Yes these are great questions to ponder that I also enjoy looking into on different levels but I keep coming back to years ago reading the bible when it says man will never know or prove the works of God ? So u can see my dilemma lol
Or maybe the reason you exist is to be a good pet owner- make your pets lives pleasant and comfortable. It can be if you want it to be, anyways, I know the reason I treat my pets well is because I want my impact on the world to be positive
Robert, maybe you already have found your own reason or meaning.(or at least a part of it) . And its to create this channel, make those interviews and share with all of us. I really like the way you listen so opposite opinions, of different cultures and religions. For agnostic people like me its a treasure. With every chapter we are probaly a bit closer to the truth.
Your programs are among my two or three YT favorites. I greatly appreciate your intellectual take on the questions we should all be asking ourselves. Mostly, you respect your viewers. We're not all mouth-breathers and dolts. Thanks.
I love the idea that the reason for the cosmos to exist is to create diversity. :) In my opinion, this would even make more sense in a multiverse - because what could be more diverse? And as other people have pointed out, we, as intelligent beings, are the only way for the cosmos to know itself. To reach this kind of complex minds (through evolution) might also be a part of the "purpose". But I still have to agree with some of the people here (who've already commented on this video) that all this longing for meaning and an answer to the question "why" might be very naive and simply reflect our way of (primitive / subjective) thinking. However, this should not get us to give up. We should try to think about this as objectively as possible though. Always keep an open mind.
If there is a creature in the Universe, such as us humans, that can even think of the question posed here perhaps that in itself reveals that the Universe can have a reason.
The purpose of the Cosmos is ever more differentiation from the ONE that created it. Every more complex ever more dynamic ever more expansive and creative. When you have eternity and a sandbox to play in. Simple sand castles would get boring fast so you find new ways to entertain yourself.
‘If we create our meaning in a world that doesn’t have meaning does that make our meaning artificial?’ That’s exactly my thought. If we really endorse physicalism-claiming only materials (and laws governing them) are ‘really real’ we end up _having to_ live with two sets of books. On the one hand, formally, in the book of theory what real is well-defined… but in practice? In our lives we (who endorse seeing things as they really are and holding no illusions) will have to (bafflingly) ‘celebrate’ making things up: making up meaning, making up values, making up morality-justice, etc. On the one hand pretending there is nothing braver than facing the cold facts as they are and on the other hand celebrating ourselves as ‘creators’ of what we say is not there.
Just a response to the first question. If our meaning is artificial, then what would real meaning be? If you cannot show a difference between them, then 'artificial' and 'real' cancel each other out. Both terms are meaningless in this context.
Well stated. So if not physicalism, what --ism will lead us to a better perspective? To its credit physicalism has, at its lower level, an easy field upon which to develop the thinking skills.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 I’m a Christian - so that’s been the alternative for me. The physical being the _only_ thing that is real (physicalism) seems to me to be, as I say, something you can believe ‘officially’ but probably not enact practically.
@@fearitselfpinball8912 Let's say physicalism is scientifical, being scientifical does not mean one has lost one's intuitive sense. There is no doubt that some questions about the world are easier to understand than others. I find myself on the fence with the 'two sets of books' analogy. On the one hand is Stephen Hawking's Model Dependent Reality model and the difference between classical machines and quantum mechanics (two sets of books) and on the other hand, just developing our thinking skills to finer and finer degrees of discrimination. I suppose jumping to intuition is another set of books.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 sounds confusing… for me it boils down to whether believing that only matter (or the physical) is real is enough to live by. I like science, math-thinking well is important. There’s more though, in my opinion.
The universe isn't as exciting as Star Wars has made it out to be but also not as mysterious and impossible to know as others would like to suggest. We can know a few things, particularly about life in the universe and its scaled comparison to conquest, trade and resource depletion on Earth. Two book recommendations I have are Life in the Universe (Summers) and the Allies of Humanity, starting with book 1.
Thanks Alison, I have read both of these books and I can definitely vouch for them, they put things into perspective for me...not like Star trek either!!!
Does it surprise me that life in the universe is different than depicted in the fantasy of (hopeful) speculators, books and motion pictures. No, it doesn't. I'll take recommendation one. Thanks!
My apologies Professor, The Very Very Remarkable question you always asks and still asks.. and now still questioning... Professor for all years long..long very long.. Professor Robert you have always had the Truth deep in your mind and soul and always will be that you have GOD.. I know you deep inside you never resist GOD but trying so hard to prove GOD. Thank You Professor.. Mother Mary🙏🙏🙏😭😭😭
My apologies Professor, the reason of my comments is causing by my admiration and adoration of your truly hard works that came from your TIMEs..😭, your Devotions 💗 and your Loves💝. Thank you Professor.. never end never stop.. LIFE💝
@paul berent There's another explanation, no matter how pyramids would be positioned, they would align with some bright stars or some other geometrical feature would point to Orion constellation.
@paul berent Are you sure, Orion is not a solar system, those stars are far apart in reality, so it doesn't have a permanent shape. I don't see anything aligned to Orion, they were building a downtown of some sort, position of those structures was just a matter of convenience. They did align pyramids north south, but i doubt they used magnets, they probably deduced orientation from apparent motion of a sun over the sky. And no, they didn't have any idea there are other stars and planets when looking at night sky, would you believe that just by looking at moon and stars? Maybe moon could be a world, but it had to be quite small land and pretty close by, where nothing interesting ever happen except it change position, shape, size and brightness. There was no space for ancient civilizations, sky was a dome, moon and stars were part of atmosphere, only Earth was infinite and mostly flat.
there are no galaxies .. not even this one.... think about it even science tells us all tat exists are subatomic particles... just a perception of a physical reality.... atoms just protons electrons neutrons.. no actual flesh and blood JUST A PERCEPTION... a VIRTUAL REALITY...
Massive Stars make all the elements not just helium. You can call them Bob the builders. Small stars like the sun are much more long lasting and constant in their energy output so they are great to take care of life on or in The planets that have a chance for life.
...Please indulge my thinking. I am just blown away by the massive understanding/knowledge of man. The wonderful inventions of both the Past, Present, & Future. With the immenseness of the Cosmos, other life would be obvious, yet with sensitivity of monitoring equipment, none has surfaced. t birth we are blank & empty. Yet without gifts/talents we can build on to great relations. My twist. Earth is super special, man can grow to great heights. I believe our goal in early & later is to continue to add to our knowledge/wisdom & prepare for the next level, joining with our Creator, GOD. In my imagination I conceive of many fine existence. To me the immenseness of the Cosmos, speaks volumes of GOD. Please do not just discount my thoughts. We should continue to develope our gifts/talents in preparation, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...my Brothers & Sisters...
Wonderful analysis, thank you Mr. Kuhn! I just want point out that we should not be astonished that the cosmos is comprehensible. We are part and product of this cosmos and as such our faculties are in consonance with the cosmos at all levels. Now, is there a reason? It depends. If we assume that we have free will and that there is purppose in our existence then yes, there is a reason. But more importantly, we should ask if humans are a teleological creature in the sense that we have free will and there is a purposful agency in us, then we must, especially those that accept that ther is no purpose in nature (Monod etc) must answer the question, if the cosmos is under non-purposful forces how did we emerge as a purposeful being? Because chance alone is just a not acceptable explanation, it only hides our ignoance. How then can a purpseless cosmos generate forms of organized matter that can be self-directed and that can have puprose engrained in their activities? This also pertains to the origin of life. How is it possible that non-directed forces generate purposeful, self-directed order?
Can the cosmos have a reason? I think the answer to that question would be in the understanding of if it serves a purpose, one purpose is that it houses life, another purpose is that it regulates life so it's purpose seems to be centered around life especially with all the fine-tuning that is necessary for life to come about. so you could say life gives it a purpose and that the reason is in the purpose that it serves.
I am bhuddist and i belive the universe thought about a thing and was so interested in it, it thought about it alot. It made more, then it thought about it more and combined the thing. We are its interest, we are it, and we will become one again. Its a cycle that was started and will end, after is the real unknown.
Kuhn himself would agree this is therapeutic for him. When he's asking rebuttals or question after question with each interviewee, it's not for us the viewers. This is purely to *soothe* his own mind. Fascinating to see this played out.
The answer to the question is simple. The reason for the cosmos is to find out the answer to the question. One day the cosmos will find out the answer.
I think the answer to "does the Cosmos have a reason?" is a bit of an odd one really... We've all heard the big words describing God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-this and omni-that... but those all are vantage points outside of creation... When the Master said that "the kingdom of heaven is within", he was alluding to a pre-personal spirit fragment of God that indwells the minds of people. And we usually think of that Still, Small Voice in terms of it helping us to make better choices. But it's more than that, it's a two way street... via this spirit, the Divine Father experiences what we experience. This is the Father's way of having subjective experiences of creation... and this is one of the reasons for the Cosmos... IMHO ❤ Another likely reason, is so that God can have a really big family... and where better to put them, than in a cosmos? 😉
Interesting to consider that the universe presents itself to us via our senses and their extensions, our scientific devices. If we are --- as it seems --- the only life in the universe, and one day we just disappear for whatever reason, then the universe has no awareness to perceive its own existence. We have this huge amalgamation of mass and energy that exists for no reason at all. It's just there because it's there. It's difficult to consider that the universe really does have no meaning whatsoever.
Why do you think we humans have the intellect we do? It's in order to have the ability to study and manipulate this planet and create with all of our collective potentials. The fact that this is even still a question is truly absurd!
Just on Michael's point, if one follows that reasoning then the universe has the same type of reasons than stars and humans; the fact that there is something rather than nothing implies the cosmos's reason or purpose is to exist since that is what it has been doing for trillions of years, the principles clearly defines that there is rather something than nothing. What do you think?
This is a perfect example of essentialism thinking. It looks deep, and will always end up in mumbo-jumbo. What it’s life? is another kind of essentialist question. Karl Popper explains what it is, its origin (Aristotle) and why it's wrong. He starts with, what's a puppet? But the real question is What's a young dog. In essentialism, you start from the words and then you try to find out the properties. With the scientific method, you start from the properties and then you use a term to point to those properties but the term the word is of non-importance. To the question can the Cosmos have a reason? the answer is like a box of chocolate, you always find a reason to eat one. :) book: Karl Popper: The open society and its enemies, Volume 2, chapter 11
I dissected time into its pieces and now I know what makes it work. You know the rest and you’d kick yerself. You must first kick the habit of finding how and why together. Then the reason becomes no longer redundant. Adjacent possible verse least action and probability, two schools. But these ideas are far better than the other stuff I’m hearing. I mean I agree but I got simpler models that work exactly with this, maybe. Great stuff.
Food for Thought 👍👍 But, questions can never end... a) If You find the most/last fundamental particle... the very next question will be..."From where this last fundamental particle came?" b) If You find God... the very next question will be..."From where God came?" c) If You say this last fundamental particle/God existed always.... the next questions will be... "Who/Which rule decided that the God is to be good/powerful/one etc. (Why not many Gods/less powerful God/evil God)" "Which rule decided that the last fundamental particle will have these properties only, which it will possess...why not some different properties?" "How can an immaterial God make something material? What is the process behind this conversion?" What is the energy source of an immaterial thing by which it can sustain? etc. etc. Therefore in spirituality/Yoga they say that we should focus on achieving Supreme Happiness (Happiness/Bliss that never goes away). Even if we find everything in the universe, ultimately we will achieve satisfaction/happiness. So, they say don't give much importance to knowledge (because questions can never end)...but give importance to the path which leads you to a state of default/supreme happiness, which once achieved never ever goes away.. God is nothing but this state. Once we achieve this state, they say, we are no different from God...then, we become God.
Wow did I love this show! Beautifully steered as always.. HOPEFULLY commenters can learn the common thread of wisdom here, that NO belief is unassailable, and that all beliefs have built-in assumptions.. That being said, it's my humble opinion that we should be striving to reduce the number of assumptions made, ESPECIALLY those that are not falsifiable.. IF we can understand reality, mathematics and physis is CERTAINLY the most realistic approach.. Peace.
Unfortunately, mathematics and physics are ill-equipped to deal with metaphysical questions such as this one. And both mathematics and physics are based on axioms. That is, postulates that are not meant to be proven. Therefore, mathematics and physics also have built-in assumptions, as you note. Thus, they also constitute belief systems.
@@videos_iwonderwhy Exactly right, the scientific method and worldview are based on core assumptions BUT, math supports these assumptions.. Alternately metaphysical considerations are not supported by ANYTHING physical.. They are not falsifiable.. They make no testable predictions.. Philosophy gave birth to the scientific method, so its role was obviously important.. Nothing before or since has equalled that contribution..Peace friend.. I appreciate your response..
@@videos_iwonderwhy thank you. I get a little tired of people trying to be white knights and pretending that small S "science" is the only way forward despite its glaring limitations. Or that like to assume that science itself is practiced in a vacuum free of intuition, belief, fraud, or bias. They only focus on the good stuff.
The answer has been there for ages. Great thinkers of the past have pointed to G-d for the answer. The G-d hypothesis, whether you think it impinges on your freedom or comfort level or not - is quite plausible and serviceable. You should accept that as a provisional explanation until you find something better, or you find a defeater for the hypothesis. In other words - don't fix it if it ain't broken. Keep the status quo.
Our mental abilities allow and even demand that we ask questions about what role we have to play in this universe. This is a metaphysical question and historically and currently the best answer is purposeful creation by an inexplicable entity who has a purpose and we are part of it. God then is everything or nothing and we love to argue the question.
might quantum wave(s) / fields be energy? is there a way that squaring the quantum wave function through Born's rule to give the probability of locating a particle has to do with E = m * c-squared?
Pretty smart conclusion. Explanation has to end somewhere (Wittgenstein), brute fact or a rule/law that governs things. Fine. About it, it makes no sense to ask, "why"? Kuhn's conclusion, that THAT is "necessary" makes sense. Because THAT would set the nature and limits on actuality and possibility.
Abiogenesis is a myth. Life is fundamental and creates subordinate environments and objects as symbols to experience meanings. The Semantic Interpretation of quantum theory provides a compelling explanation and can be learned here: ashishdalela.com/beginners/
There is no purpose. We just are what we are because we are lucky to have evolved. The universe is just particles, and fields. I just don’t understand why some people think there must be a purpose to everything.
@@melgross Probably because you are conflating some prescribed supernatural purpose with natural purpose and function. What is the purpose of being a turtle? To live the life of a turtle. What is the purpose of the universe? To express the potentials of itself. What is the purpose of a human being? To realize the potentials of being human and live a human life. Hello. For each thing, the purpose is to express itself.
@@e-t-y237 saying “natural purpose” doesn’t change anything. In order for something to have a purpose, it must have a will and desire to fulfill that purpose. So, the universe can’t gave a purpose without it having a will. And if it has a will, it is, in some way, sentient. If it’s sentient in some way, then we’re back to the beginning.
@@melgross So you've gone from saying "there is no purpose" to conceding there is purpose to turtles, human beings, all sentient creatures ... this while trying not to admit your about face. Each thing has purpose and finds meaning according to its nature. This is also true of the universe itself, which is a giant quantum computer, is the ground of sentience, and moves with intent toward learning and realizing. Go fish with your shallow, deceptive, obsolete BS.
@@e-t-y237 not exactly. I never said that people don’t do things purposefully, or most animals. There is no purpose to us, but we, as individuals do things with our own purpose, which is very different. A rock has no purpose, neither does the universe, it just is.
To me the reason of the cosmos is existence with time being the reason for space and things need to happen for the time to pass. Entropy is what makes things happen and at the same time it makes complexity a necessity, complexity makes order and life is an inevitable results of all of this. To me it is how it is because this is the only way it could be.
Is it not enough to know we are "of this planet" as are all our fellow creatures? We live in a cosmic shooting gallery and there is no question if the next big asteroid hits but when . Our stay is temporary and when we pass I doubt we will be missed. With every passing day, our relevance is diminished. I suggest you make the most of your days.
If we ever get to the historical point of having definite proof of any kind that the universe has a Reason ... we, you get it intuitively when you forget about the questioning entirely, cause the question is what throws in the doubt in your very being the question and answer space ... and then, the awareness of what seems undeniably an understanding presence, expects a reward also with such answer ... a kind of an self decorative annihilation attempt, momentarily risking madness and in the process realizing ones reason returning . Its all a yes and and a no
'Things in the cosmos have a reason.' My idea is that the cosmos per se cannot have a reason because the cosmos is not just another thing in the cosmos. Things IN the cosmos have a reason. The cosmos just is. Any supposed reason for the cosmos must be an infinite regress of the reason for the reason, and the reason for that reason, ete.
Yes cosmos is fully knowledgeable and does everything for reasons and purposes. To remain as infinite it has to keep converting itself to materials and again back to original consciousness
It must logically have a reason for its existence, as regards precisely what factor(s) caused and/or made it possible for the universe to exist. If such factor(s) do(es) not originate with an intelligent Creator, the reason is simple. When such factor(s) do(es), the reason is complicated.
There's an infinite regress when appealing to a reason given by some higher power. Whatever is at the end(if there is) of the chain of reason would have to just 'be', making any reason predicated upon it completely arbitrary. We're just continually passing back the torch of existential angst to a false authority that in itself has no opinion on the matter.
There's not necessarily an infinite regress in the claim of a god (Turtles?).. One can SAY there is a God who has existed forever, needing no further steps.. YOU named the other side of the coin though, and EITHER claim equals a self-imposed end to reason.. Peace.
@@Ndo01 It seems painfully obvious to ME however, that mathematically supported Theories like QM,QED, QFT, and GR are the demonstrably superior path forward in hoping to explain reality..ESPECIALLY when compared against the ponderous cacophony of contradictory claims represented by theism.. A humble opinion..
@@billnorris1264 Explaining reality and finding reason are separate pursuits imo. Physics is undoubtedly the key to explaining physical reality. But I think reason and meaning concern only philosophy, which we need to look no further than our own phenomenological experience to derive.
@@Ndo01 Agreed.. ALL meaning of life is personally derived from solely philosophical considerations..As a secular humanist we place meaning where it belongs, our fellow passengers in this life.. Starting with family and close friends.. broadening to include the welfare of our species, and biosphere..These are 100% philosophical pursuits (As you said) Good comment..
Yes the Cosmos has reason, but understanding the reason one needs to understand the whole story of existence of cosmos or rather what is the Cosmos, or rather why has cosmos evolved in first place. I do have studied this answer.
@@N1otAn1otherN1ame It does have a reason, and a reasonable answer for those who Believe in God,... It's to Glorify God,... and before you scoff too soon you should consider the reasoning,.. To Believe in God, is to Believe He Created the whole universe, with all the stars, galaxies, all the elements, Balanced it all with all the chemistry of which He ALSO Created, all the impossibly intricate biology that makes life even possible, everything you can surmise, and much more you can't even yet consider,.. He Created,... ALL the math discovered and all the life He filled the Earth with,.. so when you wonder why such a broad universe with galaxies with no other life elsewhere but on Earth, it's to Glorify God, and He has made a way to approach Him and it's by Faith, thus, thwarting ones ability to go to, say Mars, where one might think to disprove His existence by finding even a fossilized alga, or bacteria which, as you know has been fruitless,... Making the Earth the Holy grail where the only life in the universe exist, and we can state this because the Book He provides states His throne is set over the city of Jerusalem,.. making it,.. and thus, the Earth,.. the Center of the Universe. And this is a very durable answer if you honestly look at the astronomically impossible odds OF ALL this to have taken place with far too many impossibilities to account FOR all this to have taken place in the first place, which leaves you with the most outrageous other answer lately being bandied about,.. the multiverse,... which is nothing more than a place to bury your head in JUST to keep from even thinking Him possible....This perspective is how one who Believes in Gods existence can rationalize what reality is.
@Stefano Portoghesi you ask the most basic apologetics question there is,. the question cannot be answered and just because it can't by far does not therefore preclude He therefore CAN'T exist, it would seem a rational person would instead ask how all the intricacies OF the universe could somehow just begin from nothing, now THAT'S the real question that begs a palatable answer but yet, so far they come up with a multiverse?????? that has to be the most foolish answer ever given to keep their materialistic view point alive, so,.. I gave my answer, now maybe you can give a reasonable explanation besides the true fairytale of a multiverse,...OF which, mind you,. there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever other than a silly idea made up to keep from conceding their materialistic view to be totally stumped, so please, state your case,..
@Stefano Portoghesi ALL you have offered is an opinion,.. you simple make an unsubstantiated statement that because He is spirit He therefore cannot be the author of a physical world,.. so tell me,.. how you can know such? how can you presume such? It's a fact you don't know in the least that what you're purporting is even remotely true, much less factual as you have presented, ALSO, you cannot account through a materialistic viewpoint ALL the points I presented,...so, through the materialistic viewpoint please tell me, how did the universe simply, for no reason, get ALL the parameters so perfectly right so well that not only does it hold fast,.. but also intelligent life along with ALL the other life we see spring up from mindless nothingness? you know the drill, the odds are as far out as ALL the parts for a 747 jet simply forming themselves AND fall together to make a working, fueled, and ready to fly machine,.. science AND math has shown undeniably these absurd odds, yet materialist just tighten their eyelids down harder to this annoying in your face fact that makes them so uneasy,. they simply will not concede, like in a chess game where if you move your only move, then you know it'll be checkmate, so you simply don't move, so again, please enlighten me on how you KNOW a spirit cannot Create a physical world? -Peace to you-
@Stefano Portoghesi you say this because it's all you know, and this isn't meant to be disparaging,.. just simply the truth,.. the parameters for what can and can't be done beyond what we have discovered is not in the least an obstacle,.. you choose to presume it settled therefore you won't think anything possible above your understanding,.. yet, many who believe this way will actually think it possible that physicality can spring from nothing that was never there and do it so many times (the multiverse fallacy) that one, (in which we reside in) finally gets ALL the impossibilities right so we COULD exist,.. now this comes out of a mind with absolutely nothing other to drive this idea than having the closed settled attitude you apparently have, not one thing that could be construed as evidence other than the dogma of a materialist religion,... this is the glaring flaw in your belief, I can account for everything I Believe and it ALL smoothly fits,.. it's also telling that those who won't give God the possibility would so easily believe alien lifeforms must exist when not a peep has been heard and not even a fossilized bacteria or alga was found on Mars which incidentally is the WHOLE reason they went to Mars in the first place, They were salivating to find just one fossil however few or tiny just to be able to scream to the world that Earth was NOT the holy grail of life those pesky religious people keep claiming,..SO,.. please give good reason how you know it impossible for the Spirit Creator not able to speak reality into existence which is by far more palatable than a multiverse for NO reason to yet, simply decide not once, but over and over again. Peace to you,.. John 3:16
A nothingness was an impossibility; therefore, a somethingness was an inevitability. Nah, I don't know. I only wish that I did. I'd like to know why there was something rather than nothing.
Something You Said if you think about it nothingness is largely outnumbered by somethings like if you want to create nothingness then all the things that exist and can exist should just cease to do so and there's an infinite number of somethings that can and will exist so its just that we find ourselves in a situations where those somethings had an advantage over nothingness. But now if you want to break language, think of the very question that is being asked - why is there something rather than nothing ie why isn't it nothing - ie why doesnt nothingness exist and that last statement proves that everything even nothingness is some thing and that something has to exist inorder for us to even refer it using language and that by the defenition of nothingness would not be possible if pure nothingness was our reality. This perspective shows the inherent instability of either true nothingness or its the boundary of language and an error you get when you use language to refer something that shakes its foundation. But think of it like this, the very reason why we can recognize something or even define it is because we know otherwise ie we know the alternate of something not existing ie nothingness and we are able to distinguish it from a scenario where it exists. Hence nothingness is imperative for something to have meaning when you say it exists ie it is not nothingness. You can take either of that cause nothing in the end really matters.
