Could the Universe be Uncaused?

[JapaneseKappa]

Even those who believe there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life have been driven to that conclusion throughout the ages. Yet some of them show up at Catholic Answers because they are not absolutely certain there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to our lives.

I don’t believe that absolute certainty is a virtue in any context. The real issue is that “meaning and purpose” may or may not exist in an objective sense, and no amount of wishful thinking on our part will bring them into existence or end their existence. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a meaning-o-meter or a purpose-balance so we can’t simply go out and measure whether or not there is meaning in the universe. Therefore, statements about the existence or non-existence of meaning are either simply preferences or conclusions derived from preconceived ideas about the universe. Neither of those options constitutes evidence for or against the question “Could the Universe be Uncaused?”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I will introduce a new idea on this topic:

Suppose God exists.
Suppose God created the universe.
Suppose God had no reason/cause to create the universe.

Now, strictly speaking, the answer to the original question would be “no, God caused the universe.” However, if God’s creative act was not caused by anything (e.g. God randomly decided to make a universe, and he just happened to make this one) then I think we can still argue that the universe was in some sense uncaused.

In other words, in this conception we would only kick the can one step down the road. Instead of:
What caused the universe? Nothing, the universe exists and that’s just the way it is.
We now have:
What caused the creation of the universe? Nothing, the creation exists and that’s just the way it is.

 

[Tomdstone]

The real issue is that “meaning and purpose” may or may not exist in an objective sense, and no amount of wishful thinking on our part will bring them into existence or end their existence.

How did this idea of meaning and purpose evolve from a purely materialistic standpoint. Why does the human mind, which if it is purely material with no purpose at all, seek purpose and meaning?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

How did this idea of meaning and purpose evolve from a purely materialistic standpoint. Why does the human mind, which if it is purely material with no purpose at all, seek purpose and meaning?

Why shouldn’t they? Human minds look for patterns and narratives, it makes sense that they would look for a pattern or narrative into which they can fit their own life. That pattern may or may not exist.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why shouldn’t they? Human minds look for patterns and narratives, it makes sense that they would look for a pattern or narrative into which they can fit their own life. That pattern may or may not exist.

I don’t see it as a question of should or not. It is not a question of whether or not a given pattern may exist or not. I see it as a question of how did this notion of meaning and purpose evolve from a purely material being? Why would pure matter, something made from atoms, quarks, electrons and other unknown material particles and nothing else, want to even consider or reflect upon meaning and purpose ?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I don’t see it as a question of should or not. It is not a question of whether or not a given pattern may exist or not. I see it as a question of how did this notion of meaning and purpose evolve from a purely material being? Why would pure matter, something made from atoms, quarks, electrons and other unknown material particles and nothing else, want to even consider or reflect upon meaning and purpose ?

Which is exactly what I just finished explaining. A search for meaning and purpose is a search for a patterns.

 

[Tomdstone]

Which is exactly what I just finished explaining. A search for meaning and purpose is a search for a patterns.

And how did pure matter, atoms, quarks, electrons, mesons, etc., come to search for meaning?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And how did pure matter, atoms, quarks, electrons, mesons, etc., come to search for meaning?

Because certain conditions lead atoms to aggregate into molecules that replicate themselves. Those molecules replicate themselves more efficiently in certain conditions than others. Those molecules which are able to induce such favorable conditions in their surroundings become much more plentiful than the ones which cannot. This gives rise to things like cells. The rules still apply, though. Those cells which are best able to replicate themselves proliferate and dominate the ones that can’t. This leads to all sorts of interesting cellular features, and eventually complex multi-cellular organisms. The rules still apply though. Complex mult-icellular life which implements pattern recognition algorithms turn out to be very successful. This leads to things like learned behaviors in animals. It turns out that meta-pattern recognition is also very successful, which is what humans have. We not only learn patterns, we observe the patterns in how we observe patterns, and we are able to make patterns-of-patterns and thereby reason abstractly about them. We now have a drive to find patterns, and so we want to find some pattern into which our lives fit. This search is named as a search for meaning.

