It is what it is" when asked to explain why the sky is blue.

I think that the challenge is that whatever existed before the universe is that there is no way to define it.

That's why challenges exist. To discover and explain the unexplainable.

There is no such thing as it is what it is except in the mind of someone who hates change but more importantly someone who who just accepts what they are told because lack any courage to explore and find the truth.

Calm down, Nietzsche. I didn't say "it is what it is", I said "it is because it is." As in, the universe exists simply because it does. There's no reason, it just so happens to exist. The universe and our existence doesn't have inherent meaning.

In the hierarchy of existential inquiries, "But why tho?" is probably the laziest and most meaningless.

 

[Dryson]

In physics, the Bekenstein bound is an upper limit on the entropy S, or information I, that can be contained within a given finite region of space which has a finite amount of energy—or conversely, the maximum amount of information required to perfectly describe a given physical system down to the quantum level.[


Entropy and information contained within a finite region pertaining to life existing prior to the Big Bang would fulfill the Bekenstein principle as the entropy and information contained at the Quantum level would contain the information necessary ro ensure the Big Bang took place in such a manner that the blue print for life existing in the Universe after the Big Bang followed such a blueprint.

No one asked for comments from the peanut gallery either. This conversation is between Trek BBS members.

Get to stepping and get done.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

In physics, the Bekenstein bound is an upper limit on the entropy S, or information I, that can be contained within a given finite region of space which has a finite amount of energy—or conversely, the maximum amount of information required to perfectly describe a given physical system down to the quantum level.[


Entropy and information contained within a finite region pertaining to life existing prior to the Big Bang would fulfill the Bekenstein principle as the entropy and information contained at the Quantum level would contain the information necessary ro ensure the Big Bang took place in such a manner that the blue print for life existing in the Universe after the Big Bang followed such a blueprint.

No one asked for comments from the peanut gallery either. This conversation is between Trek BBS members.

Get to stepping and get done.

 

[Dryson]

The Big Bang can be likened to a computer that is nothing without a set instructions that has to be input into the processor to generate a result that can then be printed out on paper.


Lets look at the computer model a little bit more in depth.

A computer much like the Universe has the ability do to a lot of things. Like the Universe the computer will never be able to create on its own. The computer is simply circuits and pathways and logic gates that transfer electrical currents to and from logic gates to create the needed output.

Without a set of directions you can turn the power on and the computer will run. But even for the basic on/off function a set of circuits need to be created. Otherwise there is no directed energy flow.

Once the life form inputs the commands to the computer, energy is directed once again to generate the end result of what is needed.

In this instance life needed a Universe to exist so that life could contemplate the reason, why and how existence works.

Otherwise there is simply the infinity of empty space.

 

[Dryson]

Another interesting aspect of human life is the blood type of each human.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type

Why would the Universe create so many types of human blood types if humans all came from the same pattern prior to the Big Bang? There has to be a Universal reason why there are so many different blood types and combinations among humans.

The reason for the numerous blood types could be so that humans could survive on different worlds. For example blood type AB might be able to survive on Earth without any problems but on another planet where the oxygen values are different an AB blood type would have issues surviving so life before the Big Bang creates blood types A and B that then mate with AB to create a blood type that is able to survive on the new world with less oxygen that would then allow humans to expand into the Universe by leap frogging blood types through mating that would be a perfect match for each type of planet encountered.

So what is the purpose of such a diverse combinations of blood types on Earth if the oxygen values are the same for all humans?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Mutation, different environments, and evolution by natural selection - purpose is not required - your children either live to pass on some of their and your genes or they die before they can reproduce. Humans did not come from a preordained pattern. We've only been around for 200,000 years or thereabouts; the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, long after the Big Bang 13.8 billion or so years ago. The universe is not a computer. That life contemplates the universe might not be true in a multitude of other universes where the conditions did not allow life to start.

 

[Santaman]

*edit* Asbo posted faster than I did!

^^ eh you are aware that climate is not the same everywhere on this planet? or the altitude people live on? And what about the genetic diversity of human beings?
Humans did not come from any pattern big bang or otherwise.. we are what we are because we ALL were born on THIS planet and are adapted to live HERE not anywhere else.

Also, no, the big bang is not like a computer, the universe is not like a computer, life is NOT a program, it is more like a perfect clusterf#ck of chemicals, a bit of sunlight and other stuff that conveniently was available at that time.

 

[Jayson1]

*edit* Asbo posted faster than I did!

^^ eh you are aware that climate is not the same everywhere on this planet? or the altitude people live on? And what about the genetic diversity of human beings?
Humans did not come from any pattern big bang or otherwise.. we are what we are because we ALL were born on THIS planet and are adapted to live HERE not anywhere else.

Also, no, the big bang is not like a computer, the universe is not like a computer, life is NOT a program, it is more like a perfect clusterf#ck of chemicals, a bit of sunlight and other stuff that conveniently was available at that time.

