Does the universe have a purpose?

Here's a thoughtful, well-written essay that was emailed to me recently by W. Kelly Lundrigan. I'm pleased to post it, as I like Kelly's style.

That said, I can't resist adding my own comments (in blue italics). I found myself agreeing with Kelly up to a point, then, not so much. Add your own ideas to our bloggish conversation if you like.
----------------------------
The wonderful thing about life to me, at this point when we know so much, is that we actually still know so little.  We are still, essentially, living a mystery.  At least as to the big questions such as "where do we come from?" and "where do we go?"  We don't, even after all we have accomplished, know the answers to these ultimate questions. 

Agreed. But let's keep in mind what you said, Kelly -- we are living a mystery -- when we get into your further conclusions.

Maybe we are not supposed to know while we are here. Its funny, where you can't know with a scientific certainty, it has to come down to what you can believe in the end.  Even for those of us who love the scientific method and would prefer to spurn a lack of rational, logical chain of deduction, we feel the need to decide what we believe in this regard, because it determines how we live the remainder of the "life" we have in this sphere of existence.

Well, why not simply accept one's not-knowing, rather than feel the need to believe in something that's unprovable? You seem to assume that belief concerning the ultimate nature of the cosmos is an irresistible urge. I doubt that it is.

I am as fact-based, rational and irreverent toward religion as they come.  But I can't conclude, even based on what we DO know, that this "void" of utter nothingness exists, of which we are terrified by our attempt to even comprehend and wrap our minds around.  There is no void guys.  Stop worrying.  We never lose or destroy matter or energy; it just goes somewhere else in a different form.

I'm not sure what you mean by a void of utter nothingness. When I speak about nothingness, I'm usually referring to it in a personal sense -- the nothing that each of us will not experience (because nothingness obviously can't be experienced), yet what we will become in a sense, after we die. Assuming that death is the end of an individual's consciousness.

Yes, matter or energy isn't destroyed; it just changes form. But if our consciousness is dependent on being in a human form, then the dissolution that occurs at death certainly is a cause for worry. If I'm worried about not existing as a conscious being, that is.

You fear the loss of consciousness which you equate to "being."  I have come to deal with that feeling of fear by thinking of it this way.  At worst, all that is left of me are the ripple effects which are created by what I do while I am here.  In that sense, you survive your bodily death by everything you do while you are alive, no matter how small (good or bad). 

Your children will remember your love and what you taught them, whether it be a love of the outdoors they pass on to their children, your wonderful recipe for spaghetti sauce that your descendants are still enjoying lifetimes after you are gone, how to ski, to respect others and their right to exist and be happy, what it means to be just and fair, family traditions, and so on. 

Every kind act you demonstrate toward another person will change, in some small or large way, that person's outlook and the way they treat others, and so on.  Every principled stand you take to do what is right, no matter how painful and hard, will inspire and give courage to others to do the same.

Nice ideas, which are indeed comforting up to a point. But your "at worst" really equates to "no life after death." That's pretty bad to many/most people (including me). That said, I do enjoy the thought that what I've done here on earth will have the ripple effects you spoke about, leading to a sort of impersonal immortality -- though the ripples will fade into near-nothingness quite quickly.

I could go on and on, because the point is, (I'm sure you have got it by now), your life has an infinitely expanding ripple of effects on other lives into the future.  Thus, we never cease to exist.  After being granted the ultimate gift of existence from whatever "entity" governs "existence" (and I do believe there is one, as I explain below), your impacts upon this sphere of existence are infinite.  And, therefore, permanent. 

As above, not really permanent. Or infinite. Theoretically perhaps, but in a practical sense we've already lost track of how, say, a Neanderthal has affected present day humanity. A million or a billion years from now, what impact will each of us have on the cosmos?

Even though your consciousness may, at some point, become lost, or at least unable to communicate with those who remain in this sphere of existence.  If that is all we get, is that really so bad?  Think about it, just as a “worst case” type of scenario, while I explain why I don’t think that’s all we get.

Again, dying and never existing again...that's a scary proposition for many people. I'm not speaking of becoming lost or unable to communicate. We're talking of utter non-existence, forever and ever. The only worser case might be suffering horribly for eternity.

While I can understand why the sudden “blinking out” of your consciousness scares you, (it is certainly a scary thought because Descartes was as right as we can get with what we know: thinking really does equate to being for us), there is no reason to conclude our consciousness ceases to exist.  (This is the part where you have to decide what you believe, cause I can’t get you to here with science). 

