• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would The Universe Exist If Not For Mankind?

So did the universe only come into existence when humanity evolved sapience?
 
CanadaJohn said:
And you continue to miss the meaning of my original post, so much so that how you feel defensive and perhaps insulted by my subsequent posts. Of course, you are correct, that visions are useless if they can't or aren't actioned, but my point was there's nothing to action without the dreamers and thinkers who see beyond what's in front of them today to what could be years from now.
Click to expand...

Here was your OP;

"I believe it only reflects poorly on the limitations of man that he has trouble contemplating that for which he has no direct evidence or knowledge. I believe many things are possible without mankind, and perhaps even more likely, without mankind as we know it."

You're post exalted the virtues of a world without mankind...and that means without mankind's vision.

So WTF are you talking about? You're wasting my time.
 
rhinefire said:
I don't intend to parallel the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it really fall" stuff but I ask the following; As incomprehensibly enormous as the universe is, if there were no intelligent life in such a phenomenon then why would it exist? Taking it to the final truth that the earth will someday be destroyed, what then? Why create inteligence only to have it destoryed? Are we, mankind destined to do something so amazing in this universe that right now, today we have no idea what it is?
Click to expand...


It would be hard for me to think that something as mindnumbingly vast would be all for the purpose of something (mankind) so infinitessimily small in comparison. I have a feeling that the universe exists for its own sake. It's the only thing I can think of that needs no basis for itself. It justify's itself by not needing to justify itself.
 
tessaesque said:
The world doesn't cease to exist when I do, so why would the universe see to exist of all of us did?? We are not required for existence to...well...exist.
Click to expand...

We are as far as we're concerned. hehe.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Even though it is an IF, it is a lottery tickety I'd like to play to assume this: Given the size of the universe, there are more than likely other planets which harbor life, in fact there are more than likely millions of other life harboring planets, with sentient, intelligent beings, who are attempting to comprehend the exact same thing we are.

The universe is not exclusive to earth and to human beings, it is solipsistic to think so.
Click to expand...

"I'll believe it when I see it".
-Carl Sagen on life elswhere in the universe
 
Being the universe is not done exploding as it expands at an increasing rate due to "dark energy" it is said the universe will sometime disappear in to nothing. So, I give you the following; what was nothingness is trying and succeeding at becoming nothingness again. So you walk in to a room and see no one there you must conlude no one is there. You have proven ..... the state of nothingness. But on the flipside I read some believe there is no such thing as space instead, though we cannot detect it what we call space is actually matter. Now despite constant expansion in to oblivion or nothingness we have a glob of matter simply growing in size. Which side is right?
 
rhinefire said:
I don't intend to parallel the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it really fall" stuff but I ask the following; As incomprehensibly enormous as the universe is, if there were no intelligent life in such a phenomenon then why would it exist? Taking it to the final truth that the earth will someday be destroyed, what then? Why create inteligence only to have it destoryed? Are we, mankind destined to do something so amazing in this universe that right now, today we have no idea what it is?
Click to expand...


So am I to understand you think some being created the "universe" with a "purpose", and placed Earth, and human life on Earth, for a very specific reason? Otherwise why would everything be here?

Is that what you're asking?
 
rhinefire said:
As incomprehensibly enormous as the universe is, if there were no intelligent life in such a phenomenon then why would it exist?
Click to expand...

The Anthropic Principle better describes what you're trying to say.

You're incorporating several human-centric assumptions in your question that make it meaningless. Human beings are irrelevant to the universe. That much is true.
 
Paralogic said:
The Anthropic Principle better describes what you're trying to say.

You're incorporating several human-centric assumptions in your question that make it meaningless. Human beings are irrelevant to the universe. That much is true.
Click to expand...

You cannot say human beings are irrelevant to the universe as we have already impacted what the universe is. We have changed one of its most bountiful of all planets.
We have man made objects souring through it and will continue to do so. We will most likely create life on Mars and inhabit it and so on and who can say what man will accomplish milleniums down the road. Since there is nothing in the universe to stop any adventure we choose one could say "we own it"!! The greaater our knowledge of the universe grows the greater the impact we will have on it.
 
Dragonfly said:
So am I to understand you think some being created the "universe" with a "purpose", and placed Earth, and human life on Earth, for a very specific reason? Otherwise why would everything be here?

Is that what you're asking?
Click to expand...

Absolutely the opposite. No one knows why and how nothing became everything as a result of what is called "the big bang". Given the immensity of this and possibly other universes it just does not seem to me to "fit" having a almost limitless universe with a tiny little spec called "Earth" where we attempt to define all creation. I am not religious so why we are here is and will be unknown. The universe is very imperfect much like man. The universe is a mystery much like the brain of man. The universe is violent, full of explosions, collisions, fires much like life on Earth. I have no answers, only questions and that is why scientists never rest.
 
rhinefire said:
I don't intend to parallel the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it really fall" stuff but I ask the following; As incomprehensibly enormous as the universe is, if there were no intelligent life in such a phenomenon then why would it exist? Taking it to the final truth that the earth will someday be destroyed, what then? Why create inteligence only to have it destoryed? Are we, mankind destined to do something so amazing in this universe that right now, today we have no idea what it is?
Click to expand...

