Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Tenure

Infinite Universe

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I tried to see if this had been answered already, and the closest I could find was this thread here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...nite%20Universe

Which was more dealing with the problem of free-will in correspondence with some point where 'reality ends' or something. I'm not too sure. It changed into a discussion on the epistemlogical existence of the contents of ones consciousness vs the metaphysical existence of ones consciousness. Even that never seemed fully resolved (one of those arguments that always leaves me confused and angry and unsure if which side is actually right).

Anyway, I was considering the One Minute Case against the Cosmological Argument, that is, the problem of the 'first mover'. Now, of course, I understand that 'existence = universe'. I think what I need clarified first and foremost is: if Objectivism holds the universe as the sum of all its parts, what does it mean when it says - "All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be"? Does this mean the universe is or is not infinite? I thought the existence of existence was bound by all the sub-components that compose existence. If everything in the universe is finite, then so is existence itself.

My second question then brings in quantum physics. That theory that fits best with the nature of reality, is that all matter is energy. This not stating that 'A is B'. It's more similar to saying 'Identity A [a building] is composed of Identity B [bricks], C [mortar] and D [girders]'. Just clarifying that - when I say all matter is energy, I simply mean that the theory holds that when energy slows down, it's state changes into matter.

Now, this theory (and I'm sorry to keep calling it 'this theory'; I don't know if it has a unifying term) holds that matter comes about when energy slows down. When matter was first formed from energy, it was due to the fluctuations of energy, which in certain fluctuations started to slow down, eventually allowing matter to exist for longer and longer amounts of time. I'm sure I'm really hamming up this theory, but I think you can get the jist of it.

The problem seems to arise in the way this solves the problem of a 'first mover'. It states that energy has always existed - fitting nicely with the axiom that existence does, always has, and always will exist. The thing is though, that the conclusion of this is that once entropy runs it's course, the world will eventually return to the previous state of just being energy. Then the cycle begins again, infinitely, forever. If this is true, we run into the problem of our actions being pre-determined to have to happen in one possible iteration of matter.

I'm just getting really hung up and confused on the problem of existence and it's finite vs infinite properties, and what existence specifically means, and I'd really appreciate any help with this problem. It seems the more I read around the subject, the less clarification - as it all seems to be written to convince people who don't first accept the whole 'existence = universe = always existed'. Perhaps I'm just confusing the idea of 'always existed' with infinite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I'm just confusing the idea of 'always existed' with infinite?

The universe is eternal, not infinite. Eternity is the belief that something must always exist. And infinity is the belief that something else must always exist. One view is based in reality and the axiom of existence exists. The other view is based in fantasy and the miracle of creation ex nihilo. For, if the universe is infinite, then it must be constantly creating new existents out of nothing.

For the universe to be eternal does not require that it maintain the same form forever and ever. If the universe goes through periods of being composed of mostly or all energy and then mostly or all matter, then those are the forms it takes throughout eternity. That doesn't change the fact that it exists eternally, and not infinitely.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be"?

Keep in mind that the One Minute Cases are written by people that hang around here: they may or may not be professional intellectuals. As evidence: this sentence is not particularly well structured.

All entities must be finite because in order for something to exist it must have an identity. Infinite does not mean very large, it means approx. the same thing as indefinite. The universe can be said to be infinite in some respects because it doesn't have edges: you couldn't go outside the box that contains the entire universe and say "I'm outside the universe!" because you are part of the universe, i.e. you are one of the set of all existents.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the universe contains an infinite number of existents at any one time: the number of existents that um, exist at any one time is very definitely finite. However, since they can change over time and the universe also spans all time and all change, it might be safe to say that there are indeed an infinite number of possible existents even though some of them aren't actually in existence presently.

I sound like a Dr. Seuss book here, has anyone noticed that? Maybe I should try to rhyme a bit more. Anyway.

I agree that this is somewhat bizarre-seeming and headache-inducing, but I think the problem really arises because people are lazy with their concepts. It's like that horrible Meatloaf song "I'd do anything for love . . . but I won't do that." When you say everything, it really does mean everything, and not just "everything that currently fits into the space in my head" or "everything there is currently some kind of explanation for". Why does this happen? Because you can't concretize "anything" or "everything" or "nothing", and in order to think about a term your mind stubbornly insists on relating it to some kind of concrete so you can visualize it. Concretes are finite. So right there you get into trouble if you try to concretize "universe".