Hmmmm. That leaves blind faith, or unfounded belief. I'll turn your statement around: there is no reason to conclude our consciousness continues to exist. Isn't that a much more likely eventuality, given the lack of evidence that there's life after death?

Let’s try to use what we do know to make some deductions using logic, which never fails us, at least as far as it can go.  Let us use Descartes' reasoning as a starting point.  He used one simple, unassailable fact that he could prove was real, at least to himself:  he was thinking.  He had thoughts. 

What did that mean, to have “thoughts”?  And what did it mean to be able to question in your thoughts whether “you” actually exist and can be questioning your ability to be having “thoughts” while you are thinking?  To Descartes, it meant he must actually “exist” as something; as some conscious entity.  That, ultimately led Descartes to believe he had proven the existence of “God” as he understood God to exist.

Most philosophers consider that Descartes seriously botched his proof of God argument. I agree. It's very flimsy reasoning, founded as it is on...reasoning. See, for example, this critique. Excerpt: "His attempt, therefore, to vindicate the validity of human knowledge failed essentially, because, by rejecting the reliability of his own powers to discover and know truth, he made it impossible for himself to extricate himself from the net of his own universal doubt."

It leads me to something similar, which is that the fact of existence, and “creation,” of “being,” gives rise to at least an inference, if not a deduction, that it occurred as an act of “will” and a plan of “design” rather than as a random occurrence.

There's no evidence of this. Inferences and deductions are creations of human thought. I find it difficult to believe that the cosmos operates by the rules of how people think.

I understand there are really no random occurrences and that probability theory would account for the creation of our universe and the earth and the incredible coincidence of it being perfectly suited for human beings who have conscious thought because under probability theory even the most unlikely outcomes happen in the stretch of infinite time. 

What I don’t understand, or accept, is that the forces that shaped our universe just happened. Everything else being equal, nothingness is just as likely as somethingness.  In fact, the reason we need the “void” theory is that we need the existence of the void to give meaning, relationally, to the opposite, which is “existing.”  

Again, I don't see where this notion of nothingness comes from. Where is the "void" in reality? Isn't it just a human concept? Why can't the cosmos simply be, always existent? Yes, people need opposites to make sense of anything. But what is the opposite of the cosmos as a whole? Why posit an opposite to everything? Wouldn't that also be part of everything, leaving no opposite?

So why do we have an expanding universe, with matter, etc..instead of there being “nothing?”  What set it off?  No one knows, of course, even quantum physicists who are much brighter than me and who have thought about it much longer.  They explain it by theorizing about a “singularity” where time, space, and essentially everything about our dimension as we know it, ceases to “be” as we know it.  But they don’t know what it would become instead at that point.

We understand our somethingness.  It is all around us.  We study it constantly, it really is all we have, all we know.  We don’t understand nothingness.  In fact, we can’t even prove nothingness exists. We have never seen it. We just presume it does because, to put it simply, where we don’t understand things, we tend to fear and to believe the worst. 

To repeat, I'm not aware of any scientist or philosopher who argues for a nothingness that exists in any objective sense. That would be absurd...an existent nothing. Rather, individual entities (like you and me) can essentially become nothing -- when the something that we are dissolves into formless matter/energy.

But why did our “somethingness” ever come about?  What does it mean that we have, as humans, the most powerful motivating force ever in our essence, that of love?  (I know, we have hate too).  But here is the point.  Why does any of it exist?  Just by chance?  How can chance even apply in nothingness?  If there is nothing, what “chance” or probability is there of something coming out of nothing? 

None, at least that I can see.  Zero probability.  If there are no atoms, quarks, antimatter, electrons, or whatever particles (I can’t keep track of them all anymore) spinning around somewhere as gases bumping into one another, there is zero chance of something being created.  Ever.

You're assuming that there was a creation. That once there was nothing, and then there was something. As I said before, this doesn't make sense, and you agree. However, it is entirely possible that the universe bounces in and out of existence, being a "bubble" tossed out the "sea" of a much larger unseen cosmos -- which has always existed. So, no need for a creator. The cosmos simply is.

The fact of our existence is all we have to go on.  We know we exist.  That fact gives rise to the conclusion, perhaps not deductively, but through inference that it is more likely than not that our existence is intentional and an act of will and design by some entity or process that we simply do not, and perhaps never will, understand. 

If we can't understand it, why say stuff about it? I don't see how you derive a conclusion of intentionality and design from an unknown entity or process that we don't understand.