First off, intelligence wasn't created. It was a result of our development as a species. When we go extinct, the Universe continues on as it always has. It was fine without us for a fill billion years, it'll be alright when we're gone.
 
It sounds absurd to most people, but in advanced physics it's a fair question, and surprisingly there's some support of the idea. It's known as the Strong Anthropic Principle and it proposes that the only kinds of universes that can exist are those with just the right conditions to support "observers" (for example, our universe apparently had conditions that allowed for the evolution of observers, in this case humans).

It stems from some interpretations of quantum mechanics, which suggest that things and events don't actually "exist" until they are observed. They're sort of in limbo, in a superposition of many "states" (all possible states actually), until someone comes along and observes it. Then they "decohere" into a single, concrete state.

It sounds stupid, but physicists have done some spooky experiments that suggest that may be what's happening - at least at very tiny quantum scales.
 
rhinefire said:
You cannot say human beings are irrelevant to the universe ...
Click to expand...

I can, because it's trivially proven that no human caused or based sequence of events will affect the universe at any stage of its existence or development.

The Anthropic Principle is wrong. We have proved it is.
 
Paralogic said:
I can, because it's trivially proven that no human caused or based sequence of events will affect the universe at any stage of its existence or development.

The Anthropic Principle is wrong. We have proved it is.
Click to expand...

You havn't proved ****, you've just defined your claim, and said it's true by definition.

Almost every post you've posted in the philosophical discussions section has been naturalistic versions of the ontological argument.

The Anthropic principle essencially says that only a universe which can produce a mind can be observed.

So how is that wrong? Who has proved it to be wrong? How is it proved.

Stop making bull**** claims without any argument, and when you put forth an argument, have more substance than a definitional 'question begging' argument which is philosophically useless.
 
rhinefire said:
I don't intend to parallel the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it really fall" stuff but I ask the following; As incomprehensibly enormous as the universe is, if there were no intelligent life in such a phenomenon then why would it exist? Taking it to the final truth that the earth will someday be destroyed, what then? Why create inteligence only to have it destoryed? Are we, mankind destined to do something so amazing in this universe that right now, today we have no idea what it is?
Click to expand...

Because this is in the philosophical forum, let's take a purely scientific view of this question.

First of all, intelligent life was not created. Rather, it evolved. And because it evolved, no, the universe was not created to the purpose of intelligence life.

So the universe has no other inherent purpose except to exist.

Also, let's understand a few things in regards to life.

Life finds a way. Life finds a way to exist. And one of the ways life finds a way to exist is through diversity.

I was listening to Joe Rogan's podcast episode with Neil Degrasse Tyson, a celebrity scientist. Tyson said that, originally, in the search for life scientists were looking for planets similar to that of Earth's - with an atmosphere and water and so on.

But then he pointed out extremeophiles - life forms that survive in extreme, usually uninhabitable conditions here on Earth. These extremeophiles live near volcanic vents on the floor of the oceans.

Tyson pointed out that if such extremeophiles can live on Earth, then it is possible that such extremeophiles can live on another planet. And this includes planets that don't have suns. Because rather than get energy from a sun, as life here on Earth does, life evolved from extremeophiles could get energy from chemical reactions from a planet's core.

Which means that there could be planets with life evolved to live within the planet rather than on its surface, and so it could be ignorant of the universe around them.

So no, I don't think the universe would have to be observed in order for it to exist or to function, especially when there may be intelligent life that exists that is incapable of observing the universe as a whole.

Neither do I think intelligent life has any kind of manifest destiny to the universe, as intelligent life can put itself to whatever purposes it chooses.
 
samsmart said:
First of all, intelligent life was not created. Rather, it evolved. And because it evolved, no, the universe was not created to the purpose of intelligence life.
Click to expand...

You're confusing mechanism and cause/purpose.

Saying "I moved my arm" doesn't conflict with a description of physical events leading to the arm moving.

So the universe has no other inherent purpose except to exist.
Click to expand...

That's an assumption that needs defending.

Also, let's understand a few things in regards to life.

Life finds a way. Life finds a way to exist. And one of the ways life finds a way to exist is through diversity.
Click to expand...

Life cannot find a way to exist before it exists ... infact life cannot do ANYTHING before it exists, since it doesn't exist.

So no, I don't think the universe would have to be observed in order for it to exist or to function, especially when there may be intelligent life that exists that is incapable of observing the universe as a whole.
Click to expand...

We can't observe the univserse as a whole ....
 
RGacky3 said:
You're confusing mechanism and cause/purpose.

Saying "I moved my arm" doesn't conflict with a description of physical events leading to the arm moving.
Click to expand...

But the things that live on the arm - bacteria, germs, and the like - don't care if the arm is able to move or not. Such things exist on the arm without requiring the full capabilities of the arm.

RGacky3 said:
That's an assumption that needs defending.
Click to expand...

No. That the universe has an inherent purpose other than to exist is an assumption that needs defending.

That the universe exists and perpetually so inherently proves that its nature is to perpetually exist. Assigning any other purpose needs to be defended, and requires evidence that supports that other inherent purpose.