The only solution is to accept that you're stuck with the unconcretized abstraction and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, since they can change over time and the universe also spans all time and all change, it might be safe to say that there are indeed an infinite number of possible existents even though some of them aren't actually in existence presently.

You see, all the stuff about 'eternal' vs 'infinite', I understand. I get that there can be nothing outside of something, and that the universe isn't just a big bubble of something inside a larger vacuum of nothing.

My problem is with the above quote and it's implications on free will. If the above theory is correct, that all matter within the universe goes through an infinite loop of actions, and that an infinite number of possible existents could exist, then that means every action and every person on this planet was bound to happen at some point - the word 'bound' being the operative here, as it means that we are tied to a fate that was always going to happen, and we therefore have no free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see, all the stuff about 'eternal' vs 'infinite', I understand. I get that there can be nothing outside of something, and that the universe isn't just a big bubble of something inside a larger vacuum of nothing.

My problem is with the above quote and it's implications on free will. If the above theory is correct, that all matter within the universe goes through an infinite loop of actions, and that an infinite number of possible existents could exist, then that means every action and every person on this planet was bound to happen at some point - the word 'bound' being the operative here, as it means that we are tied to a fate that was always going to happen, and we therefore have no free will.

I am befuddled as to how your inferences about the universe have any bearing on your own personal experience of having free will. Surely you can see that free will isn't something you have to take at second hand. You can well experience and validate it yourself personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that eventually there will be another iteration of you that will make entirely different choices, ergo you have no free will? How do you arrive at that conclusion? It seems pretty far-fetched to me. Not to mention self-contradictory, because it relies on you and someone else that is very similar to you making different choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am befuddled as to how your inferences about the universe have any bearing on your own personal experience of having free will.

Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether free will really does or does not exist - only what it appears to us?

Are you saying that eventually there will be another iteration of you that will make entirely different choices, ergo you have no free will? How do you arrive at that conclusion? It seems pretty far-fetched to me. Not to mention self-contradictory, because it relies on you and someone else that is very similar to you making different choices.

No. I'm saying that if the universe is in a process of infinitely recycling matter out of energy, then our existence was always bound to happen at some point. All our actions and choices had to happen at some point, due to the nature of infinity. Kind of like that monkeys at a typewriter thing - just because they eventually churn out the complete works of Shakespeare, doesn't mean they have any kind of higher brain function.

I'm not making accusatory comments and I'm not speaking in support of determinism. I understand that I am a volitional being, but my volition seems meaningless if all my choices had to happen at some iteration of matter at some point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not making accusatory comments and I'm not speaking in support of determinism. I understand that I am a volitional being, but my volition seems meaningless if all my choices had to happen at some iteration of matter at some point in time.

Meaningless to whom? Your choices are very definitely of meaning to you. And remember that the monkeys at typewriters thing is a probabilistic statement. You can say that if you roll a six-sided die you will probably get a six on every sixth throw. However, you can still throw it 10,000 times and never get a six. The odds are astronomical, but it can still happen. The die doesn't remember.

Also remember that an infinite amount of time doesn't necessarily mean a very long time. It means that the duration of the existence of the universe doesn't have any edges, because time only exists in a certain context.

You're going to give yourself an aneurysm worrying about this stuff. Okay, no, probably you won't, but you're still trying to think in concrete terms about abstractions that can't be concretized. Of course this is going to lead you into all kinds of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether free will really does or does not exist - only what it appears to us?

You omitted the second part of my statement. I said, "You can well experience and validate it yourself personally". Free will does exist AND you are capable of knowing it. Note also that I am not referring to sense perception in this context but to instrospection - not that it matters, since sense perception is our means of knowledge about the world around us, and introspection, about ourselves - but it does not "appear" as you put it. It is, and by introspecting you can know that it is. It's that simple. If your inferences about the universe had led you to the absurd conslusion that you don't exist, what would you do? Hopefully, before denying your own existence you would instead check your premises. Similarly, you are here confronted with another absurdity - and the solution you ought to pursue is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem seems to arise in the way this solves the problem of a 'first mover'. It states that energy has always existed - fitting nicely with the axiom that existence does, always has, and always will exist. The thing is though, that the conclusion of this is that once entropy runs it's course, the world will eventually return to the previous state of just being energy. Then the cycle begins again, infinitely, forever. If this is true, we run into the problem of our actions being pre-determined to have to happen in one possible iteration of matter.

