A universe without purpose

[bemildred]

The illusion of purpose and design is perhaps the most pervasive illusion about nature that science has to confront on a daily basis. Everywhere we look, it appears that the world was designed so that we could flourish.

The position of the Earth around the sun, the presence of organic materials and water and a warm climate — all make life on our planet possible. Yet, with perhaps 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone, with ubiquitous water, carbon and hydrogen, it isn't surprising that these conditions would arise somewhere. And as to the diversity of life on Earth — as Darwin described more than 150 years ago and experiments ever since have validated — natural selection in evolving life forms can establish both diversity and order without any governing plan.

As a cosmologist, a scientist who studies the origin and evolution of the universe, I am painfully aware that our illusions nonetheless reflect a deep human need to assume that the existence of the Earth, of life and of the universe and the laws that govern it require something more profound. For many, to live in a universe that may have no purpose, and no creator, is unthinkable.

But science has taught us to think the unthinkable. Because when nature is the guide — rather than a priori prejudices, hopes, fears or desires — we are forced out of our comfort zone. One by one, pillars of classical logic have fallen by the wayside as science progressed in the 20th century, from Einstein's realization that measurements of space and time were not absolute but observer-dependent, to quantum mechanics, which not only put fundamental limits on what we can empirically know but also demonstrated that elementary particles and the atoms they form are doing a million seemingly impossible things at once.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-krauss-cosmology-design-universe-20120401,0,4136597.story

[handmade34]

1. ...

[Voice for Peace]

2. love this, big rec

Living in a strange and remarkable universe that is the way it is, independent of our desires and hopes, is far more satisfying for me than living in a fairy-tale universe invented to justify our existence.

I think the most basic urge in us, other than survival needs,
is to experience enjoyment. We've disregarded the value
of feeling good as an immediate priority, the way it is in
childhood. Yet everything we do, no matter how we explain
or intellectualize it, is in pursuit of feeling good. I don't believe
there is an exception to that statement.

There is a built-in urge towards the beautiful & vast; & there
is pleasure in that. The universe is magical and amazing,
constantly changing, everything evolving, always, coming in and
out of existence, new surprises all of the time. Science will never
figure it all out. My view of scientists, real ones, is that they're
in it for the fun. The feeling of fascination is a wonderful feeling.

I can't imagine a greater purpose than to be here, be present,
appreciate my existence while I have it.

[bemildred]

8. Reality is not for wimps. nt

[UnseenUndergrad]

23. Except for H.P. Lovecraft.

Bu then, he weren't too right in the head from what I hear.

[rug]

3. Here's a devasting review of Krauss' book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.htm?_r=2

[snot]

4. Disagree (i.e., I don't find it devastating at all).

Basically, both sides are arguing about something that can neither be proved nor disproved.

My approach is, assume there's no one around but us to come up with a purpose, and choose one that's fun and satisfying, such as trying to make the world better.

[bemildred]

9. But how will we know if it's right?

[Voice for Peace]

15. if it feels good and doesn't do any harm

[bemildred]

17. I guess you just have to use the right "metric".

[bananas]

24. A lot of atheists take that approach, but their purpose is "whoever dies with the most toys wins".

For them, winning is fun and satisfying.

[sudopod]

28. wat? nt

[bemildred]

7. He goes all straw man in the first paragraph.

Edit: I don't think he even knows what he means, and he is projecting like mad to make his case.

He ought to know better.

But there is nothing strange in people who know it all getting annoyed with people that say you can't.

Edit: My experience has been that most people get all tangled up in their own language when they try to talk about these questions, because meaning is even more relative than velocity.

[sudopod]

25. Philosopher gets mad at physicist, calls him nerdy.

How novel!

The entire review is a pedantic rant about the meaning of "nothing."

If I want to read a pedantic rant about the meaning of a particular word, I can go to H&M. No need to mention the fact that he really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about with respect to the actual physics.

[rug]

26. He's out of his depth.

David Z Albert, Ph.D., is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the M.A. Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York. He received his B.S. in physics from Columbia College (1976) and his doctorate in theoretical physics from The Rockefeller University (1981) under Professor Nicola Khuri.[1] Afterwards he worked with Professor Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_albert

[sudopod]

27. Then he should know better than to write this:

"But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing. "

How the hell is a clenched fist analogous to virtual particles? The "clenched-fist state" must have an awfully low mass, since it seems to persist for an awfully long time compared to a proton-anti-proton pair.

Either The Rockefeller University (the "The" is, apparently, integral) dropped the ball (unlikely), or Dr. Albert wanted to make sure that the rubes would dismiss the book without buying it by stretching the truth a bit. Unless things have changed dramatically, the book is likely a for-the-public explanation of the theory of eternal inflation, or one of its close kin, in which there is an unending chain of vacuum states in both time directions.