RGacky3 said:
Life cannot find a way to exist before it exists ... infact life cannot do ANYTHING before it exists, since it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You're right in that life cannot find a way to exist before it exists. But once conditions are set up for it to exist, and once it is caused to exist, it finds a way to perpetuate its existence. Especially on the macroscopic scale of the universe, and on the timeline of the universe's existence.

RGacky3 said:
We can't observe the univserse as a whole ....
Click to expand...

What I mean by that are intelligent lifeforms that exist underneath the surface of a planet and so may be unaware of the vacuum of space, and so unaware of other stars, planets, and the rest of the universe.
 
samsmart said:
But the things that live on the arm - bacteria, germs, and the like - don't care if the arm is able to move or not. Such things exist on the arm without requiring the full capabilities of the arm.
Click to expand...

That's irrelivant to my argument .... evolution is a mechanism, not a cause or reason, it doesn't say anything against a God.

No. That the universe has an inherent purpose other than to exist is an assumption that needs defending.

That the universe exists and perpetually so inherently proves that its nature is to perpetually exist. Assigning any other purpose needs to be defended, and requires evidence that supports that other inherent purpose.
Click to expand...

If you're going to posit either they need defending, saying "The Universe has no purpose" or "The Universe has some purpose" both equally need defending, just like if you see an object lying in the forest claiming that it has no purpose requires as much defence as claiming it has some purpose.

You're right in that life cannot find a way to exist before it exists. But once conditions are set up for it to exist, and once it is caused to exist, it finds a way to perpetuate its existence. Especially on the macroscopic scale of the universe, and on the timeline of the universe's existence.
Click to expand...

You're assigning purpose and intentinoality to something which is understood by science as unintentional and un purposeful.

Now that would make sense if you're assuming theistic evolution where life existing is a purpose. If there is none, then life perpetuation can only be said to be a coincidence.

What I mean by that are intelligent life forms that exist underneath the surface of a planet and so may be unaware of the vacuum of space, and so unaware of other stars, planets, and the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...

Ok ... But I don't understand the significance of that.
 
RGacky3 said:
That's irrelivant to my argument .... evolution is a mechanism, not a cause or reason, it doesn't say anything against a God.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't say anything for a divinity either.

RGacky3 said:
If you're going to posit either they need defending, saying "The Universe has no purpose" or "The Universe has some purpose" both equally need defending, just like if you see an object lying in the forest claiming that it has no purpose requires as much defence as claiming it has some purpose.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the universe has no purpose.

Rather, I'm saying that the universe has no other inherent purpose other than to exist.

That the universe exists and continues to do so is a defense of that.

RGacky3 said:
You're assigning purpose and intentinoality to something which is understood by science as unintentional and un purposeful.

Now that would make sense if you're assuming theistic evolution where life existing is a purpose. If there is none, then life perpetuation can only be said to be a coincidence.
Click to expand...

I do think that the creation of life can only be said to be a coincidence. It's just that I think that on the scale of universe, life is able to evolve into a variety of forms capable of surviving and perpetuating in a variety of conditions.

RGacky3 said:
Ok ... But I don't understand the significance of that.
Click to expand...

That was a reference to the original post on whether the universe needs to be observed in order to exist. That there may be sub-surface intelligent life incapable of observing the universe would prove that assumption wrong.
 
samsmart said:
But it doesn't say anything for a divinity either.
Click to expand...

Doesn't claim it does, just saying "Life wasn't created it got here by evolution" isn't a valid argument, since creation is like saying "I loved my arm" and evolution is like describing the physical processes.

I'm not saying that the universe has no purpose.

Rather, I'm saying that the universe has no other inherent purpose other than to exist.

That the universe exists and continues to do so is a defense of that.
Click to expand...

I don't see how "existance" can be a purpose, but eitherway, my example stands, you see an object in the forest and you can say "Its only purpose is to exist" or "It may have some other purpose" both statements would require defending.

I do think that the creation of life can only be said to be a coincidence. It's just that I think that on the scale of universe, life is able to evolve into a variety of forms capable of surviving and perpetuating in a variety of conditions.
Click to expand...

The Universe is large but not that large considering the inprobability of life coming from non life, and it's only been around about 13 or 14 billion years.

That was a reference to the original post on whether the universe needs to be observed in order to exist. That there may be sub-surface intelligent life incapable of observing the universe would prove that assumption wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true, because the universe that they would be unable to observe is the one we can observe, who's existance we posit on the basis of our observation.
 
Did the tree fall or not? :) I say it did.

/thread
 
What a dumb question, of course it would exist. It existed for billions of years before mankind evolved, it will exist for billions more once we've gone extinct. We're just a blip on the cosmic radar.
 
Of course the universe would exist if not for humanity. But it wouldn't if not for the Oglar people who inhabit the Slobrik world in the Andromeda galaxy. The universe was actually created just so they could exist for a short time in it and worship their lizard-like deity. It was fine tuned for their existence. Any other irrelevant species are just a bi-product of the Oglar-centric universe.
 
Existence exists is an axiom, existence exists regardless of anyone's capacity to perceive it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom