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.


Does The Universe Exist? (Not Asking Philosophically)

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:05 AM
I think an interesting corollary discussion to this has to do with the variants of the Anthropic Principle. There are two main takes on the anthropic principle:

1. The Weak Anthropic Principle - The Universe exists the way it does, with all conditions just right for intelligent life to arise and observe it, because if conditions weren't right, intelligent wouldn't have arisen. We happen to live in this happy epoch, a cosmic scale "Goldilocks Zone" simply because somebody would have, or at least COULD have, assuming conditions were good.

2. The Strong Anthropic Principle - The Universe must exist the way way it does, with all conditions just right for intelligent life to arise and observe it so that it can be observed. In other words, the Universe must create observers within itself at some stage.

There are other variants or maybe they are sub-variants, but these are the two main strains of this idea.

Personally, I subscribe to the Weak Anthropic Principle. I think it's the variant that is supportable by science. The Strong seems almost a spiritual belief to me, that the reason the Universe exists is so that intelligent life can come into it eventually. It doesn't take into account infinite other universes that might exist where the laws of nature have never become such as to allow for the formation of some sort of intelligent life. Do these universes not exist because nobody is there to see them? I would say that they do, the Strong supporters would say not only that they don't, but that they can't.

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.

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 09:28 AM
What do u think of this, i found it in comments on some article about time travel, but guy who made this comment really made me wonder about universe and reality: (i posted this on 2 other topics here, which are related to this subject)

You can't go faster than the speed of light because the speed of light is not a «speed», it is a «refresh rate». Matter is Energy and Energy is intermittent. There, not there. The refresh rate of matter is the speed of light. Imagine a clip on youtube, whether the apparent movement is fast or slow, pixels are refreshed at 72Hz (or so). Matter doesn't actually move, it appears at one pleace and reappears at a slightly different place giving the illusion that is has moved, but in reality each piece of matter teleports itself from one place to another all the time. You don't need a College degree to understand that. So time travel doesn't happen when the energy is present, it happens when the energy/matter is absent. Beyond space, beyond time, in the realm of forms. Imagine a perfect sphere, while your're in the office. Then imagine it again when you are at home. The perfect sphere form was not affected at all by your displacement in time or space. Because it exists in a different realm. In fact the perfect sphere form would still exist if the universe didn't exit, if the Big Bang had never happened. The same way as the human conscious mind goes back to the inconscious and collective mind thousands of times per second to try and make sense of it all, the individual particle goes back to the primal goo 4 to seven times per attosecond to refill the energy. What we perceive is the expression of a meaning. General semantics warned against mixing an object with its name. The expression is not the meaning, but if you study the medium long enough, you eventually get the message.

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by SouthernRain55

Well, I like to view it as we are all in our own movies, perhaps we cross path when we need too and so on.

I like to think it explains things like syncrinicity, dejavu, prophetic events.

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:05 PM
You can travel through space at any time.
So does the universe exist to you.
The universe is composed of nature an some of nature has not been disclosed to you
however that would not nullify existence.

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:50 PM
Hell yes... We're all "living" in our Universe. I also believe in the reproduction of the Universe; as in the birthing of stars, black holes, quesars and neutron stars. According to some scientists- The Universe, will forever be expanding. I tend to agree with there assumption.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust; we are all made up of stardust my friend.

Before the Big Bang...Leads me to believe that matter was a gigantic massive Black Hole. Any thoughts?


edit on 20-8-2011 by Erno86 because: grammar

edit on 20-8-2011 by Erno86 because: added a sentence

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by Erno86

I think the universe is considered by some to be unchanged and will remain so.
I'm not sure how Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity might spread any light on
the matter as it might agree with the old method of universe creation from the
gathering of mass from its elemental forms. With the Sun increasing in mass
there is a paradox of why the universe seems to be expanding.
1935-08-18: Expanding Sun Will Explode Someday Tesla Predicts (Kivonatok a cikkből)

Condensation of the primary substance is going on continuously, this being in a measure proved, for I have established by experiments which admit of no doubt that the sun and other celestial bodies steadily increase in mass and energy and ultimately must explode, reverting to the primary substance

Yeah thats it. The Condensation of the primary substance increases the mass on the universe.
As far a I can determine gravity is caused by physical waves set up by dynamical charges or
pressures of some sort.

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:29 AM
reply to post by loves a conspiricy

you see i hear people say this but i have to disagree, because there are things that exist that i am unaware of, that i may find out exist later today, or later this year.......

So how can they only exist through my perception or my mind when i dont even know they exist and somebody else, who i have never of heard of could discover it at any time.


posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by JiggyPotamus

i AGREE. Stars far away may have died, and it would take years to find out, but we do know that our star THE SUN, is still alive and kicking (on a 7 min delay). Therefore, since the sun exists in the "universe" the universe still exists.

Now, if the universe was doing a reverse big bang, as in contracting, we would know it. Like when you throw a ball up in the air, the velocity decreases to a point where it changes direction (velocity = 0), and then will increase again in the other direction. Right now we know that the galaxies are increasing in acceleration all going away from each other. So as far as we know the whole universe is expanding, and "is" there.

Our sun is not the oldest, nor the youngest, therefore you can postulate that the universe is still here, because there are newer stars, etc. For instance if you have a fish tank, and you keep seeing young baby fish, then you have a thriving environment for fish, and the "fish tank universe" is there and alive. If you stop seeing baby fish, then you also may stop seeing adult fish one day, and therefore the tank would be dying.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:53 AM
What we see could well be our brain in the mirror. The brain cells closely resembles the universe. Is the brain successfully projecting something for us to explore?

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in