Like I said, maybe we are not supposed to.  Isn’t it enough that we have been given the wonderful, extraordinary and exquisite gift of life and existence?  Like I said, it boils down to what you ultimately believe, which comes from your gut, your intuition, your logic, and the feelings and experiences (love) you have stored inside of you from the course of your life. 

That's fine. But personal belief is different from universal reality. People can believe what they want in their gut, while the universe follows the principle of "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

But, it simply makes no logical sense to believe there is a “void” of nothingness that will ultimately and finally prevail despite all the “somethingness” we see around us.  Our existence, and experience, and progress as humans, has some meaning that cannot, intrinsically, be denied.  We exist for some purpose.  And that purpose defeats death, my friends, whatever “death” really is.  Just wait and see.

What else can we do? To repeat: nothingness may prevail against our personal somethingness, while the universe goes on merrily existing. I don't see the undeniable meaning and purpose that you do, which seems to derive from your faith in things unseen and unknowable.

But be comforted while you are waiting by the fact that whatever entity or force turned “nothingness” into “somethingness” for us thought enough about us to give us an existence that holds some of the most blissful things imaginable.  It would not make sense that it has no plans for us beyond the physical existence we have now.  I realize it gave us some of the hardest things imaginable to deal with too. 

But, the cost that goes along with being a conscious, sentient being which is aware of its own existence is….that you are aware of your own existence.  And thus, what it would mean to “not” exist.  We are, in that sense, effectively “gods” ourselves.  Capable of creation and destruction, with conscious decisions to pursue either course. 

Or at least we are images of what “god” must be, and what we are a part of.  But, for me, the fact of existence and creation of all that is around us, persuasively negates the probability of us disappearing into nothing.  We are here, and conscious of being here, for a reason.

I hope you're right. However, there's no evidence for this hypothesis. Every world religion (except Buddhism, which isn't really a religion) posits a reason for human existence. So it seems to me that while you say you're non-religious, your belief system is a form of personal religiosity.

That's fine. But the conclusions you've come to don't seem to follow logically or reasonably from your premises. You've got a big leap of faith going on.

Comments

[Obed]

The following quote is taken from Jung and the Candle in the Dark and may be
a bit off topic.

Quote:
If the Creator were conscious of himself, he would have no need of conscious creatures; nor is it probable that the extremely indirect methods of creation, which squander millions of years upon the development of countless species and creatures are the outcome of a purposeful intention.
In other words, it is not man’s purpose to “seek enlightenment”, as if it already existed somewhere out there. That is a false fire started by fools. It is man’s purpose TO enlighten, to convert the macular dark of the ground of being, into light, and this is what he does by way of his spiritual experiences, at least in the private conjugate relation between the erstwhile empirical consciousness of the person and the ground of being.
End Quote.
I need to thank "MarineBoy" at Nderf forums
for this quote.
All the best
Obed

[Rain]

Interesting. I have been doing some of this thinking recently again myself. I tend to agree more with what you say than what the writer suggests. The question for us is do we exist after death. Along with that goes the question of life purpose. If life ends with death, than purpose is not spiritual but physical and the idea of some divine life purpose is unlikely.

I've been enjoying a DVD series called Mystic Lands. It's a superficial look at religions around the world. Some are very mainstream and some ones we rarely think about what might be their view of the cosmos. Because I have had an interest in religions, I knew a lot of it but always there is something new that I learn in this quick look at a culture's belief set. It gave me a great appreciation for my own culture where I have the freedom to accept or not the belief of the majority living around me. This is not always the case.

[Obed]

After posting my last post I realized that just
dropping the post off like I did does not really
say much.So here is a short explanation.
When I found this quote some time back I found it very intriguing and because of this I offer it to other readers of
Brian's blog with the hope they may find it as interesting as I did.
Obed

[Roger]

Interesting statement,

"At worst, all that is left of me are the ripple effects which are created by what I do while I am here. In that sense, you survive your bodily death by everything you do while you are alive, no matter how small (good or bad)."

---These ripple effects? What is a ripple effect? When I do something, how does the ripple effect process know what I have done is good or bad? Is there a ripple effect for things I do that are neither good or bad? Brian, could you e-mail Kelly, my question, for a response?

Thanks,
Roger

[Kelly]

Roger--

My term "ripple effect" is just my way of saying for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. And I did not mean to imply that it matters whether it is good or bad--we place those judgments on actions. But your actions, whatever they are, necessarily impact upon those who are connected to you. Whether reactions you put into effect have a large of small impact, or whether your name can be attributed to them decades after your death, does not change the necessity that everything you do has an impact. The fact that the impact is more diffused after the passage of time is true, but do they still ultimately make a difference? Of course they do. Our world is filled with seemingly small actions that, repeated over large spans of time, have dramatic effects that are not immediately apparent or foreseeable.