According to thermodynamics, in a closed system entropy never decreases. If the Cosmos is a closed system then once it goes cold and dead it will stay that way.

The current cosmological investigations indicate that the cosmos will continue to expand, not slow down, not contract. In short no Big Crunch, hence it will not start over. The ultimate future of the Cosmos is dark, cold and very dead, at least according to current theory and evidence.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem is with the above quote and it's implications on free will. If the above theory is correct, that all matter within the universe goes through an infinite loop of actions, and that an infinite number of possible existents could exist, then that means every action and every person on this planet was bound to happen at some point - the word 'bound' being the operative here, as it means that we are tied to a fate that was always going to happen, and we therefore have no free will.

It is wrong to think of the universe "going through an infinite loop of actions." The universe doesn't loop around, like a merry-go-round. It is always changing into something new. Even if the entire universe became energy, that energy would have a particular, new identity, and based on its identity, it would then become some new matter, not necessarily an exact replica of the matter that existed before. The chain of cause and effect would be a new chain, with new connections. Different suns would be formed, different planets, etc.

Even if the exact same material universe was created each time, the existence of free will pretty much guarantees that human history will be different with each iteration of the universe. Free will means that you have a real choice. It means that not all events in the universe are determined. You might alter the course of the universe simply by choosing to eat steak instead of fish for dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the exact same material universe was created each time, the existence of free will pretty much guarantees that human history will be different with each iteration of the universe. Free will means that you have a real choice. It means that not all events in the universe are determined. You might alter the course of the universe simply by choosing to eat steak instead of fish for dinner.

I don’t think this is right. Causality means that the initial conditions determine all consequent states. This is a corollary of causality. This does not deny volition. Free will means that decisions are mental processes engaged by the individual – it does not imply some kind of cosmic randomness.

To rephrase this point in terms of physics, the universe in your thought experiment is not a cycle but a loop. If the loop is eternal, it must be causally isolated, making a looping universe identical to a one-time universe. It is as if all the repetitions cancel out. (If the loop is not eternal, it must be a cycle within a larger universe, so each causally-entangled iteration would be unique.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t think this is right. Causality means that the initial conditions determine all consequent states. This is a corollary of causality. This does not deny volition. Free will means that decisions are mental processes engaged by the individual – it does not imply some kind of cosmic randomness.

I'm not suggesting cosmic randomness. I'm recognizing volitional acts as undetermined and causal events in the universe. Initial conditions determined that a mountain would form in South Dakota. But initial conditions did not determine that humans would choose to carve four faces into it. Man, on account of his volition, has the ability to alter, if only so slightly, the normal, determined course of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Causality means that the initial conditions determine all consequent states.

True, but there needs to be more or you fall into the determinist idea that given an initial condition of particles in our brain, all consequent states are determined. The Objectivist theory of free will rests on the understanding of causality as a corollary of identity: the nature of an entity determines what it does, i.e. what causes it brings about. It does not mean that initial conditions + time = result, but rather initial conditions + time + identity = result. Because the identity of human beings involves having a volitional capacity, we are not reducable to giant, highly complex atomic pinball machines.

A good place to go is OPAR, chapter 2:

The principle of causality does not apply to consciousness, however, in the same way that it applies to matter. In regard to matter, there is no issue of choice; to be caused is to be necessitated. In regard to the (higher-level) actions of a volitional consciousness, however, "to be caused" does not mean "to be necessitated."

An ancient philosophic dilemma claims that if man's actions, mental or physical, have no causes, then man is insane, a lunatic or freak who acts without reason. (This anticausal <opar_65> viewpoint is called "indeterminism.") But, the dilemma continues, if man's actions do have causes, then they are not free; they are necessitated by antecedent factors. (This is the determinist viewpoint.) Therefore, either man is insane or he is determined.

