Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.

[Strange]

Asimov wrote a short story about that, The Last Question: http://multivax.com/last_question.html

[Enric]

Well, we have already here and now the three most important elements for this: the intelligence (growing), the willing, and the matter. It's not necessary to search in other theoric places.

 

Could be worse.

[Enric]

Well, we have already here and now the three most important elements for this: the intelligence (growing), the willing, and the matter. It's not necessary to search in other theoric places.

 

Could be worse.

 

[Enric]

Why this curious and suspicious another feature of this Universe: that some kind of evil -against person, people, things...- by person or people, engenders some kind of penance, sooner or later? Could be in another way in a "sterile" and appeared alone Universe? Why is not in another way? I repeat: curious and suspicious.

[Strange]

Why this curious and suspicious another feature of this Universe: that some kind of evil -against person, people, things...- by person or people, engenders some kind of penance, sooner or later?

 

Do you have any evidence that is the case? It sounds implausible to me.

 

 

Could be in another way in a "sterile" and appeared alone Universe?

 

What do you mean by 'a "sterile" and appeared alone Universe' ?

And why would that be relevant?

 

I still don't know what you mean by your original question.

 

Are you asking if it was created? If so, there is no evidence that the universe was created (or started in any other way).

 

Are asking if it was created alone; i.e. the only universe? In which case, it is the only one we know of. We can't really speculate beyond that.

 

Or are you asking if the universe created itself; i.e. without outside help? In which case, not only is there no evidence it was created, there is even less evidence that it was created by "external forces".

 

 

I repeat: curious and suspicious.

 

I can't see why.

What does it make you suspect?

Edited August 5, 2016 by Strange

[Enric]

In this Universe and its logic, (by some reason has this logic and not another) if you eat too much sugar, you loose your teeth, if you invades and destroys Europe, you're destroyed too, if you burns a wood, the atmosphere is worse for you, if you mistreated somebody, it returns. And, at the contrary, if you make right things, it is usual to receive benefits.

 

In another Universe with another logic, maybe could not be this way. It seems to have some kind of poetical justice or "punishment" included in a standar way inside this logic of this Universe that affects acts of the person or the people.

 

And this make me suspect some kind of willing in the creation or apparation of the Universe and its logic, as our presence "included" or "foreseen" inside the Chemistry laws since the beginning. In another Universe, could be "sterile", with no life, no punishments and no benefits.

[Strange]

if you eat too much sugar, you loose your teeth,

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

if you invades and destroys Europe, you're destroyed too,

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

if you burns a wood, the atmosphere is worse for you,

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

if you mistreated somebody, it returns.

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

And, at the contrary, if you make right things, it is usual to receive benefits.

 

Not always.

 

So it seems like you have invented some nonsense rules that you think the universe works by, and then you wonder why the universe works that way. Answer: it doesn't.

[tar]

Enric and Strange,

 

• I don't think they are nonsense rules you are proposing (Enric)... I think they are actual in that everything about this universe is connected, over time. That is, one thing causes another, action and reaction, the waves of gravity and electromagnetic fields, heading outward from each and every event in a somewhat unerring fashion. Everything fits together, and is not "alone". Now the added components of punishment and benefits, may not be completely objectively based, but instead very related to our existence as specially identified selves. It is required to benefit oneself if one is to survive. I am not sure if your laws do not apply even to those things that exist just because they fit, and not related to intelligence or consciousness. Like a snowflake or a crystal.
• Still there are conditions that benefit a crystal.

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

In this Universe and its logic, (by some reason has this logic and not another) if you eat too much sugar, you loose your teeth, if you invades and destroys Europe, you're destroyed too, if you burns a wood, the atmosphere is worse for you, if you mistreated somebody, it returns. And, at the contrary, if you make right things, it is usual to receive benefits.

 

In another Universe with another logic, maybe could not be this way. It seems to have some kind of poetical justice or "punishment" included in a standar way inside this logic of this Universe that affects acts of the person or the people.

 

And this make me suspect some kind of willing in the creation or apparation of the Universe and its logic, as our presence "included" or "foreseen" inside the Chemistry laws since the beginning. In another Universe, could be "sterile", with no life, no punishments and no benefits.

 

According to evolutionary psychologists, anthropologists, nutritionists, etc., our propensity to overeat sugar and fat results from a delay in evolutionary adaptation, since the atavistic desire goes back to those days when there was such a shortage of sugary fruits and fat animal carcasses, with the result that people splurged when they had the chance.