To address one of Brian's thoughts, the laws of physics that humans have discovered are not our laws, they are the laws of the universe that describe forces we are trying to explain. We may not explain them correctly, but, we are not creating them from our imagination, but from forces that we observe. For example, cause and effect.

[Roger]

Kelly,

Thanks for your reply, I understand the cause and effect concept.

However, in your statement, "you survive your bodily death by everything you do while you are alive,...."
---how would a baby, that only lived for a month, participate in your "you survive" remark? That is, how would this baby continue to survive (as you describe), after only one month of life? How much doing, can this baby have done, in only one month?

Thanks,
Roger

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Obed,

Although perhaps unnecessary for me to add, I did find another citation of part of your cited quotation at http://www.friesian.com/jung.htm -

" As Jung said in Memories, Dreams, Reflections again:

If the Creator were conscious of Himself, He would not need conscious creatures; nor is it probable that the extremely indirect methods of creation, which squander millions of years upon the development of countless species and creatures, are the outcome of purposeful intention. Natural history tells us of a haphazard and casual transformation of species over hundreds of millions of years of devouring and being devoured. The biological and political history of man is an elaborate repetition of the same thing. But the history of the mind offers a different picture. Here the miracle of reflecting consciousness intervenes -- the second cosmogony [ed. note: what Teilhard de Chardin called the origin of the "noosphere," the layer of "mind"]. The importance of consciousness is so great that one cannot help suspecting the element of meaning to be concealed somewhere within all the monstrous, apparently senseless biological turmoil, and that the road to its manifestation was ultimately found on the level of warm-blooded vertebrates possessed of a differentiated brain -- found as if by chance, unintended and unforeseen, and yet somehow sensed, felt and groped for out of some dark urge. [p. 339]

In other words, a "meaningful coincidence." Jung also says,

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconscious. [p. 326]"

-----

I neither endorse nor dispute this Jungian contention. I provide it only for further context in considering what you have contributed.

Robert Paul Howard

[The Rambling Taoist]

I have no idea what happens after a person takes her/his last breath -- that's because I'm still breathing. Since there is absolutely no way to know until it happens -- and whose to say we'll even know then? -- I've decided that worrying about it in this life is a complete waste of time!

We can't "know" the answer through faith, science, mysticism or anything else. For that matter, we don't even know if this life is real or some entity's lazy daydream. So, I try to concern myself with those things I can understand or those things that I might partially hope to understand.

[tAo]

All very good points Rambling Taoist. I agree.

[tAo]

Yes definitely, "a big leap of faith going on".

I'd have say so too.

When oh when are people going to quit offering faith as an answer, as the answer?

Also... Brian, to offer you some consolation, how about the fact that you and I have lived - have actually existed (apparently) - and for some 60 years now. That 60 years has, in a way been an eternity, and also just a sort of timeless moment we call now.

If we are to someday actually cease to exist (which means we will also cease to have any knowledge that we ever did exist) then we will not be around anymore to miss our life, to miss our existence. We won't know anything because there will be no me, no us to know or to remember anything, including what it was like to exist. And it appears that there is nothing we can do about this.

The only question is, whether or not existence can suddenly just cease to exist, or conversely, whether or not existence can arise out of nothing (non-existence prior to birth).

If we are only the body and brain, then we will not even know that we died the moment after we die. We will not even know that we ever lived or existed. We will not know ANYTHING. So there won't be any one to complain or miss existing.

On the other hand, if existence itself (or even our own apparent existence) is not born and has no beginning, then it will have no end, regardless of the appearance (birth), growth, and eventual death and disintegration and disappearance of the body and brain. This present human life & body will be no more, but the underlying unborn existence itself will remain unchanged and endless. So like a tree, nothing will be lost except the leaves in the winter.

...Just some thoughts.

[Cyfer]

Yes Well, with all this grand hypothisising of the universe.. lets not take a perconcevied view of our own human bodies and the miraclel they contain.

The outward power of the shakti able to create new life, new human beings, new consiousness.

Actually it is creating the world, since the world and the mind are inseparable.

And the inward power of the shakti. What can that create I wonder ?

What next evolution has nature set in motion ? Or is there no more evolution, it's all over now.

The power of this body is divine and the sensation are divine and good. Forget the dogma that is stupid and makes no sense.