Objectivism regards this dilemma as a false alternative. Man's actions do have causes; he does choose a course of behavior for a reason—but this does not make the course determined or the choice unreal. It does not, because man himself decides what are to be the governing reasons. Man chooses the causes that shape his actions.

As to the idea of the infinite recurrance, there is simply no basis in the facts available to us to support it. What we know is that we can choose. We do not *know* anything (but can rationalize plenty) about infinite cosmic loops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the identity of human beings involves having a volitional capacity, we are not reducable to giant, highly complex atomic pinball machines.

I agree but there is a very important detail which seems to engender a vast amount of confusion. Epistemologically, free will depends on our position as the perceiving entities possessing it. It is not merely that it is our identity that is significant, but that it is our identity. To us, free will is real, and because it is real to us, it is real in the sense of our contextual knowledge because it would be meaningless to go "outside ourselves" to consider or discuss it. The "pinball machine" alternative is unreal because it cannot (at least with present technology) be evidenced; by contrast we have ample evidence by simple self-examination that free will exists. What people want to do is to ask whether free will exists apart from our position as the perceiving entities, which tramples Objectivist epistemology and makes a mockery of the concept of free will. GreedyCapitalist's explanation of the issue is correct.

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're going to give yourself an aneurysm worrying about this stuff. Okay, no, probably you won't, but you're still trying to think in concrete terms about abstractions that can't be concretized. Of course this is going to lead you into all kinds of problems.

Ok, I get now, from this and everything else said, why Free Will still exists regardless of determinism - because it epistemologically exists, and because it doesn't matter whether free-will exists to an outside observer - it only matters that we think it exists.

It still smells a tiny bit of evasion, but then I think about it more, and based on what objective truth is, there's no reason to assume free will doesn't exist; there just lives this eternal spectre of, "yeah, but what if..."

Still, what definitely does seem like evasion is this whole, 'don't try to imagine the beginning of the universe, because it's too abstract'. I don't get that. The first bit of energy, in the very first split-second of time, required no reason to come about? It just seems, that with the Law of Causality, that an eternally recycling universe - in terms of physical matter, not metaphysics - makes more sense overall.

To clarify the position I'm coming from - I'm talking about entropy, and the idea that when the universe has expanded to its furthest point (and that form of abstraction vs concretisation I can understand) the material universe may recycle. I understand the issue is still contested, and that it most likely seems that entropy will just lead to a cold, dead universe made entirely of matter with no energy. But still, I can't help but wonder, again, 'What if...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I get now, from this and everything else said, why Free Will still exists regardless of determinism - because it epistemologically exists, and because it doesn't matter whether free-will exists to an outside observer - it only matters that we think it exists.

It still smells a tiny bit of evasion, but then I think about it more, and based on what objective truth is, there's no reason to assume free will doesn't exist; there just lives this eternal spectre of, "yeah, but what if..."

There is also the fact, as I said before, that you can - not only not assume that free will doesn't exist - but actually validate that it does, in fact, exist. When you say that it "epistemologically exists", I am not sure what that means - for something to be knowable to us means that it metaphysically exists, i.e exists in reality - i.e. exists.

Let me try to explain my reasoning (which is my own, not paraphrasing Objectivism, I should add) this way. We know from introspection that free will exists. This does not however mean that we can validly infer that the matter comprising brain tissue is somehow atomically different from all other matter in the universe. That would be sophistry, an implication of "cosmic randomness" as GreedyCapitalist put it, and unwarranted.

Free will is an aspect of volitional consciousness. What makes it different is not the matter in our heads, but the type of concept it is and how we know it. Human consciousness is different in kind from other concepts. It is based upon knowledge that we gain through introspection, not extrospection. That does not make it unreal. It does however demand that we retain that special context when the subject of determinism arises. Just as we could not make valid inferences about brain matter from our knowledge of free will, neither can we deny that which we know to be true - that free will exists - based on inferences concerning the external world. So my questions to you are these. Do you grasp, based upon your self-knowledge, that you have free will? Can you see that it is a valid and important concept for you? Can you see, therefore, and in context, why it is inappropriate to bring determinism to bear on that concept?