@@Obnyr well its infinity playing at both the extremes that neither cause nothingness or everythingness (infinite somethings) to materialize and that is to either create any one of the two you have to deal with creating or destroying an infinite set of elements which is where the inevitable instability comes from. So in this perspective nothingness is just another state of the universe just like any other state and there are infinitely many states for existence and nothingness is just one of them and the rest is taken care by probability (when you have infinite somethingness and one state of nothingness). Just like all mathematical sets have a null element nothingness is intrinsic to any set that exists. Now its all good till here except if you read my last statement ie "nothingness is intrinsic to any set that exists". Now that is where things go vague again. What does it mean for a set to exist when there is no elements inside it. Well when you have a group of mathematically definable things then we can put them in a set but here we create a notion of an entity called set before there are any elements that can even define the set. In short is our set defined by the elements in the set or is it the set that defines the elements inside ? Because if its the latter then that would mean that a set by itself is indeed a "something" and pure nothingness would have to eliminate even this "something". And if the former were to be the case then a set without an element doesnt exist at all, so when you have no elements there is no set either. Whether something like a set is just a mathematical construct created for lumping and better understanding elements or whether a set is fundamental and it is the set that creates its elements is something i dont know. The problem is that if you say sets are fundamental and nothingness is just an empty set, you can still ask why are there even sets in the first place and arent they violating your nothingness for you to call it as nothingness in the beginning. You can find more such anomalies in nature - for example numbers - does a number exist even when you cant physically represent it with a thing - well thats what platonic entities are and ofcourse even if they exist it might be hard to understand their causation on the physical world but still that would be the ground where these somethings have the possibility of existing. That leads you to question the existence of the very "ground" itself. And its fascinating that even amidst our incapability of answering the very fundamental of questions we seem to continue to "exist" in this seemingly stable and logical world - i cant think of a better magic trick than that.
@@delq Physicalism is much better than a platonic description of numbers(whole numbers). The abstractions like negative numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions or any other sort of number is just a derived number system from the whole numbers. The integers form an additive group(closed under addition), and their identity element is 0. That is what zero is. Its just a property, that is derived from the integer number group. Again, all logical foundations are based on a physicalist interpretation of numbers, and without that, they don't work. When physicalism needs an extension by abstractions, like concept of infinity, then it is pretty much regulated out of reality. Unfortunately several arguments such as kalam cosmological argument assume that they can use the abstractions provided by physicalists to somehow _"prove"_ their bogus arguments, they fail because physicalism fails at that limit. So all this debate about nothingness and infinities is meaningless, as these are not real. These are just tools created by physicalists using abstractions derived from the whole numbers, which are empirically verifiable.
@@delq Group theory has almost killed this nonsense platonic number idea. But a lot of work has still to be done to make it mainstream in philosophy. Till then idiots will argue on what is real and what is not based on abstractions of a real thing(zero, infinity), rather than real things themselves(whole numbers).
@@delq Also, the big bang should be only seen as expansion, rather than an absolute beginning from nothingness, as physics only indicates it as an expansion, and makes no indication that it starts from nothingness. As far as we know, nothingness is not real in both philosophy and science.
Leaving the technicals out of it for now, of which there are many, focus on the central simple theme. 1. First an energy source, or energy potential is required. 2. secondly, an entity able to exploit that energy has the prospect of evolving form and agency optimized for that mode of existence. An entity that conforms to this scenario, this circumstance of existence, there will be an interpretation of it within terms of the entities form and agencies. Or structure and processes if you prefer. So I'm suggesting that matter, the material universe is such an entity, and it has such an interpretation within terms of its forms and processes. Structures and functions. Nature only has one means of constructing highly ordered complex systems. Life examples its method and first described by Charles Darwinian. Physics and cosmology are subjects of highly ordered complex systems which dont owe their forms and processes to design, and nor is it reasonable that an instantaneous chance creation theory could form such an articulated and interesting material world. I have put the idea to the test, that space possesses an energy potential, and that atoms exploit that energy to generate their atomic activity, via atomic forces. That atoms possess evled forms and processes optimized for collecting and exploiting the energy of space that enables the material universe to exist. The universe is a Darwinian cascade in its entirety, and atomic units accumulated a great level of systematic complexity before eventually they had the potential to spontaneously serve as highly functional building blocks of biology/life. If you will, I suggest you begin by questioning the prospects of there being an energy inhabiting space? And if the known geometries of space might be interpreted as interacting with matter in such a way that suggests it is being exploited by matter? This is not a difficult test and offers spectacular correspondances. I'm talking spectacular
Reason is given by the product a factory can give and generates ,in turn it allows us to build without things that are not being able to work.So reason is the creation of a network within a mathematical structure and others that help create it . This explains freewill and purpose of every person it decides to do for a reason. Edit: without mathematics nothing can possibly work in theory.
The generation is cyclical but purpose is part of that generation only when that generation or the product of that factory decides to creates its own meaning. The factory is just an assistant that allows reason to work.( Intelligent reasoning aka intelligent species)
I can answer the question right now. No. There is no reason for anything to exist, it just happens. People who look for reasons for everything are insecure in the fact that there's so much they don't have answers to.
Since "nothingness" is a not provable fiction, we should assume that the cosmos is infinite. Something infinite can have no reason, because it was always there. To ask for the reason of the cosmos is the question for a beyond of infinity. The question is therefore a contradiction in itself.
First reason is to seek and explore knowledge it's pure happiness to have more and more of cosmos , by interaction of physical laws we come to know how infinite is power of Almighty God who created all and whatever to come ahead with in no time
Yes, there can be a reason and there can be no reason. I believe 50/50 would be the most common scenario. 50% of the times there is a reason and 50% of the times there would be no a reason.
The best way to answer questions like this is to listen to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" - many answers immediately come clear. The only reason why we exist is that we naively believe we exist and "not just there" in this Universe... No logic or reason may explain to humans the essence of being and living through it - simply, harmonically, not expecting answers to any strange question... process prevails over any reason and mind got to be set free as it may.
.. imagine that the Milky Way which is more than 100,000 light years across is only one of so, so many galaxies that are millions of light years away from each other .. in human context, the universe might as well be infinite .. so vast it's terrifying.
Saying there's no reason, to me, seems illogical. Why? The fact that we ask why, where, when, and how everything we encounter came to be as it is tells us that everything has an explanation---a reason---as to why a given object or condition is so. This logically includes the universe. When we ask: "Why does the universe exist?," one thing we're asking is: "How did it come into existence?" So, to suggest that the universe exists for no reason is illogical.
I love this channel. These questions are always in my mind.
Yes these are great questions to ponder that I also enjoy looking into on different levels but I keep coming back to years ago reading the bible when it says man will never know or prove the works of God ? So u can see my dilemma lol
So I'm not alone.
This channel is an important part of my daily life. Thank you Robert Lawrence Kuhn. ❤
I know the reason for my dog, he is my pet and makes me happy and better person
Have you spoken to your dog? How does he feel about you and the situation? You should probably take his opinion into consideration as well.
Or maybe the reason you exist is to be a good pet owner- make your pets lives pleasant and comfortable. It can be if you want it to be, anyways, I know the reason I treat my pets well is because I want my impact on the world to be positive
Dogs live to breed if that is your reason to be happy you are creating nuisance for all directly.
@@नवलशर्मा-ड7ज lmfao
What’s in this for the dog?
Great minds. Brilliant episode.
Robert, maybe you already have found your own reason or meaning.(or at least a part of it) . And its to create this channel, make those interviews and share with all of us. I really like the way you listen so opposite opinions, of different cultures and religions. For agnostic people like me its a treasure. With every chapter we are probaly a bit closer to the truth.
Word!
We are the result of the universe becoming self-aware. It may very well be an accident, but we create our own reasons for meaning.
Your programs are among my two or three YT favorites. I greatly appreciate your intellectual take on the questions we should all be asking ourselves. Mostly, you respect your viewers. We're not all mouth-breathers and dolts. Thanks.
I love the idea that the reason for the cosmos to exist is to create diversity. :) In my opinion, this would even make more sense in a multiverse - because what could be more diverse? And as other people have pointed out, we, as intelligent beings, are the only way for the cosmos to know itself. To reach this kind of complex minds (through evolution) might also be a part of the "purpose". But I still have to agree with some of the people here (who've already commented on this video) that all this longing for meaning and an answer to the question "why" might be very naive and simply reflect our way of (primitive / subjective) thinking. However, this should not get us to give up. We should try to think about this as objectively as possible though. Always keep an open mind.
If there is a creature in the Universe, such as us humans, that can even think of the question posed here perhaps that in itself reveals that the Universe can have a reason.
very good point.
The purpose of the Cosmos is ever more differentiation from the ONE that created it. Every more complex ever more dynamic ever more expansive and creative. When you have eternity and a sandbox to play in. Simple sand castles would get boring fast so you find new ways to entertain yourself.
The emphasis: PERHAPS
@@Grd346 for you
I don't know what to say but: In no way does that follow.
‘If we create our meaning in a world that doesn’t have meaning does that make our meaning artificial?’