 

Arguably, wiping out other groups, in Europe or elsewhere, is often advantageous for the aggressive group, even in the long run. Presumably Ancient Imperial Rome might have been less wealthy and civilized and longliving had it not had such a well-trained and aggressive army. Evolution suggests that aggressors are not always punished by some sort of natural karma, if that is what you are implying, though whether such aggression ultimately leads to some sort of advancement in humankind, as Hitler claimed, is another question altogether.

 

Another problem is that "punishment" often does not fit the crime and is applied artificially from without. For example, if a person robs a gas station we put him/her in jail for 5 years or so. Being in jail is not even a natural consequence of stealing, though there are perhaps a few other species that punish stealing in some way. It may or may not be true that crime does not pay....but in any case, punishment is a social mechanism that varies in nature and severity from one culture to another. In practice, it seems that we have found that punishments are not always that effective anyway with regards to achieving the social goals of rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. (e.g, Obama just releasing a large number of federal prisoners with drug related records).

 

So I think that showing that karma, or your version of karma, is some sort of innate principle in nature would be a difficult theory to defend, particularly since values vary from one group to another, e.g, is abortion innately wrong in all circumstances according to some innate principle of morality/punishment?

 

As I mentioned earlier, even the word "punishment" has rather inevitable connotations of (irrational) vengeance and is, imo, a rather unfortunate term to use in a discussion of criminal justice for this very reason.

Edited August 5, 2016 by disarray

[Enric]

When you enter the dynamics of do good, at least you feel good. It's, at least, some kind of compensation that helps to continue doing good. When you enter the dynamics of do evil, finally, at long term maybe, you will have problems and penance. Because action-reaction, perhaps? Maybe it's only for this reason. I defend: could be in other way in other kind of Universe and with another kind of logic? I can imagine it. I.e., the pure chaos.

[tar]

disarray,

 

But although karma is difficult to defend, there is a reality, that puts everything in the waking world in the same pot. That is, if you build and create and take care of stuff, it is more likely that stuff is taken care of. If you tear down, destroy, harm and otherwise do injury and evil stuff it is more likely that the stuff around you will be in disarray and not in good shape.

 

Good and evil might be as simple as this. Good is what works toward survival and happiness. Evil is what works toward death and destruction and bad stuff and things contrary to "fitting" and "right".

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

disarray,

 

But although karma is difficult to defend, there is a reality, that puts everything in the waking world in the same pot. That is, if you build and create and take care of stuff, it is more likely that stuff is taken care of. If you tear down, destroy, harm and otherwise do injury and evil stuff it is more likely that the stuff around you will be in disarray and not in good shape.

 

Good and evil might be as simple as this. Good is what works toward survival and happiness. Evil is what works toward death and destruction and bad stuff and things contrary to "fitting" and "right".

 

Regards, TAR

 

Well, certainly on a practical level if one recalls the fabled grasshopper who lazily sings all the time while the industrious ants prepare for the summer, well, sure...one reaps what one sows, or, what one doesn't sow, and finds oneself starving or feasting as the case may be.

 

But yes, it is rather tautological to say that "good" is what works towards survival and happiness, since that is how we might define "goodness." But that doesn't tell us a whole lot about the real world, since, when it comes to putting principles into practice, we have to ask whose survival and whose happiness counts most, so that one has to decide what is more moral when winter hits and the poor grasshopper is begging for food: Apparently the original version has the ants refusing to help the grasshopper as if to teach the moral lesson of industry and forethought, though in some versions of the story the ants are seen as selfish and self-serving unless they charitably give to the grasshopper.

 

So again, morality is a complicated issue, and the proof is in the pudding (real world cases) rather than in vague concepts such as karma.

 

I have a little trouble seeing how this relates to being alone in the universe, though i can see that Tragedy (e.g., Greek, Shakespearean) is fundamentally based on the notion that there are figures that can be taken either in a metaphorical or realistic sense whose job it seems to be to ensure that justice is always dispensed and people always get their just deserts...usually on earth, rather than after the fact in some distant heaven/hell.

 

Though our modern notions of justice are becoming less focused on such things as evil and punishment, it would be comforting indeed to feel assured that humans are not alone in the universe, but that there are forces, feminine fates, superheroes, karmic principles, Olympian Gods, or whatever who are also always present and who ensure that goodness ultimately triumphs and that the guys who wear black helmets or hats invariably end up falling off their steed and biting the dust.