 

[Tomdstone]

Because certain conditions lead atoms to aggregate into molecules that replicate themselves. Those molecules replicate themselves more efficiently in certain conditions than others. Those molecules which are able to induce such favorable conditions in their surroundings become much more plentiful than the ones which cannot. This gives rise to things like cells. The rules still apply, though. Those cells which are best able to replicate themselves proliferate and dominate the ones that can’t. This leads to all sorts of interesting cellular features, and eventually complex multi-cellular organisms. The rules still apply though. Complex mult-icellular life which implements pattern recognition algorithms turn out to be very successful. This leads to things like learned behaviors in animals. It turns out that meta-pattern recognition is also very successful, which is what humans have. We not only learn patterns, we observe the patterns in how we observe patterns, and we are able to make patterns-of-patterns and thereby reason abstractly about them. We now have a drive to find patterns, and so we want to find some pattern into which our lives fit. This search is named as a search for meaning.

It seems to me that there is a big gap between a hydrogen atom and a person who searches for meaning. Why is it that a quark, an electron, a hydrogen atom, a glass of water, a maple tree, a rose bush, a lemon tree, the planet mars, do not search for meaning?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It seems to me that there is a big gap between a hydrogen atom and a person who searches for meaning. Why is it that a quark, an electron, a hydrogen atom, a glass of water, a maple tree, a rose bush, a lemon tree, the planet mars, do not search for meaning?

There is a big gap, but if you actually understood my laughably truncated summary, you would see that I already answered your question.

Entire books have been written on the subject, for example see these:
amazon.com/The-Quark-Jaguar-Adventures-Complex/dp/0805072535
amazon.com/dp/0465026567/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=11FB8Q4NJWK49&coliid=I3E7MSGQSOE2SJ

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is a big gap, but if you actually understood my laughably truncated summary, you would see that I already answered your question.

Entire books have been written on the subject, for example see these:
amazon.com/The-Quark-Jaguar-Adventures-Complex/dp/0805072535
amazon.com/dp/0465026567/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=11FB8Q4NJWK49&coliid=I3E7MSGQSOE2SJ

I haven’t read the first, but certainly Hofstadter’s book doesn’t get us where you suppose it does, isomorphisms notwithstanding.

 

[inocente]

It seems to me that there is a big gap between a hydrogen atom and a person who searches for meaning. Why is it that a quark, an electron, a hydrogen atom, a glass of water, a maple tree, a rose bush, a lemon tree, the planet mars, do not search for meaning?

Yes, a person is much more than a bag of chemicals. Aristotle saw it in terms of form: “In the case of all things which have several parts and in which the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something beside the parts, there is a cause; for even in bodies contact is the cause of unity in some cases, and in others viscosity or some other such quality. And a definition is a set of words which is one not by being connected together, like the Iliad, but by dealing with one object.”

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In modern terms, it appears in ideas such as emergence and synergy.

 

[Tomdstone]

I haven’t read the first, but certainly Hofstadter’s book doesn’t get us where you suppose it does, isomorphisms notwithstanding.

The isomorphisms of Mr. Hofstadter are really not mathematical isomorphisms but are metaphorical correspondences. He says that consciousness arises from interaction between symbols or links between subsystems. This is an inadequate description of consciousness because it would imply that a computer can be conscious and have free will.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is a big gap, but if you actually understood my laughably truncated summary, you would see that I already answered your question.

Entire books have been written on the subject, for example see these:
amazon.com/The-Quark-Jaguar-Adventures-Complex/dp/0805072535
amazon.com/dp/0465026567/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=11FB8Q4NJWK49&coliid=I3E7MSGQSOE2SJ

“The quark and the jaguar” is an enjoyable book to read, but when it comes to the question of consciousness and free will, Mr. Gell-Mann tries to explain this in terms of quantum fluctuations and indeterminancies arising from complex adaptive systems. He seems dubious about free will since he claims that humans may act on hidden motives (which would determine the outcome). In summary, he states:"…the whole matter is poorly understood, and for the time being we can only speculate."
So, I don’t see where the book gives a solid and unambiguous answer as to the mechanism causing self-awareness.