That’s exactly my thought. If we really endorse physicalism-claiming only materials (and laws governing them) are ‘really real’ we end up _having to_ live with two sets of books. On the one hand, formally, in the book of theory what real is well-defined… but in practice? In our lives we (who endorse seeing things as they really are and holding no illusions) will have to (bafflingly) ‘celebrate’ making things up: making up meaning, making up values, making up morality-justice, etc. On the one hand pretending there is nothing braver than facing the cold facts as they are and on the other hand celebrating ourselves as ‘creators’ of what we say is not there.
Just a response to the first question. If our meaning is artificial, then what would real meaning be? If you cannot show a difference between them, then 'artificial' and 'real' cancel each other out. Both terms are meaningless in this context.
Well stated. So if not physicalism, what --ism will lead us to a better perspective? To its credit physicalism has, at its lower level, an easy field upon which to develop the thinking skills.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 I’m a Christian - so that’s been the alternative for me. The physical being the _only_ thing that is real (physicalism) seems to me to be, as I say, something you can believe ‘officially’ but probably not enact practically.
@@fearitselfpinball8912 Let's say physicalism is scientifical, being scientifical does not mean one has lost one's intuitive sense. There is no doubt that some questions about the world are easier to understand than others. I find myself on the fence with the 'two sets of books' analogy. On the one hand is Stephen Hawking's Model Dependent Reality model and the difference between classical machines and quantum mechanics (two sets of books) and on the other hand, just developing our thinking skills to finer and finer degrees of discrimination. I suppose jumping to intuition is another set of books.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 sounds confusing… for me it boils down to whether believing that only matter (or the physical) is real is enough to live by. I like science, math-thinking well is important. There’s more though, in my opinion.
Limited thinking will only last as long as the experience is limited.
The universe isn't as exciting as Star Wars has made it out to be but also not as mysterious and impossible to know as others would like to suggest. We can know a few things, particularly about life in the universe and its scaled comparison to conquest, trade and resource depletion on Earth. Two book recommendations I have are Life in the Universe (Summers) and the Allies of Humanity, starting with book 1.
Thanks Alison, I have read both of these books and I can definitely vouch for them, they put things into perspective for me...not like Star trek either!!!
Does it surprise me that life in the universe is different than depicted in the fantasy of (hopeful) speculators, books and motion pictures. No, it doesn't. I'll take recommendation one. Thanks!
I like how Michael Shermer trivializes the pursuit of meaning of life and sits there smug and smiling
He did as little for me
While I can see where he's coming from with some of this, he comes off as pretty arrogant to me.
Shermer is a smug dbag
My apologies Professor,
The Very Very Remarkable question you always asks and still asks.. and now still questioning... Professor for all years long..long very long.. Professor Robert you have always had the Truth deep in your mind and soul and always will be that you have GOD.. I know you deep inside you never resist GOD but trying so hard to prove GOD. Thank You Professor.. Mother Mary🙏🙏🙏😭😭😭
My apologies Professor, the reason of my comments is causing by my admiration and adoration of your truly hard works that came from your TIMEs..😭, your Devotions 💗 and your Loves💝. Thank you Professor.. never end never stop.. LIFE💝
The Cosmos is the Cosmos. The question is meaningless. We, on the other hand, have a reason; to witness the glory of Creation.
I liked Shermer's point that there is no reason except what we choose to ascribe.
"100 years ago, we didn't know that there were other galaxies." Astonishing.
@paul berent They didn't know about red shift, discovered by Mr. Hubble like 70 years ago.
@paul berent The Book of The Dead.
@paul berent There's another explanation, no matter how pyramids would be positioned, they would align with some bright stars or some other geometrical feature would point to Orion constellation.
@paul berent Are you sure, Orion is not a solar system, those stars are far apart in reality, so it doesn't have a permanent shape. I don't see anything aligned to Orion, they were building a downtown of some sort, position of those structures was just a matter of convenience. They did align pyramids north south, but i doubt they used magnets, they probably deduced orientation from apparent motion of a sun over the sky.
And no, they didn't have any idea there are other stars and planets when looking at night sky, would you believe that just by looking at moon and stars? Maybe moon could be a world, but it had to be quite small land and pretty close by, where nothing interesting ever happen except it change position, shape, size and brightness. There was no space for ancient civilizations, sky was a dome, moon and stars were part of atmosphere, only Earth was infinite and mostly flat.
there are no galaxies .. not even this one.... think about it even science tells us all tat exists are subatomic particles... just a perception of a physical reality.... atoms just protons electrons neutrons.. no actual flesh and blood JUST A PERCEPTION... a VIRTUAL REALITY...
Massive Stars make all the elements not just helium. You can call them Bob the builders. Small stars like the sun are much more long lasting and constant in their energy output so they are great to take care of life on or in The planets that have a chance for life.
...Please indulge my thinking. I am just blown away by the massive understanding/knowledge of man. The wonderful inventions of both the Past, Present, & Future. With the immenseness of the Cosmos, other life would be obvious, yet with sensitivity of monitoring equipment, none has surfaced. t birth we are blank & empty. Yet without gifts/talents we can build on to great relations. My twist. Earth is super special, man can grow to great heights. I believe our goal in early & later is to continue to add to our knowledge/wisdom & prepare for the next level, joining with our Creator, GOD. In my imagination I conceive of many fine existence. To me the immenseness of the Cosmos, speaks volumes of GOD. Please do not just discount my thoughts. We should continue to develope our gifts/talents in preparation, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...my Brothers & Sisters...
Wonderful analysis, thank you Mr. Kuhn! I just want point out that we should not be astonished that the cosmos is comprehensible. We are part and product of this cosmos and as such our faculties are in consonance with the cosmos at all levels. Now, is there a reason? It depends. If we assume that we have free will and that there is purppose in our existence then yes, there is a reason. But more importantly, we should ask if humans are a teleological creature in the sense that we have free will and there is a purposful agency in us, then we must, especially those that accept that ther is no purpose in nature (Monod etc) must answer the question, if the cosmos is under non-purposful forces how did we emerge as a purposeful being? Because chance alone is just a not acceptable explanation, it only hides our ignoance. How then can a purpseless cosmos generate forms of organized matter that can be self-directed and that can have puprose engrained in their activities? This also pertains to the origin of life. How is it possible that non-directed forces generate purposeful, self-directed order?
Great answer only believing in the God of the Bible gives you the precondition for intelligence morals and logic.
@@michaelspears4488 your answer is exactly why we can’t take Christianity and the bible seriously.
We are the universe seeing itself isn't that purpose enough
Can the cosmos have a reason? I think the answer to that question would be in the understanding of if it serves a purpose, one purpose is that it houses life, another purpose is that it regulates life so it's purpose seems to be centered around life especially with all the fine-tuning that is necessary for life to come about. so you could say life gives it a purpose and that the reason is in the purpose that it serves.
You’r so very right. And life is important to realize god the one and only greatest creator. And glory him and obey
Reasons need a cosmos to exist.
I am bhuddist and i belive the universe thought about a thing and was so interested in it, it thought about it alot. It made more, then it thought about it more and combined the thing. We are its interest, we are it, and we will become one again. Its a cycle that was started and will end, after is the real unknown.
Very cute. :) I like it.
Kuhn himself would agree this is therapeutic for him. When he's asking rebuttals or question after question with each interviewee, it's not for us the viewers. This is purely to *soothe* his own mind. Fascinating to see this played out.
The answer to the question is simple.
The reason for the cosmos is to find out the answer to the question.
One day the cosmos will find out the answer.
and when it finds the answer that answer will be "to find out the answer to the question"?
I think the answer to "does the Cosmos have a reason?" is a bit of an odd one really... We've all heard the big words describing God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-this and omni-that... but those all are vantage points outside of creation... When the Master said that "the kingdom of heaven is within", he was alluding to a pre-personal spirit fragment of God that indwells the minds of people. And we usually think of that Still, Small Voice in terms of it helping us to make better choices. But it's more than that, it's a two way street... via this spirit, the Divine Father experiences what we experience. This is the Father's way of having subjective experiences of creation... and this is one of the reasons for the Cosmos... IMHO ❤
Another likely reason, is so that God can have a really big family... and where better to put them, than in a cosmos? 😉
Interesting to consider that the universe presents itself to us via our senses and their extensions, our scientific devices. If we are --- as it seems --- the only life in the universe, and one day we just disappear for whatever reason, then the universe has no awareness to perceive its own existence. We have this huge amalgamation of mass and energy that exists for no reason at all. It's just there because it's there. It's difficult to consider that the universe really does have no meaning whatsoever.
then the universe has no awareness to perceive its own existence? Who says ?
