posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 04:58 AM
First off, let me thank everyone for being cordial on this thread. As I was pretty obvious with my "rules," I didn't want it to just turn into a
mess of attacks, etc.
There were some pretty interesting ideas tossed around, and each one was intriguing (most notably, Anthropic principle, as I don't think I had ever
heard of that one before, actually). And almost none of the "philosophical" responses were too far out there, since the easy solution would have
been to just quote or paraphrase Descartes. As I did by trying to cut off attacks by excluding religion, I just wanted to cut off people saying "It
only exists if you think it exists" with little or no extrapolation on why (Such as, and I'm only using this as the first example I saw when I just
scrolled back, if DisasterButton had only said "Nothing is real. Everything is real." without saying anything else).
Although, there is one other point that was brought up that I'll mention, that has stuck in my head. While I disagree with the idea when it comes
down to it, I do think that the idea of a Holographic Universe is intriguing. Been a few years since I read anything about it (was in high school and
that is approaching 20 years ago now), but I know it stuck in my head as being a bit too far out there for me. So, intriguing? Yes, very much so.
Legit theory? Not for me.
Ultimately, of course, it really is an unanswerable question. Just too many unknown variables coming into play and how each person want's to
interpret them. If there is anything that can be a pretty strong argument as to if the universe exists, the strongest always seems to be "Well,
you're here, aren't you? And you're in the universe. So, it must still be around." That seems to be pretty much the most logical line to cross
between a physical answer and a philosophical answer. But even that is a dangerous view to stand by in this case, because of the sheer number of
unknown variables and a lacking of a complete understanding by mankind about how time works across the history of the Universe (beyond rudimentary
views, of course). Or more specifically the correlation between speed and time, which in basic structure I feel are the same thing.
And I'm still not sure what side I fall on. When I presented the question originally, I did it without being sure what I even thought on the subject
- and I'm only slightly closer to an opinion now.