That may not satisfy someone asking "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Well fine, but there's no need to be an ass about it. However, if something like eternal inflation is true, I would ask "Why should there be nothing, rather than something?" since we have vast experience with one, and no proof what-so-ever of the other.

I wonder if this is something personal between the two of them.

[sudopod]

29. Reviews from Amazon.com--Just for balance's sake ;)

"In A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence Krauss has written a thrilling introduction to the current state of cosmology—the branch of science that tells us about the deep past and deeper future of everything. As it turns out, everything has a lot to do with nothing—and nothing to do with God. This is a brilliant and disarming book."-- Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape

"Astronomers at the beginning of the twentieth century were wondering whether there was anything beyond our Milky Way Galaxy. As Lawrence Krauss lucidly explains, astronomers living two trillion years from now, will perhaps be pondering precisely the same question! Beautifully navigating through deep intellectual waters, Krauss presents the most recent ideas on the nature of our cosmos, and of our place within it. A fascinating read."

-- Mario Livio, author of Is God A Mathematician? and The Golden Ratio

"In this clear and crisply written book, Lawrence Krauss outlines the compelling evidence that our complex cosmos has evolved from a hot, dense state and how this progress has emboldened theorists to develop fascinating speculations about how things really began."

-- Martin Rees, author of Our Final Hour

“A series of brilliant insights and astonishing discoveries have rocked the Universe in recent years, and Lawrence Krauss has been in the thick of it. With his characteristic verve, and using many clever devices, he’s made that remarkable story remarkably accessible. The climax is a bold scientific answer to the great question of existence: Why is there something rather than nothing.”

-- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate and Herman Feshbach professor at MIT, author of The Lightness of Being

"With characteristic wit, eloquence and clarity Lawrence Krauss gives a wonderfully illuminating account of how science deals with one of the biggest questions of all: how the universe's existence could arise from nothing. It is a question that philosophy and theology get themselves into muddle over, but that science can offer real answers to, as Krauss's lucid explanation shows. Here is the triumph of physics over metaphysics, reason and enquiry over obfuscation and myth, made plain for all to see: Krauss gives us a treat as well as an education in fascinating style."

--A. C. Grayling, author of The Good Book

"We have been living through a revolution in cosmology as wondrous as that initiated by Copernicus. Here is the essential, engrossing and brilliant guide."

--Ian McEwan

“Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void -- a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss.”

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History

[1620rock]

5. Metaphysics....

Metaphysics is very cool as fascinating ideas and theories cannot be proven nor disproved. It makes for fantastic discourse.

[bemildred]

10. And really strange, interesting arguments. nt

[Kablooie]

6. I know for a fact that I am the center of the universe.

And when I die the universe will cease to exist.

From my viewpoint that is.

[Voice for Peace]

16. exactly, and so is everybody else.

billions of intersecting universes
all wrapped up in one.

[Kablooie]

19. You read my mind. Are you me?

[Voice for Peace]

21. it's possible

but even if I am you, I think I am me, so there's the conundrum.

[cbrer]

11. Doesn't Science also teach us

That you don't get something from nothing? Just because mankind has bastardized the concept of a creator doesn't mean that some sort of force didn't get the universal ball rolling.

And as far as a "purpose of life" goes, our urge to learn, falling behind in order of survival and reproduction, seems to be pretty darn strong.

Even if it's untrue, and logically fallible, it isn't devastating, or other dramatic crushing effect.

I can understand why this article would fall under the OP/ED page...

[GOTV]

12. No. I don't think it does teach us that ...

... I seem to remember from physics that at least in the quantum realm it is well known that pairs of particles will spontaneously appear and then annihilate themselves without cause in the middle of a total vacuum.

[chrisa]

13. Not necessarily anymore - that's the point the article was trying to make, imo.

It is becoming increasingly plausible that something can come from nothing.

[cbrer]

22. Ultimate philosophical purposes aside

It's fascinating to consider getting something from nothing. So I guess the laws of Thermodynamics, and Conservation of energy are being re-evaluated as well?

How weak in spirit are those who are frightened by such discovery?

Cool Beans!

[chrisa]

14. Let's face it - humans are massive egomaniacs

Years after we're all gone - our bodies are atomized, or even the earth ceases to exist, the universe will keep going.

It's typical for us, for the world as we see it, to believe that all of this was all created for us. After all, we are able to sense the world around us - and we're even able to manipulate the world a little bit. However, the universe is greater than any of us. We will never outlive it, no matter how much we try (at least in human, or even machine form). The universe will always win - there's no way to beat a system that you are both a part of and rely on.

[bemildred]

18. I decided it's not my problem.

It's pretty clear we belong here, and it's pretty clear we are not in charge.
So eat your supper and go out and play like a good kid.
That's what I say.

But you are right. We're like ants at the city dump, and we think we own the dump.

[Blue_Tires]

20. kick