The Universe is a manifestation of a living and aware Omniscience.
Why do you think we humans have the intellect we do? It's in order to have the ability to study and manipulate this planet and create with all of our collective potentials. The fact that this is even still a question is truly absurd!
The reason is YOU, who ever you may be.
Just on Michael's point, if one follows that reasoning then the universe has the same type of reasons than stars and humans; the fact that there is something rather than nothing implies the cosmos's reason or purpose is to exist since that is what it has been doing for trillions of years, the principles clearly defines that there is rather something than nothing. What do you think?
Another amazing, epic video about space 😻😻😻😻😻
Essentially, no closer to answering this question than we have ever been.
Universe is the maximum synergy-of-synergies, being utterly unpredicted by any of its parts.
My beleif is that so all things that can happen will happen in every minute way possible to every conscience being. Once will take eternity!
This is a perfect example of essentialism thinking. It looks deep, and will always end up in mumbo-jumbo. What it’s life? is another kind of essentialist question. Karl Popper explains what it is, its origin (Aristotle) and why it's wrong.
He starts with, what's a puppet? But the real question is What's a young dog. In essentialism, you start from the words and then you try to find out the properties. With the scientific method, you start from the properties and then you use a term to point to those properties but the term the word is of non-importance.
To the question can the Cosmos have a reason? the answer is like a box of chocolate, you always find a reason to eat one. :)
book: Karl Popper: The open society and its enemies, Volume 2, chapter 11
The Cosmos IS the reason, it doesn't NEED one.
Great episode! Wow!
I dissected time into its pieces and now I know what makes it work. You know the rest and you’d kick yerself. You must first kick the habit of finding how and why together. Then the reason becomes no longer redundant. Adjacent possible verse least action and probability, two schools. But these ideas are far better than the other stuff I’m hearing. I mean I agree but I got simpler models that work exactly with this, maybe. Great stuff.
Food for Thought 👍👍
But, questions can never end...
a) If You find the most/last fundamental particle... the very next question will be..."From where this last fundamental particle came?"
b) If You find God... the very next question will be..."From where God came?"
c) If You say this last fundamental particle/God existed always.... the next questions will be...
"Who/Which rule decided that the God is to be good/powerful/one etc. (Why not many Gods/less powerful God/evil God)"
"Which rule decided that the last fundamental particle will have these properties only, which it will possess...why not some different properties?"
"How can an immaterial God make something material? What is the process behind this conversion?"
What is the energy source of an immaterial thing by which it can sustain?
etc.
etc.
Therefore in spirituality/Yoga they say that we should focus on achieving Supreme Happiness (Happiness/Bliss that never goes away).
Even if we find everything in the universe, ultimately we will achieve satisfaction/happiness.
So, they say don't give much importance to knowledge (because questions can never end)...but give importance to the path which leads you to a state of default/supreme happiness, which once achieved never ever goes away..
God is nothing but this state. Once we achieve this state, they say, we are no different from God...then, we become God.
Wow did I love this show! Beautifully steered as always.. HOPEFULLY commenters can learn the common thread of wisdom here, that NO belief is unassailable, and that all beliefs have built-in assumptions.. That being said, it's my humble opinion that we should be striving to reduce the number of assumptions made, ESPECIALLY those that are not falsifiable.. IF we can understand reality, mathematics and physis is CERTAINLY the most realistic approach.. Peace.
Unfortunately, mathematics and physics are ill-equipped to deal with metaphysical questions such as this one. And both mathematics and physics are based on axioms. That is, postulates that are not meant to be proven. Therefore, mathematics and physics also have built-in assumptions, as you note. Thus, they also constitute belief systems.
@@videos_iwonderwhy Exactly right, the scientific method and worldview are based on core assumptions BUT, math supports these assumptions.. Alternately metaphysical considerations are not supported by ANYTHING physical.. They are not falsifiable.. They make no testable predictions.. Philosophy gave birth to the scientific method, so its role was obviously important.. Nothing before or since has equalled that contribution..Peace friend.. I appreciate your response..
@@videos_iwonderwhy thank you. I get a little tired of people trying to be white knights and pretending that small S "science" is the only way forward despite its glaring limitations.
Or that like to assume that science itself is practiced in a vacuum free of intuition, belief, fraud, or bias. They only focus on the good stuff.
i admire alot this host
The answer has been there for ages. Great thinkers of the past have pointed to G-d for the answer. The G-d hypothesis, whether you think it impinges on your freedom or comfort level or not - is quite plausible and serviceable. You should accept that as a provisional explanation until you find something better, or you find a defeater for the hypothesis. In other words - don't fix it if it ain't broken. Keep the status quo.
Our mental abilities allow and even demand that we ask questions about what role we have to play in this universe. This is a metaphysical question and historically and currently the best answer is purposeful creation by an inexplicable entity who has a purpose and we are part of it. God then is everything or nothing and we love to argue the question.
This question is continuously explored in my novels. Love this channel
Link to novels?
@@nikkibrannan7204 sure just search Tactile Therapy: Volume One on amazon, google, or goodreads
Cosmos is there because you see it in your wake because you are first a life form that lives.The question should be does life has a reason?
Existence is reason within itself, a necessity
Love that first guy's way of thinking.
might quantum wave(s) / fields be energy? is there a way that squaring the quantum wave function through Born's rule to give the probability of locating a particle has to do with E = m * c-squared?
Pretty smart conclusion. Explanation has to end somewhere (Wittgenstein), brute fact or a rule/law that governs things. Fine. About it, it makes no sense to ask, "why"? Kuhn's conclusion, that THAT is "necessary" makes sense. Because THAT would set the nature and limits on actuality and possibility.
Im the reason the cosmos exist
.......
I recommend reading the Urantia Book. Answers to your fundamental questions are there.
To make sure "things/matter" can exist,forever.
We are the Universe trying to understand itself. How inorganic matter became organic is more important to me.
Abiogenesis is a myth. Life is fundamental and creates subordinate environments and objects as symbols to experience meanings. The Semantic Interpretation of quantum theory provides a compelling explanation and can be learned here: ashishdalela.com/beginners/
The cosmos meaning is self-expression. Likewise, a human being's meaning and purpose is self-expression.
There is no purpose. We just are what we are because we are lucky to have evolved. The universe is just particles, and fields.
I just don’t understand why some people think there must be a purpose to everything.
@@melgross Probably because you are conflating some prescribed supernatural purpose with natural purpose and function. What is the purpose of being a turtle? To live the life of a turtle. What is the purpose of the universe? To express the potentials of itself. What is the purpose of a human being? To realize the potentials of being human and live a human life. Hello. For each thing, the purpose is to express itself.
@@e-t-y237 saying “natural purpose” doesn’t change anything. In order for something to have a purpose, it must have a will and desire to fulfill that purpose. So, the universe can’t gave a purpose without it having a will. And if it has a will, it is, in some way, sentient. If it’s sentient in some way, then we’re back to the beginning.
@@melgross So you've gone from saying "there is no purpose" to conceding there is purpose to turtles, human beings, all sentient creatures ... this while trying not to admit your about face. Each thing has purpose and finds meaning according to its nature. This is also true of the universe itself, which is a giant quantum computer, is the ground of sentience, and moves with intent toward learning and realizing. Go fish with your shallow, deceptive, obsolete BS.
@@e-t-y237 not exactly. I never said that people don’t do things purposefully, or most animals. There is no purpose to us, but we, as individuals do things with our own purpose, which is very different. A rock has no purpose, neither does the universe, it just is.
Why do we need an ultimate "reason" for the cosmos? I don't seek some a godly reason but like digging deeper into the how.
Yes, as life. In this life and the next one stay in the light.
To me the reason of the cosmos is existence with time being the reason for space and things need to happen for the time to pass. Entropy is what makes things happen and at the same time it makes complexity a necessity, complexity makes order and life is an inevitable results of all of this. To me it is how it is because this is the only way it could be.
Is it not enough to know we are "of this planet" as are all our fellow creatures? We live in a cosmic shooting gallery and there is no question if the next big asteroid hits but when . Our stay is temporary and when we pass I doubt we will be missed. With every passing day, our relevance is diminished. I suggest you make the most of your days.