Edited August 6, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Well perhaps it is a logical problem. A set theory question. Do you contain yourself or not? The great consciousness of the universe, that which contains all else, would have to be related to us in some way. That is, if life grabbed form and structure from a universe headed toward entropy, and passed it down to the next generation, then the victory was achieved within the confines of the ultimate consciousness. That is, it was not accomplished alone, but with the help, of the conditions under which life emerged. Or, in other words, "we did it". And us, being universal components, "we" would have to be part of the universe. So created "alone" is something that no part of the universe can claim. Only the entire universe, taken together could be created alone, if there was nothing else but one universe. And if there were but just this one, then it would have to be a collective exercise, to be a universal component, and responsible for that part which you know, and have connection to. Only God, could claim to know the beginning and end, and God is a construct, with no evidence of existing. God cannot be a component of the universe, like us and stars and such, which means he/she/it, is not part of this universe. Which means God does not exist, per se, and must be a construct of our minds and imaginations.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

God cannot be a component of the universe, like us and stars and such, which means he/she/it, is not part of this universe. Which means God does not exist, per se, and must be a construct of our minds and imaginations.

 

These are the sort of arguments that seem ungrounded in any sort of empirical information, and thus rather metaphysical, but here is my response in any case.

 

You begin by positing the possibility of a universal consciousness, which, fapp, could be said to be a definition of God; but then you seem to contradict this assertion by claiming that God could not be a part of the universe as "he" would need to stand outside of it to create and/or witness its beginning and end.

 

But there are all sorts of alternative speculations, e.g., that the universe is either created by a God who is external to the universe or it is not created by a universal consciousness at all. Indeed, a bottom up approach would be to suggest that the universe is self creating, while life forms evolve via reincarnation to the point where they achieve universal consciousness.

 

As far as being alone, it is not clear whether there is any pervasive life force or pervasive animistic consciousness that we all share, in keeping with, for example, Bergson's elan vital or Schopenhauer's Will; but even if we did, such blind entropy-resistant drives would generally be seen from an evolutionary standpoint as being rather blind (i.e., reliant on trial and error) and brute (seemingly indifferent to suffering), rather than the sort of advanced and enlightened creatures most people in search of transcendental companionship prefer to 'keep company' with, but rather they tend to seek what might be deemed as superior role models: super intelligent extra terrestrial beings, channeling spirits, guardian angels, wise ancestral spirits, etc.

Edited August 7, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Well yes, you are right, I can not have it both ways...except I sense a logical requirement, that one can neither be separate from reality, nor in charge of it, and therefore one must concurrently belong to it and maintain a partial ownership of it. That is, if there is a god, we are part of that being, and if there is not a god, then we are part of the universe, in the same sense, as if there were an entity, a collective being, of which we are a part. As in, it is our universe...being that we don't have another to claim.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

Well yes, you are right, I can not have it both ways...except I sense a logical requirement, that one can neither be separate from reality, nor in charge of it, and therefore one must concurrently belong to it and maintain a partial ownership of it. That is, if there is a god, we are part of that being, and if there is not a god, then we are part of the universe, in the same sense, as if there were an entity, a collective being, of which we are a part. As in, it is our universe...being that we don't have another to claim.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Tar:

Yes, I suspected that is the Carollian rabbit hole down which I thought you might choose to go. Indeed, it seems that your are virtually restating a form of oriental philsophy with perhaps a dash of the concept of universal quantum consciousness (I am guessing). As to how much self-identity one has when alive as opposed to a post-mortem state of universal consciousness is anyone's philosophical guess. In any case, a common metaphor for such a situation is that we are all but drops in the ocean (trying to make sense of it). In terms of reincarnation, one might extend the metaphor somewhat by using the metaphor of the entire rain cycle, where we continually separate and reunite with the totality.

 

But apart from afterlife speculations, I can see that one could find a degree of solace or sense of sisterhood/brotherhood or empathy with all living things (as oriental religions tend to suggest we should have) if we think that we all share in some sort of universal consciousness or life tree.

 

But again, even if we do share in a common consciousness or common DNA sequences or all driven by the same life force or whatever, the inconvenient truth is that the universal need to survive/reproduce puts, in practice, a damper on universal brotherhood, identification, and compassion, particularly when there are such factors as overcrowding and a shortage of resources.

 

As an aside, that is why I have always wondered about the typical Christian notion that people miraculously ascend into heaven in bodily form as God presumably recomposes even the molecules of buried corpses.....Presumably everyone gets along in heaven so that sin and evil and conflict are non-issues. I wonder how that might be possible if people are still in their physical bodies: Don't they then still need to eat and sleep, for instance....and if so, where do they shop, etc.? What happens when two male angels take a shining for the same female angel? Do angels tend to sleep on clouds with a silver lining? etc.

