The Universe

[Just thinking]

Here is a question (that may be totally silly and useless to debate) which somehow stimulates a few (and that's all I have left) brain cells in my head. So here it is for those willing to toss it around a bit.

If the universe never had and never will have any life, can it (the cosmos) be proven to exist?

I guess what I'm after here is whether or not the action of proof requires intelligent life, or any life, for that matter. (I know, I know, proof is an exercise in logic which is the science of reasoning, which requires thought and hence life. But it seems strange that something could actually exist and yet not be proven to exist. Hmmm, maybe I should pay more attention to my signature.)

Here we go ...

 

[Atlas]

That's a good one...

Here's mine...

If people aren't alive before they are born, are they dead?

 

[drkitten]

I guess what I'm after here is whether or not the action of proof requires intelligent life, or any life, for that matter. (I know, I know, proof is an exercise in logic which is the science of reasoning, which requires thought and hence life. But it seems strange that something could actually exist and yet not be proven to exist. Hmmm, maybe I should pay more attention to my signature.)

As you pointed out, the action of proving requires a prover. Really, this is just the "if a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a noise" question asked in a slightly more formal, and hence answerable, way. There are in potential lots of things that cannot be proven to have existed because there were no available provers and no available evidence. What color was the skin of a T. rex? Did a hummingbird visit my feeder yesterday while I was at work? Were there in fact two identical snowflakes in Chicago last year?

 

[Dancing David]

While we are current observers, it would appear that there has been a universe prior to our observation of it.

 

[Just thinking]

Re: Re: The Universe

As you pointed out, the action of proving requires a prover. Really, this is just the "if a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a noise" question asked in a slightly more formal, and hence answerable, way.

I can see how there are strong similarities in my question and the "tree falling in the woods" analogy. Personally, I feel that the tree does make a noise, as there is no evidence that a falling tree (in the normal sense) doesn't ever not make a noise (or better, sound), either empirically or hypothetically. But my example already implies that the universe exists (unlike the sound in question) and asks if its existance is provable.

There are, in potential, lots of things that cannot be proven to have existed because there were no available provers and no available evidence. What color was the skin of a T. rex? Did a hummingbird visit my feeder yesterday while I was at work? Were there in fact two identical snowflakes in Chicago last year?

These comments are much more analogous. So, it seems that there are be a great many unprovable things that can exist and at some time must have existed. (Whatever the color of a T. Rex's skin was, it did have some pigment.) And there's also the need for provers if something is to be proven. But not having provers (at the present or in some future time) certainly doesn't stop something from existing.

Then if we are going to agree that provers are required to prove the existance of something, how does one then best describe a prover ?

 

[Atlas]

The Universe existed for billions of years before life of any kind introduced itself. None of that life cared to prove the universe existed.

A wildcat or amoeba accepts its own existence, we note that they try to survive. We have no indication they know they exist inside a universe.

Humanity as we know it hasn't existed even for tens of thousands of years. It's possible that no one before the Greeks ever thought about the nature of proof. And even then most people right down to us never even think of proving anything that exists empirically.

For me the one necessary quality of a prover is that he has to care. Secondly he's got to buck the mainstream and question accepted notions. Third he's got to possess enough intellectual wattage to identify what evidence would qualify as proof. Finally he's got to be able to come up with a way to tease the evidence out.

Concerning the universe, it may not be proven, but assumed to exist. Idealists of a certain stripe have concluded that it's all an illusion.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: The Universe

I can see how there are strong similarities in my question and the "tree falling in the woods" analogy. Personally, I feel that the tree does make a noise, as there is no evidence that a falling tree (in the normal sense) doesn't ever not make a noise (or better, sound), either empirically or hypothetically.

It depends if you mean a noise phenomenologically construed (ie the qualitative experience of a noise), or you mean a noise as scientifically described. If the former, then no, if the latter, then yes.

And no, a Universe could not exist in the absence of any consciousnesses.

 

[Just thinking]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Universe

And no, a Universe could not exist in the absence of any consciousnesses.

Can you prove that ?

OK, that was a bit of a pun. But hasn't the present universe existed for a great stretch of time (during its beginnings) without any consciousnesses within it ?

 

[Just thinking]

For me the one necessary quality of a prover is that he has to care. Secondly he's got to buck the mainstream and question accepted notions. Third he's got to possess enough intellectual wattage to identify what evidence would qualify as proof. Finally he's got to be able to come up with a way to tease the evidence out.

I would add that the prover must employ some form of logic that stands independently on its own merits. I see logic as a tool of reasoning, and existing independently of one's mind, just as a hammer exists independently of a carpenter. And in order to use the hammer properly one must be not only familiar with it, but also learn what it is used for.

 

[zeno]

Flatland

Most of the preceding discussion is over my head, but I will say that I prefer to think of the "Big Bang" as the "Cosmic Egg, Scrambled" due to evolving aftereffects. It is, after all, our birthplace.

Those of you who found this speculative thread of interest might also enjoy "Flatland," by Edwin A. Abbott (1884), if you haven't enjoyed this Sci Fi classic already. The entire text is apparently available online.

http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/