If there is something = there is a reason. Teleology gives us a reason.
If we ever get to the historical point of having definite proof of any kind that the universe has a Reason ... we, you get it intuitively when you forget about the questioning entirely, cause the question is what throws in the doubt in your very being the question and answer space ... and then, the awareness of what seems undeniably an understanding presence, expects a reward also with such answer ... a kind of an self decorative annihilation attempt, momentarily risking madness and in the process realizing ones reason returning . Its all a yes and and a no
All I can think of is the creator when looking at this question.
Refinement is the reason.
how does knowing (epistemology of) the cosmos relate to a reason for cosmos? knowledge from observation, maybe observation from reason?
The cosmos can't have a reason. God has a reason for the cosmos. It's for His Glory.
'Things in the cosmos have a reason.' My idea is that the cosmos per se cannot have a reason because the cosmos is not just another thing in the cosmos. Things IN the cosmos have a reason. The cosmos just is. Any supposed reason for the cosmos must be an infinite regress of the reason for the reason, and the reason for that reason, ete.
We have enough potential to give it a reason.
It´s so interesting!!
Yes cosmos is fully knowledgeable and does everything for reasons and purposes. To remain as infinite it has to keep converting itself to materials and again back to original consciousness
It must logically have a reason for its existence, as regards precisely what factor(s) caused and/or made it possible for the universe to exist. If such factor(s) do(es) not originate with an intelligent Creator, the reason is simple. When such factor(s) do(es), the reason is complicated.
You are the reason, you are not matter...you are what matters.
Thank you.
There are no questions that are theological and not scientific.
Does that mean the questions of science are the questions of theology? Or are there scientific questions that are not theological?
Love is and has no reason nor needs one.
There's an infinite regress when appealing to a reason given by some higher power. Whatever is at the end(if there is) of the chain of reason would have to just 'be', making any reason predicated upon it completely arbitrary. We're just continually passing back the torch of existential angst to a false authority that in itself has no opinion on the matter.
There's not necessarily an infinite regress in the claim of a god (Turtles?).. One can SAY there is a God who has existed forever, needing no further steps.. YOU named the other side of the coin though, and EITHER claim equals a self-imposed end to reason.. Peace.
@@billnorris1264 True, it wouldn't be an infinite regress if we accept the premise that there is indeed such an end to the causal chain.
@@Ndo01 It seems painfully obvious to ME however, that mathematically supported Theories like QM,QED, QFT, and GR are the demonstrably superior path forward in hoping to explain reality..ESPECIALLY when compared against the ponderous cacophony of contradictory claims represented by theism.. A humble opinion..
@@billnorris1264 Explaining reality and finding reason are separate pursuits imo. Physics is undoubtedly the key to explaining physical reality. But I think reason and meaning concern only philosophy, which we need to look no further than our own phenomenological experience to derive.
@@Ndo01 Agreed.. ALL meaning of life is personally derived from solely philosophical considerations..As a secular humanist we place meaning where it belongs, our fellow passengers in this life.. Starting with family and close friends.. broadening to include the welfare of our species, and biosphere..These are 100% philosophical pursuits (As you said) Good comment..
necessity is a reason, first reason, necessite creative, not otherwise
by questioning if there is a reason to cosmos humanity has uniqueness? what role might observability of cosmos play in any reason for cosmos?
THERE ARE INFINITE
NUMBER OF SPIRITS
IN ILLUSORY COSMOS
WITH THE SAME
QUESTION...
WHO AM I ???
Yes the Cosmos has reason, but understanding the reason one needs to understand the whole story of existence of cosmos or rather what is the Cosmos, or rather why has cosmos evolved in first place. I do have studied this answer.
here for the answer
@@N1otAn1otherN1ame It does have a reason, and a reasonable answer for those who Believe in God,...
It's to Glorify God,... and before you scoff too soon you should consider the reasoning,.. To Believe in God, is to Believe He Created the whole universe, with all the stars, galaxies, all the elements, Balanced it all with all the chemistry of which He ALSO Created, all the impossibly intricate biology that makes life even possible, everything you can surmise, and much more you can't even yet consider,.. He Created,... ALL the math discovered and all the life He filled the Earth with,.. so when you wonder why such a broad universe with galaxies with no other life elsewhere but on Earth, it's to Glorify God, and He has made a way to approach Him and it's by Faith, thus, thwarting ones ability to go to, say Mars, where one might think to disprove His existence by finding even a fossilized alga, or bacteria which, as you know has been fruitless,... Making the Earth the Holy grail where the only life in the universe exist, and we can state this because the Book He provides states His throne is set over the city of Jerusalem,.. making it,.. and thus, the Earth,.. the Center of the Universe. And this is a very durable answer if you honestly look at the astronomically impossible odds OF ALL this to have taken place with far too many impossibilities to account FOR all this to have taken place in the first place, which leaves you with the most outrageous other answer lately being bandied about,.. the multiverse,... which is nothing more than a place to bury your head in JUST to keep from even thinking Him possible....This perspective is how one who Believes in Gods existence can rationalize what reality is.
@Stefano Portoghesi you ask the most basic apologetics question there is,. the question cannot be answered and just because it can't by far does not therefore preclude He therefore CAN'T exist, it would seem a rational person would instead ask how all the intricacies OF the universe could somehow just begin from nothing, now THAT'S the real question that begs a palatable answer but yet, so far they come up with a multiverse?????? that has to be the most foolish answer ever given to keep their materialistic view point alive, so,.. I gave my answer, now maybe you can give a reasonable explanation besides the true fairytale of a multiverse,...OF which, mind you,. there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever other than a silly idea made up to keep from conceding their materialistic view to be totally stumped, so please, state your case,..
@Stefano Portoghesi ALL you have offered is an opinion,.. you simple make an unsubstantiated statement that because He is spirit He therefore cannot be the author of a physical world,.. so tell me,.. how you can know such? how can you presume such? It's a fact you don't know in the least that what you're purporting is even remotely true, much less factual as you have presented, ALSO, you cannot account through a materialistic viewpoint ALL the points I presented,...so, through the materialistic viewpoint please tell me, how did the universe simply, for no reason, get ALL the parameters so perfectly right so well that not only does it hold fast,.. but also intelligent life along with ALL the other life we see spring up from mindless nothingness? you know the drill, the odds are as far out as ALL the parts for a 747 jet simply forming themselves AND fall together to make a working, fueled, and ready to fly machine,.. science AND math has shown undeniably these absurd odds, yet materialist just tighten their eyelids down harder to this annoying in your face fact that makes them so uneasy,. they simply will not concede, like in a chess game where if you move your only move, then you know it'll be checkmate, so you simply don't move, so again, please enlighten me on how you KNOW a spirit cannot Create a physical world? -Peace to you-
@Stefano Portoghesi you say this because it's all you know, and this isn't meant to be disparaging,.. just simply the truth,.. the parameters for what can and can't be done beyond what we have discovered is not in the least an obstacle,.. you choose to presume it settled therefore you won't think anything possible above your understanding,.. yet, many who believe this way will actually think it possible that physicality can spring from nothing that was never there and do it so many times (the multiverse fallacy) that one, (in which we reside in) finally gets ALL the impossibilities right so we COULD exist,.. now this comes out of a mind with absolutely nothing other to drive this idea than having the closed settled attitude you apparently have, not one thing that could be construed as evidence other than the dogma of a materialist religion,... this is the glaring flaw in your belief, I can account for everything I Believe and it ALL smoothly fits,.. it's also telling that those who won't give God the possibility would so easily believe alien lifeforms must exist when not a peep has been heard and not even a fossilized bacteria or alga was found on Mars which incidentally is the WHOLE reason they went to Mars in the first place, They were salivating to find just one fossil however few or tiny just to be able to scream to the world that Earth was NOT the holy grail of life those pesky religious people keep claiming,..SO,.. please give good reason how you know it impossible for the Spirit Creator not able to speak reality into existence which is by far more palatable than a multiverse for NO reason to yet, simply decide not once, but over and over again. Peace to you,.. John 3:16
A nothingness was an impossibility; therefore, a somethingness was an inevitability.
Nah, I don't know. I only wish that I did. I'd like to know why there was something rather than nothing.