Edited August 7, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

But the universe being created alone ori not, is somewhat related to the question of whether an individual is alone. There is, as you suggest, some benefit to feeling a part of something greater than oneself. This is difficult to see and embrace in the two directions, the subjective and objective senses, that one must approach questions such as this.

 

Particularly when one feels responsible for somebody else child, as in why would I have any more responsibility for a starving child in Africa, then their parents have, or their community has, or their country has?

 

Or as in the issue I have been struggling with since 9/11 as in why is it OK for me to stand in the way of all the world being for Allah.

 

I am thinking it is OK to look after your own interests before others...with an eye on trying to do it in such a way as everybody wins, when possible.

 

A shared understanding, that it is OK to be just a drop in the ocean, AND a particular drop in the ocean...at the same time.

 

Regards, TAR

or to paraphrase a saying I like a lot...to the whole world, you are just somebody, but to somebody, you are the whole world

Edited August 8, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

But the universe being created alone ori not, is somewhat related to the question of whether an individual is alone. There is, as you suggest, some benefit to feeling a part of something greater than oneself. This is difficult to see and embrace in the two directions, the subjective and objective senses, that one must approach questions such as this.

 

Particularly when one feels responsible for somebody else child, as in why would I have any more responsibility for a starving child in Africa, then their parents have, or their community has, or their country has?

 

Or as in the issue I have been struggling with since 9/11 as in why is it OK for me to stand in the way of all the world being for Allah.

 

I am thinking it is OK to look after your own interests before others...with an eye on trying to do it in such a way as every wins, when possible.

 

A shared understanding, that it is OK to be just a drop in the ocean, AND a particular drop in the ocean...at the same time.

 

Regards, TAR

 

As I suspected you might, you are introducing the notion of (a particular) religion into the discussion, which is a matter of speculative faith that I don't think is particularly relevant to those taking a secular/scientific approach. I did mention Eastern religions (shorn of any names for deities, rituals, historical circumstances, creeds, etc.) myself, but that is in connection with what is arguably a scientific approach to consciousness or a life force, even if it is very speculative.

 

But yes, let's assume that we are all part of universal consciousness, life force, genetic tree, creative force, ground of Being (Tillich), individually developing consciousness template (Heidegger), green fuse (Dylan Thomas), cosmic spirit (Whitman), national spirit (Hegel), natural spirit (Wordsworth), elan vital (Bergson), will to power (Nietzsche), will of Nature (Schopenhauer), or what have you. Again, this may give some a sense of wonderment and awe (cf. Rudolph Otto's sense of numinous awe), but I do not think that it automatically follows that we can from thence build some sort of (universal) ethical system upon that philosophical foundation.

 

The idea that everyone wins is not necessarily a consequent of believing that there are shared DNA or consciousness, or whatever genealogy (unless, of course, one starts bringing in religious views that are inherently ethical as you have).

 

Your notion that "it is OK to look after your own interests before others...with an eye on trying to do it in such a way as every wins, when possible," is something of a tautology, even from an evolutionary standpoint, and therefore gives the impression of being an inherently universal characteristic of humankind. Furthermore, though it is validated by many (but not all) religions, such altruism need not be a logical consequence of believing in a universal consciousness or life force or even in the shared thought that we all belong to this universe. As history has shown, believing that we are all members of the human race spinning on the same globe in the same universe, or even believing that we are all under the watchful eye of some God(s) has not done a great deal to reduce human conflict and violence, much less make us one big tribe of loving people with a shared sense of belonging.

 

Indeed, what you have stated is a form of utilitarianism that, I would suggest, got its wings in an economic/philosophic sense (e.g., Bentham, Adam Smith) as a development of, for example, Western Enlightenment/humanism, e.g., as the result of such factors as a growing sense of democracy, the leveling of social classes, the rise of the mercantile/middle class, the implementation of democratic measures such as welfare, unions, and fair working conditions, etc.

Edited August 8, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

I would agree I am a child of Western Civilization, and the enlightenment, and the Protestant revolution and so on, but this is actually the history of my family and nation and school and such, and all that comes from my civilization is based on some of these thoughts. An objective, scientific view of what is important and empirically based and so on, can not be had, without some sort of basis of understanding of what is rewardable and what is punishable. For these thoughts one would have to base the range on human experience, or it would have no meaning to humans.

