It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is This Universe Qualified As A Reference? An Existential Evaluation

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:33 AM
Do you regard this universe as a given reference? Or, do you question the existence of this universe along with any and all of its aspects?

When you think about any subject matter, either physical or mental, are your thoughts based upon what you consider to be practical or realistic? Or, do you find it intrusive and offensive to have the practical and realistic aspects of existence clouding your thoughts?

Are the “laws” of the universe automatically legitimate simply because they are in force? Does “randomness” have the authority to determine the laws? Probably not. Randomness only has the authority to make selections, randomness is not endowed with the ability to create the options. If you think randomness can create options then explain how it is done scientifically and coherently. Failing to explain this places "randomness" in the same realm as magic. Magic is not scientific.

It is said this universe would not function if certain parameters were not adhered to? So what? Is the universe going to disappear into nothing if a quark is out of place? Probably not. The universe will simply behave a little differently.

If the universe were to be forced to operate outside of its normal operational parameters would it fall apart? Would it seek a new equilibrium? What if this has already happened and the universe has not been able to achieve equilibrium?

What are the “normal” operational parameters of a universe? The parameters would need to be coherent. A coherent universe would be self-sustaining. Does the existence of entropy imply incoherence? Perhaps.

What do you think?


log in