To quote Fox Mulder "Why do convenience's seem so contrived." For something to be so random it sure has created something very complex with so many interconnected parts and all sort of natural laws that need to be in place for things to function. I'm not sure if I believe in luck that much. Of course we can say with a little change none of this would have happened and the universe would look very different but it did happen and if some other universe had formed wouldn't it have most likely also turned into something very complex and almost machine like in how things connect to each other? Maybe a whole other kind of life build from chemicals that don't even exist in our universe powered by some other kind of energy but I am sure that this universe would also have it's Laws of physics as well. They would just be so unlike anything we can conceive.

Jason

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Coincidences are in the eye of the beholder, which is why synchronicity is nonsense. Perhaps other forms of life are possible but we only know of the one example.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I don't believe mathematics underpins everything in reality like Max Tegmark proposes in Our Mathematical Universe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

Instead, I suspect that mathematics is a wholly human invention that happens to model symbolically empirically revealed aspects of the cosmos rather well, as described by Fisher Information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Roy_Frieden#Work_on_Fisher_information_in_Physics

As I've grown somewhat fond of the idea of a mathematical reality – as a metaphor/food for thought, rather than an actual interpretation – I think labelling it a ‘wholly human invention’ disregards the meaning of ‘mathematics’ as an umbrella term. Human mathematics as we learn it and we define with our axioms is certainly a human invention, and not only is the universe not an example of it, they have fundamental differences that cannot be alleviated. However, if anyone else used the same axioms, they'd get the same theorems, and ‘mathematics’ can be used to refer to any set of axioms, thus something not entirely of human invention.

And let's say one were to consider reality a system of information and nothing more, as suggested by Vlatko Vedral – a much saner concept than ‘mathematical universe’ per se. That would still make reality closer to mathematics than to other things, as such informational reality would be either a cousin of mathematics among all things, or even possibly a subset if ‘mathematics’ is defined way too broadly. To me, math would still be the tool to describe the thing than the thing itself, but I think there is similarity between the tool and the subject, and that similarity has significance. For example, like I mumbled earlier, the notion of ‘existence’ for objects that are beyond our physical reality may be closer to its mathematical meaning than to its meaning in our physics. Even then, that's probably still way off, as such existence would be probably better defined in a way suitable for information: Information exists if you can find/reach/interpret it, otherwise it doesn't, as in this Leprechaun parable.

It would be easier to rule that no such objects beyond our reality exists, of course. But that would rule out some metaphysical explanations for why there is a universe. An informational universe – one with the ability to find itself in the sea of information and misinformation due to it being there – can probably be reduced to requiring no explanation at all: the sea of all information and misinformation itself doesn't contain anything because you can't find anything in it without a map.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Coincidences are in the eye of the beholder, which is why synchronicity is nonsense.

We don't know enough about the nature of this universe yet, let alone any others, to be able to affirm that as a 'truth'.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

We don't know enough about the nature of this universe yet, let alone any others, to be able to affirm that as a 'truth'.

Synchronicity is subjective and not subjectible to the scientific method. It doesn't make any predictions that can be tested. If it is "true", we might never know. In that sense, it is nonsense.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Synchronicity is subjective and not subjectible to the scientific method. It doesn't make any predictions that can be tested. If it is "true", we might never know. In that sense, it is nonsense.

If something or a series of somethings happens and there is no agreed upon explanation as to the reason(s) why, that doesn't fit the definition of "subjective". The very fact that synchronicity can't be proven one way or the other right now takes it out of the realm of the subjective. It would have to be proven to be one thing and then someone be told they were being subjective because they thought it was something else.

When we consider chaos theory, possible influences of an observer, and many other unknowns at the moment, the "scientific method" is quite a closed box.

When the claim is made that there are scientific "laws" but at times something comes along that throws that completely on its ear, and in every case it is denied as "anecdotal"....that is fudging, to keep a neat, clean box and to keep arrogant scientists in control of what is believed about the universe. They don't "know" as much as they would have us believe. That box is really a house of cards....and the universe is a very windswept place.

 

[StarCruiser]

I don't know, I rather like Synchronicity:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And it's sequel:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mojochi]

Why Does The Universe Exist?

So that eventually it won't

The only answer is; to support life within said Universe.

Really? That's the only answer? Here's another just as likely, & less self-aggrandizing possible answer imho. Two other somethings had too much or too little between them, & our universe is just the mortar between bricks

This argument feels self serving, a way of making ourselves more important in the grand scheme.

The existence of A caused B to exist. I am B. I am important. Therefore, A exists for the sake of B.

Amen

 

[Dryson]

Another "It is what it is" statement ^^ eh you are aware that climate is not the same everywhere on this planet? or the altitude people live on? And what about the genetic diversity of human beings?
Humans did not come from any pattern big bang or otherwise.. we are what we are because we ALL were born on THIS planet and are adapted to live HERE not anywhere else.