 

Taking a stance, that one can evaluate the world, or the universe from some point of view, other than a human one, is not understandable.

 

Regards, TAR

or notably useful

Edited August 8, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

I would agree I am a child of Western Civilization, and the enlightenment, and the Protestant revolution and so on, but this is actually the history of my family and nation and school and such, and all that comes from my civilization is based on some of these thoughts. An objective, scientific view of what is important and empirically based and so on, can not be had, without some sort of basis of understanding of what is rewardable and what is punishable. For these thoughts one would have to base the range on human experience, or it would have no meaning to humans.

 

Taking a stance, that one can evaluate the world, or the universe from some point of view, other than a human one, is not understandable.

 

I would suggest that those who cannot reconcile their ethics and "spiritual" views with their intellectual ones are most likely to experience some degree of cognitive dissonance.

 

As for the importance of including conditions for rewards and punishments in ones worldview, I share Einstein's humanistic approach,

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

Edited August 8, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

Sorry lot? That requires a sense of punishment, or lack of reaching the mark. As in, if you got it right, you would not be a sorry lot.

 

I have been looking at things from a simplistic viewpoint over the last several years, and had developed a theory that we are very based on reward and punishment. We want to get it right, and we don't want to get it wrong. We want to be good and we don't want to be bad. It has nothing to do with fearing boiling oil in hell...yet it has everything to do with fearing such metaphorically.

 

Regards, TAR

if we were truly alone we would not care what others thought

[disarray]

Disarray,

 

Sorry lot? That requires a sense of punishment, or lack of reaching the mark. As in, if you got it right, you would not be a sorry lot.

 

I have been looking at things from a simplistic viewpoint over the last several years, and had developed a theory that we are very based on reward and punishment. We want to get it right, and we don't want to get it wrong. We want to be good and we don't want to be bad. It has nothing to do with fearing boiling oil in hell...yet it has everything to do with fearing such metaphorically.

 

Regards, TAR

if we were truly alone we would not care what others thought

 

No, Einstein is suggesting that it is not a good situation if one is worried about punishments and rewards when it comes to how one behaves. If one looks at the rest of what he says about ethics, this is clear, e.g., he has little regard for conventional morality and certainly does not look to religion to get moral guidelines.

 

It doesn't matter how severe the punishment or how enticing the reward, the humanitarian view is to simply do something out of empathy. Doing something because we want praise from others or want to avoid their dark looks at us is doing something for reasons other than just empathy.

 

Kohlberg lists 6 or 7 stages of moral development, with fear of punishment being the lowest:

 

Stage One: (obedience and punishment driven) An example of obedience and punishment driven morality would be a child refusing to do something because it is wrong and that the consequences could result in punishment. For example, a child's classmate tries to dare the child to skip school. The child would apply obedience and punishment driven morality by refusing to skip school because he would get punished.

Stage Two: (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual's own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

In the real world, people tend to be very derogatory....putting down others in order to make themselves look better, so that for many, being able to live their lives without living in constant fear of unfair criticism, as many, for example, famous people do, is an attitude that allows them to grow as a person.

 

Similarly, the use of positive and negative punishments to modify people's behavior may have the tendency to dehumanize them.

 

Of course, it is good to have goals and set standards of behavior for oneself, but again, it can be a neurotic pattern to beat oneself up too much, so to speak, when one does not live up to standards that are too high or ideal.

 

In any case, I don't see that living in a community whose cohesion is almost entirely based upon punishment and reward is particularly consoling or comforting, nor a particularly good way to feel that one is not alone.

Edited August 8, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Disarray,

 

But if you imagine that some unseen other is evaluating your actions as to their correctness, justice, fairness, or depth of understanding as to whether the action is universally "right", you have established a moral judge. Whether this judge has a police force, or a paddle is not material. Punishment is not required if you police yourself. The judge must still be imagined. That unseen other, whether a historical hero like Jesus or Mohammed, or a revered professor or grandparent or local priest or shaman, or that respected social contact or writer or speaker, is a significant other, whether real or imagined. You are not alone in your determination of what is proper behavior. You have other human beings to live up to. Other people that you want to please.

 

This is basic and real in my estimation. We are built to be social animals. We care deeply about the "look" we get from others.

 

Regards, TAR

[Moontanman]

Universes are created in pairs!

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Looks like that could be two symmetrical sides of the same universe.

 

Are snowflakes created in sextets or does one snowflake have six arms?

 

Regards, TAR