It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

If there was no life in the unvierse, would the universe exist?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Now this is something which popped into my head when reading Dave Rabbit's thread about life in the galaxy.


If there was no life in the universe, would the universe exist? I do not know the answer to this question and get the feeling that it has some importance. I might be deluded though so I thought I would ask you all.

can anyone shed some logic on this please?




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
well I'm pretty sure that there wasnt any life right after the big bang, yet the universe existed. I do think that life exists, somehow, so that the universe can "know" itself.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I am going to say no, because I believe the Universe was specifically created because it has life in it.


Originally posted by Totalstranger
so that the universe can "know" itself..



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
"If there was no life in the unvierse, would the universe exist?" This is the same as the old question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make any noise? It is a question that has been asked since the time of Confuscius. I am afraid no one can answer this irrefutably. This question will only be answered when humanity achieves a state of consciousness, where we will be able to comprehend the nature of our universe.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
thanks for your responses,

Yes, I thought it had echoes of the old tree question, however,my question is specifically related to an non existence of any life in the whole universe, ever.

The tree question still has an observable perspective to it (sounds being heard by observing life) which I suppose spurred me on to ask this particular question.

I think the importance is in the fact that if there is nothing to 'experience' the universe, then it has absolutely no point whatsoever.

Can something exist when when the notion of 'existing' does not even exist?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
This question is too abstract for me... I can't help you



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Simple Answer -

The universe would still exist... but not for us!

IRM



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Totalstranger
 


Having pondered your answer, I put this to you; is it possible that the period of time which you are referring to only exists as a result of life emerging and seeing it retrospectively? i.e. At the time, it didn't actually exist.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Unsane
 


you may open a can of worms with questions like this the atheists will jump all over it stating that god done this and god done that and if god did'nt create it, it would exist.

Good question though its like the falling tree in the forest idea



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 



Yes, but I mean in terms of all life. i.e. Nothing, not even single celled organisms or alien life.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I don't think it can be determined with the data we have right now reason being,

We discover life and life cycles in and around areas we thought could not sustain life every day.

How can we determine if the sun being lit up is actually caused by life or if there is some life form required for it to look and do what it does now and if that life form didn't exist neither would the current state of the sun?

Simple answer is we don't know. IMO sound waves and actual living beings are 2 separate things all together.

For all we know science might one day discover the entire planet itself is nothing but 100% pure life forms combined to serve a central purpose although I doubt it.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unsane
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Yes, but I mean in terms of all life. i.e. Nothing, not even single celled organisms or alien life.


I don't see why not. The universe was that way for billions of years before it developed higher elements capable of supporting 'life'. What your saying kind of suggests that life (as we know it) is the means to the end.

For all we know, 'life' could be an intermediate state in the evolution of the universe that will eventually make way for something else...and so on.. and so on.

IRM



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
It is my opinion that everything is a manifestation of Consciousness on some level or another. We are spikes of highly organized Consciousness. Rock, for example, is a very low order of consciousness, and might hold nothing more than the expectation of being Rock.

If one defines "life" as that which has Consciousness, then without Life, there is nothing.

I guess we first need to define "life" before we can answer the initially posed question.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Wow, thats very deep EA but I hear you! It is very hard to determine what life is exactly. We only have an indoctrinated perception of what it may actually be to rely upon - which could be miles from the truth.

It's also quite possible that 'life' existed as a pure energy (or spiritual) form first as posited by Micheal Cremo's Theory of Devolution. On some level it could be quite possible that life has always existed albeit in a highly exotic form that we don't quite understand... but it's all theory at this point


However, life did take a very long time to evolve/devolve into what we know it to be today. Now I'm confused... what was the topic again?


Sorry to the Op for digressing.

IRM



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
yes it would.. but nobody to wonder about.........



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Well, if the whole of the Universe is Consciousness, a spirit/God, fragmented into discrete "packages" to explore novelty and experience, then we could merge our views.

To the OP, I am guessing that we will never know the answer to your question, especially with no solid definition of life.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Define LIFE - and you'll be a huge step closer to your answer (as tentative and subjective as it might be).

I am not being flippant or sophistic.
Think about it: could the Big Bang itself (if that's what happened) be characterised as a "life-less" event?
It would not have been "inert", that's for sure - but would it equal "life"?

It's interesting to ponder, isn't it? ;-)





[edit on 7-10-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
If you define life in terms of biologically alive... then of course.

But if you define it in terms of consciousness, then no.

Everything is conscious to some degree, humanity has always known that, science is even now startint to confirm it.

So you can take the "life" out of the universe, but you can never prevent it from being "alive."



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2



So you can take the "life" out of the universe, but you can never prevent it from being "alive."




Personally, I totally agree.
To me, existence equals LIFE.
(For the very reasons you stated.)

But I wonder what did the OP have in mind. :-)





[edit on 7-10-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Laws of physics operate all the same whether or not life is there to observe. I would say inanimate existance is not dependent on life, imo.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join