Also, no, the big bang is not like a computer, the universe is not like a computer, life is NOT a program, it is more like a perfect clusterf#ck of chemicals, a bit of sunlight and other stuff that conveniently was available at that time.

People don't live on altitudes, People live at altitudes.

Obviously you had a TLDR and another "It is what it is " moment with this one - we are what we are because we ALL were born on THIS planet and are adapted to live HERE not anywhere else.
That still doesn't start to explain the reason why however.

we ALL were born on THIS planet - You don't know that for certain now do you? The Earth was impacted by a very large object that is thought to have been the reason for the Moon being orbit around the Earth. If the Impact Theory holds true then life that started on Earth could have come from some other place in the Universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

Do you know what a similarity or a comparison is?

The Big Bang is similar to how a computer functions - Summit is a machine that has the ability to do 200 trillion calculations a second.

In order for the Universe to be the way that it is now input that created the Big Bang would have been needed to be programmed into the Big Bang to generate the results the Life needed to exist and thrive in the Universe after the Big Bang took place.

Without a human life developing the computer then the computer would never have been able to create itself because atoms and elements do not have any need nor do they possess the ability to need or want. They are inanimate elements.

Life before the Big Bang programmed the Quantum Computer to function in various ways so that the end result of the input function was an output that contained mathematical variables that would align the Quantum in such a manner to create the elements that life needed to exist from after the Big Bang occurred.

All of the elements that life needs to exist was created before the Big Bang. The program was then uploaded and then caused the Big Bang to occur. Inanimate elements would never have the need to expand and consume energy because inanimate elements are toxic to life overall and would never possess the ability to arrange themselves into a fully functioning life form.

There is no such thing as the perfect clusterf*ck because the basis for life developing in the womb of a woman comes from a perfect set of instructions that arranges the building blocks of life from the elements of life.

You can't have a product as an output from a computer without first inputting the parameters to create the product. The Big Bang is the same way.

You can't have the product of life as an output generated by the Big Bang without first putting the parameters into the Big Bang to generate the product of life because the Big Bang would simply be like the computer without any life putting a program into it. It would sit on the desk not doing anything forever.

The Big Bang is not a result of random "It is what it is." The Big Bang is a result of life inputting variables to generate the product that life needs to exist in an Einstein based state of Relativity.

So saying that the Universe "Is what it is" is not baseless semantics.

 

[Dryson]

This argument feels self serving, a way of making ourselves more important in the grand scheme.

1.having concern for one's own welfare and interests before those of others.

Why should anyone ever serve anyone else? Those who serve others are really serving nothing more than inanimate elements.

You show me one person on Earth who isn't self serving and doesn't have a base of trying to get something for someone else to build a base of wealth or having more trees in your pocket than someone else does.

Me, I could care less how much wealth you have because you in the end your only goal is to take as much wealth as you can to idolize yourself. But in the end when you are dead people will take your idols and wealth and bury you in the ground to think and do exactly the same thing that you did.

Even at the moment of death during the fight the soldier is creating a self serving ideology because they know their acts will be remembered and talked about by other people for years to come.

Why would someone need to be talked about for years and years if everything "Is what it is?"

Another aspect of why the Universe exists is so that life can explore a new dimension.

Every single life form on Earth explores. Life is always looking for something whether it be the rock that the dolphin plays with, the twig that bird uses to build its nest with the sperm of man exploring the woman to find the egg not to mention the life force prior to the Big Bang exploring methods to create a new existence for itself that would give life the ability to nearly explore for all of infinity the Universe instead of being trapped in a Pre-Big Bang string of variables.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

If something or a series of somethings happens and there is no agreed upon explanation as to the reason(s) why, that doesn't fit the definition of "subjective". The very fact that synchronicity can't be proven one way or the other right now takes it out of the realm of the subjective. It would have to be proven to be one thing and then someone be told they were being subjective because they thought it was something else.

When we consider chaos theory, possible influences of an observer, and many other unknowns at the moment, the "scientific method" is quite a closed box.

When the claim is made that there are scientific "laws" but at times something comes along that throws that completely on its ear, and in every case it is denied as "anecdotal"....that is fudging, to keep a neat, clean box and to keep arrogant scientists in control of what is believed about the universe. They don't "know" as much as they would have us believe. That box is really a house of cards....and the universe is a very windswept place.

Synchronicity is an acausal connecting principle. If you find a causal link, then it's no longer acausal and it disappears in a puff of semantic logic.

The scientific method is the best epistemological means of enquiry of which we know. Sure, there are incomplete, inaccurate, or downright wrong theories but the beauty of science is that these can be overturned - unlike some other systems where you were likely to be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for presenting unorthodox ideas.

 

[TrickyDickie]

The scientific method is the best epistemological means of enquiry of which we know.

I think perhaps the problem is that percentage in the fields of science who work not to defend and reveal science but who instead only work to defend themselves....and in the process reveal themselves.