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to revive this topic after a conversation with DragonMaci (Kane) - Can the universe expand? If the universe is everything, what is there for it to expand into? Are there walls on the limits of the universe or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to revive this topic after a conversation with DragonMaci (Kane) - Can the universe expand? If the universe is everything, what is there for it to expand into? Are there walls on the limits of the universe or what?

Suppose the universe consists of a bunch of objects (stars or what-not). In any given direction, one of them would have to be the "most remote object in the universe."

What would happen if you built a rocket and flew out past that object? Well, then you and your rocket would become the new most remote object in the universe.

The size of this universe would be given by the distribution of objects within it. The objects could all be moving away from each other -- that would give you an "expanding universe."

What are they expanding into? I suppose you could call it "empty space." But empty space is not a thing, and so cannot be counted as part of the universe. Space is a potential, just like the set of real numbers is a potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see where you're going, but I think you'll need to explain it a bit further to me. I understand there's nothing 'outside' the universe, but what sort of location are you moving into? I mean... even outer-space isn't a perfect vacuum, there's all sorts of stuff flying about. What's this potentiality you speak of?

P.s. I like your avatar. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see where you're going, but I think you'll need to explain it a bit further to me. I understand there's nothing 'outside' the universe, but what sort of location are you moving into? I mean... even outer-space isn't a perfect vacuum, there's all sorts of stuff flying about. What's this potentiality you speak of?

My definition of "space" is "the set of all possible places that can be occupied by any object." This covers both the colloquial usage (the "space" in a room) and the mathematical and cosmic usages.

"Places" in turn are specified in terms of distances to other objects and angles between them.

"Distances" in turn are defined in terms of "length," and "length" is a property of an object. The distance between two objects is the length of the (hypothetical) object that would fit between them.

"Angles" can be described in terms of proportional lengths, but it's complicated. (Think of similar triangles.)

So "space" is actually a fairly complex concept. But it is not a thing in itself, it's a set of possibilities.

Be careful not to reify it. (Many cosmological theories do just that, and it may be a fundamental error.)

A couple of notes on this:

-- Just because space is an abstraction doesn't mean it's unreal. It's real, but it's a property of entities and where they can be positioned with respect to each other. It does not exist independently of the entities, just like, if I have 428 potatoes, the "428" doesn't exist apart from the potatoes. The "428" is a property of the potatoes, namely, their number.

-- It is also possible to consider such things as "curved space" such as non-Euclidean space. These do not reify space either; they specify how distances can change when entities move in certain ways (e.g., "parallel").

Finally, these are my own thoughts (and the previous post, too), and I have not checked them against ITOE yet. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand there's nothing 'outside' the universe, but what sort of location are you moving into?

And anything that would be "outside" of the universe would in fact be the universe, so as you recognize, there is no "outside" of the universe.

I certainly understand that it is important to explore this issue, but (as I'm sure you understand) it can only be discussed in terms of theory. No one has been to the outer reaches of the universe. No one has even seen the outer reaches of space through the best most super-duperist of telescopes. I'm not even aware of any evidence that is known to man what the fringes of our universe holds (if there are even fringes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- Just because space is an abstraction doesn't mean it's unreal. It's real, but it's a property of entities and where they can be positioned with respect to each other. It does not exist independently of the entities, just like, if I have 428 potatoes, the "428" doesn't exist apart from the potatoes. The "428" is a property of the potatoes, namely, their number.

If you add one more potato to a -pile consisting of 428 other potatoes- how have you altered any properties possessed by any of the the other 428? 428 is a property of the -pile-, not any potato in the the pile.

Would I be incorrect to assume you deny the existence of the empty set?

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if Objectivism holds the universe as the sum of all its parts, what does it mean when it says - "All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be"? Does this mean the universe is or is not infinite?

There are two ways that the universe may be finite or not, to my knowledge, and neither seem particularly problematic to me. The first way is for the universe to be "very big", which seems to be permitted by the phrase, "but the set of entities [in the universe] need not be [finite.]" Here, as I recall discussing in another thread, one simply claims that for any finite list of spatiotemporal existents that you may conjure, there is always some such existent not on the list. This works in much the same way that the natural numbers work. Create any finite list and you will always miss at least one. While I know of no specific proof that this describes reality, scientists claim to have good evidence for the case. So I take this description as at least more likely than not.