Something You Said if you think about it nothingness is largely outnumbered by somethings like if you want to create nothingness then all the things that exist and can exist should just cease to do so and there's an infinite number of somethings that can and will exist so its just that we find ourselves in a situations where those somethings had an advantage over nothingness. But now if you want to break language, think of the very question that is being asked - why is there something rather than nothing ie why isn't it nothing - ie why doesnt nothingness exist and that last statement proves that everything even nothingness is some thing and that something has to exist inorder for us to even refer it using language and that by the defenition of nothingness would not be possible if pure nothingness was our reality. This perspective shows the inherent instability of either true nothingness or its the boundary of language and an error you get when you use language to refer something that shakes its foundation.
But think of it like this, the very reason why we can recognize something or even define it is because we know otherwise ie we know the alternate of something not existing ie nothingness and we are able to distinguish it from a scenario where it exists. Hence nothingness is imperative for something to have meaning when you say it exists ie it is not nothingness. You can take either of that cause nothing in the end really matters.
@@Obnyr well its infinity playing at both the extremes that neither cause nothingness or everythingness (infinite somethings) to materialize and that is to either create any one of the two you have to deal with creating or destroying an infinite set of elements which is where the inevitable instability comes from. So in this perspective nothingness is just another state of the universe just like any other state and there are infinitely many states for existence and nothingness is just one of them and the rest is taken care by probability (when you have infinite somethingness and one state of nothingness). Just like all mathematical sets have a null element nothingness is intrinsic to any set that exists. Now its all good till here except if you read my last statement ie "nothingness is intrinsic to any set that exists". Now that is where things go vague again. What does it mean for a set to exist when there is no elements inside it. Well when you have a group of mathematically definable things then we can put them in a set but here we create a notion of an entity called set before there are any elements that can even define the set. In short is our set defined by the elements in the set or is it the set that defines the elements inside ? Because if its the latter then that would mean that a set by itself is indeed a "something" and pure nothingness would have to eliminate even this "something". And if the former were to be the case then a set without an element doesnt exist at all, so when you have no elements there is no set either. Whether something like a set is just a mathematical construct created for lumping and better understanding elements or whether a set is fundamental and it is the set that creates its elements is something i dont know. The problem is that if you say sets are fundamental and nothingness is just an empty set, you can still ask why are there even sets in the first place and arent they violating your nothingness for you to call it as nothingness in the beginning. You can find more such anomalies in nature - for example numbers - does a number exist even when you cant physically represent it with a thing - well thats what platonic entities are and ofcourse even if they exist it might be hard to understand their causation on the physical world but still that would be the ground where these somethings have the possibility of existing. That leads you to question the existence of the very "ground" itself. And its fascinating that even amidst our incapability of answering the very fundamental of questions we seem to continue to "exist" in this seemingly stable and logical world - i cant think of a better magic trick than that.
@@delq Physicalism is much better than a platonic description of numbers(whole numbers). The abstractions like negative numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions or any other sort of number is just a derived number system from the whole numbers. The integers form an additive group(closed under addition), and their identity element is 0. That is what zero is. Its just a property, that is derived from the integer number group. Again, all logical foundations are based on a physicalist interpretation of numbers, and without that, they don't work. When physicalism needs an extension by abstractions, like concept of infinity, then it is pretty much regulated out of reality. Unfortunately several arguments such as kalam cosmological argument assume that they can use the abstractions provided by physicalists to somehow _"prove"_ their bogus arguments, they fail because physicalism fails at that limit. So all this debate about nothingness and infinities is meaningless, as these are not real. These are just tools created by physicalists using abstractions derived from the whole numbers, which are empirically verifiable.
@@delq Group theory has almost killed this nonsense platonic number idea. But a lot of work has still to be done to make it mainstream in philosophy. Till then idiots will argue on what is real and what is not based on abstractions of a real thing(zero, infinity), rather than real things themselves(whole numbers).
@@delq Also, the big bang should be only seen as expansion, rather than an absolute beginning from nothingness, as physics only indicates it as an expansion, and makes no indication that it starts from nothingness. As far as we know, nothingness is not real in both philosophy and science.
Leaving the technicals out of it for now, of which there are many, focus on the central simple theme.
1. First an energy source, or energy potential is required.
2. secondly, an entity able to exploit that energy has the prospect of evolving form and agency optimized for that mode of existence.
An entity that conforms to this scenario, this circumstance of existence, there will be an interpretation of it within terms of the entities form and agencies. Or structure and processes if you prefer. So I'm suggesting that matter, the material universe is such an entity, and it has such an interpretation within terms of its forms and processes. Structures and functions.
Nature only has one means of constructing highly ordered complex systems. Life examples its method and first described by Charles Darwinian. Physics and cosmology are subjects of highly ordered complex systems which dont owe their forms and processes to design, and nor is it reasonable that an instantaneous chance creation theory could form such an articulated and interesting material world.
I have put the idea to the test, that space possesses an energy potential, and that atoms exploit that energy to generate their atomic activity, via atomic forces. That atoms possess evled forms and processes optimized for collecting and exploiting the energy of space that enables the material universe to exist. The universe is a Darwinian cascade in its entirety, and atomic units accumulated a great level of systematic complexity before eventually they had the potential to spontaneously serve as highly functional building blocks of biology/life.
If you will, I suggest you begin by questioning the prospects of there being an energy inhabiting space? And if the known geometries of space might be interpreted as interacting with matter in such a way that suggests it is being exploited by matter? This is not a difficult test and offers spectacular correspondances. I'm talking spectacular
😉
Reason is given by the product a factory can give and generates ,in turn it allows us to build without things that are not being able to work.So reason is the creation of a network within a mathematical structure and others that help create it . This explains freewill and purpose of every person it decides to do for a reason. Edit: without mathematics nothing can possibly work in theory.
The generation is cyclical but purpose is part of that generation only when that generation or the product of that factory decides to creates its own meaning. The factory is just an assistant that allows reason to work.( Intelligent reasoning aka intelligent species)
Big brains try to find answers outside in the world. But I think the only answers are to be found inside.
This guy wonders around looking for answers like David Banner
The reason of the cosmos is to provide a place for the performance of life, the performance of life determines the fate of death.
Next up does peanut butter sing a song?
This perfectly encapsulates the confusion behind the question haha
@@Ndo01 i thought so too... glad it made you smile.
Lower the expectations, trust me it's way easier
Does the cosmos have a reason? Yes, Experience, Existence(Creation).
I can answer the question right now. No. There is no reason for anything to exist, it just happens. People who look for reasons for everything are insecure in the fact that there's so much they don't have answers to.
Since "nothingness" is a not provable fiction, we should assume that the cosmos is infinite. Something infinite can have no reason, because it was always there. To ask for the reason of the cosmos is the question for a beyond of infinity. The question is therefore a contradiction in itself.
First reason is to seek and explore knowledge it's pure happiness to have more and more of cosmos , by interaction of physical laws we come to know how infinite is power of Almighty God who created all and whatever to come ahead with in no time
Does The Cosmos Have A Reason?: A
Very Intelligent Probative Question!
Yes, there can be a reason and there can be no reason. I believe 50/50 would be the most common scenario. 50% of the times there is a reason and 50% of the times there would be no a reason.
But of course necessity begs the question of why something for no-reason should be necessary
In Space, there are no "Dead End" signs.
The best way to answer questions like this is to listen to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" - many answers immediately come clear. The only reason why we exist is that we naively believe we exist and "not just there" in this Universe... No logic or reason may explain to humans the essence of being and living through it - simply, harmonically, not expecting answers to any strange question... process prevails over any reason and mind got to be set free as it may.
.. imagine that the Milky Way which is more than 100,000 light years across is only one of so, so many galaxies that are millions of light years away from each other .. in human context, the universe might as well be infinite .. so vast it's terrifying.
Saying there's no reason, to me, seems illogical. Why? The fact that we ask why, where, when, and how everything we encounter came to be as it is tells us that everything has an explanation---a reason---as to why a given object or condition is so. This logically includes the universe. When we ask: "Why does the universe exist?," one thing we're asking is: "How did it come into existence?" So, to suggest that the universe exists for no reason is illogical.
16 years you have been asking that question... and mispronouncing cosmos for 16 years too
lol..
When he said identical earth's can exist it reminded me of quran which says we have created seven heavens and each universe has its own earth
we may (or may not) find the truth