Does this mean that the universe, being infinite, is without definition? I don't see why it should. A comprehensive listing is not a definition. If it were, then we would have no definition of the natural numbers. However, if you ask me to tell you what are the natural numbers, and you gave me no effective limit on the amount of time I have to tell you which are the natural numbers, I could sit here forever and list off each and every one. Likewise, in reverse, you could think of any thing you want and ask me, "Is this a natural number?" and I would answer "Yes," or "No," correspondingly with perfect accuracy. Hence it seems we have an effective definition of an infinite set. That is because the members of the set are perfectly distinguished from every thing that is not in the set, and everything not in the set is perfectly distinguished from things in the set. We could just as well apply this to the universe, assuming it is "very large". You could ask me to show you every single thing in the universe and, given infinite time and unlimited locomotive power, I could show you everything. Likewise, show me anything you like and I could tell you whether it is in the universe or not. The later is not much of a hurdle to clear when every answer is going to be "Yes," unless you ask me about a thing that does not exist.

The other way for the universe, or any defined set of stuff, can be infinite is by being "very small". That is, by being infinitely divisible. Though this concept is not expressly contradicted by the quote, "All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be," the quote does seem to imply that nothing can be infinitely divisible. Yet I don't see why this should be. Suppose that you have a rock, which we call X, and you divide it into two and get pieces X_1 and Y_1. You then divide X_1 to get X_2 and Y_2, and so you carry on this pattern. For what reason must you reach some point at which your division must cease? At every stage you must have a piece that, following the pattern of naming used above, is named X_n for some finite n. But why must there be a particular greatest number that n could be? Put another way, it seems perfectly possible that for any given X_n, there will be an X_n+1 and Y_n+1. Each particular part X_n for any finite n will be well-defined. I will be able to show you each X_n, granted unlimited time and divisive power, and for every thing you show me I can tell you whether it's an X_n or not. How can I ensure the later? Well, give me unlimited time and I will produce every X_n for each finite n. If the thing you show me is an X_n, I will produce it at some finite stage. If it is not, I will never tell you that it is an X_n. The only hitch is that if you show me something that is not an X_n and ask me whether it is and X_n for some finite n, I will not have a test to show that it is not one. That is, I could never tell you, "This is not an X_n." Is that important for a definition? I don't think so. It would never lead me into error. That is, I would never say "This is an X_n," when it's not. And I would never say, "This is not an X_n," when it is. And moreover, everything will either be an X_n or not an X_n--it's just that in some cases, I must always remain agnostic.

Still, what definitely does seem like evasion is this whole, 'don't try to imagine the beginning of the universe, because it's too abstract'. I don't get that. The first bit of energy, in the very first split-second of time, required no reason to come about? It just seems, that with the Law of Causality, that an eternally recycling universe - in terms of physical matter, not metaphysics - makes more sense overall.

I don't see why this should be. Let's say that the universe recycles. Where did this whole process of recycling come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there any existence at all? Whether you have a universe that recycles or one that has a beginning and an end, it is nonsense to ask, "Why is it here?" You must first start with the fact that it is here. That is automatic and given. To try to go underneath that fact is to try to go underneath an axiom. If you want to question an axiom, well, you're on your own.

I see no problem with the idea that the universe had a "first moment". And if you ask me, "What made it exist?" I would say that the question is unintelligible. It was, by definition, the first moment. Nothing preceded it, so nothing could make it exist. It just was. In the same way that the universe "just is" and needs no explanation for being, the first moment "just was".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand there's nothing 'outside' the universe, but what sort of location are you moving into?

Tenure, let me give you a quote from Dr. Peikoff, which you won't find on your O'ist CD-ROM. It's from his "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series from 1976, in Lecture 2, it's also in the Lexicon. This quote has helped me tremendously understand things about the universe, that I never could have grasp myself, even through all the material that I had read, all the years of headache were totally relieved when I had read this:

The universe is the total of that which exists - not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can b no such thing as the "cause of the universe...

Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is "outside the universe", if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase "outside the universe" has no referent. The universe is everything. "Outside the universe" stands for "that which is where everything isn't." There is no such place. There isn't even nothing "out there": there is not "out there."

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×