It does everything to invest consiousness to develop itself, and the brain for our own evolutionary progress.

[Roger]

"This present human life & body will be no more, but the underlying unborn existence itself will remain unchanged and endless."

---What is this "underlying unborn" existence, that in itself will remain unchanged and endless? Is this existence just in ones thoughts?
---Is this "uu" existence, what Kelly was writing about?

Thanks for any replies,
Roger

[tAo]

"What is this "underlying unborn" existence, that in itself will remain unchanged and endless?

-- It is infinite totality. It is whatever all of this vast cosmos is, regardless of whether or not you or I are here, alive and aware.

"Is this existence just in ones thoughts?"

-- What are thoughts? Sure, we seem to have thoughts - or thoughts just seem to occur - about existence, but also about all sorts of other things. But thoughts don't create existence. There apparently exists a more or less infinite totality (which is prior to the arising of any thoughts) of which our personal individual lives and existence is merely part of, and that is so regardless of whether or not any thoughts arise in our so-called human minds.

A question: Long before we humans ever existed, it appears that there were other extremely primitive organic life forms such as bacteria, amoebas, algae, etc on this planet. These primitive one-celled life forms had no brains and thus no so-called thoughts. But there still was an incomprehensibly vast interstellar cosmos EXISTING. So therfore, how could this vast more or less infinite "existence" be dependent upon, or be a product of, mere "thoughts"???

Thoughts arise (appear) and then subside ((vanish) just like waves upon the sea. And yet the vast sea still exists, whether there are waves arising upon the sea, or not. The waves don't create the sea. The waves only exist, because the sea exists. So too with thoughts. We are aware of thoughts only because there is a vast cosmos existing where creatures like us exist who able to be aware of thoughts. The thoughts obviously appear in the sea of awareness, which is our awareness, but this awareness may or may not be dependent upon the existence of creatures with brains.

Does awareness depend upon having a brain... or does awareness exist prior to organic life? That is still a question that remains to be determined... until death.

"Is this "uu" existence, what Kelly was writing about?"

-- I rather doubt it... but I don't really know what "Kelly" was writing about. There was too much contradiction there for me to say for sure. And I don't think Kelly has any clear insight in what she was talking about. Her conclusion was more about faith, than it was about insight into the nature of existence and awareness.

[Roger]

Tao,

Liked the response.

[tAo]

PS: Humans are far too anthropocentric or human-centric. The popular new-age notion that existence itself is somehow dependent upon thoughts, is an aspect of this anthropocentric skewed mentality. This idea is irrational and illogical and unenlightened, and it appeals to people who want to believe that they create reality. It is fundamentally ego-centric, and ignorant, and basically absurd imo.

It is far more likely that the sense of "existence" is absolutely inherent in awareness itself, rather than due to the appearance of transitory and ephemeral thoughts.

[Roger]

Humans are humans. So, what are those, that are not anthropocentric? When One states, "those people," who are the other people, that are not, those people?

---So who decided, we are humans and people?
---any reason why comments take so long to log on to this blog, lately?

[Brian]

Roger, I'm pondering a move to a different commenting system for this blog, so I'm curious about your "so long" statement.

I haven't had any problem with leaving comments. Have you? Or anyone else?

[The Rambling Taoist]

To return the compliment, what tAo wrote on February 02, 2009 at 01:16 PM speaks my mind very well!

[Roger]

Brian,

I'm guessing, after typing in the (spam protect) series of numbers and letters, it is approximately 5+ minutes to see my comment appear on the particular thread. In addition, I can see someone's name listed (comment posted)on a thread, with no comment present to read.
This is a recent observation, within last few weeks.

Roger

[Brian Hines]

Hmmmm. Comments show up immediately for me. See if the problem continues now that I've switched this blog to TypePad's new commenting system. You won't have to do the spam protection thing (TypePad says they have better spam defenses, and it isn't necessary for commenters to enter those letters and numbers).

[Roger]

Testing Testing I am Roger Testing Testing There is no Roger

[Roger]

Brain,

I can see my post reply quickly now, however, my name on list (recent comments)above is absent. Must be a short delay to see name on list, this is no big deal.

[Brian Hines]

Only a bunch of abstract sqwiggles that TypePad, in its wisdom, decided should be associated with the non-entity called "Roger." Hey, you need to set up a profile and get your own identity.

[Cyfer]

Wow !!! I really like the cool graphics by my name ! And the others too.

In answer to Roger about what endures..

A lot of people who get zapped with a CC experience, they said it's all consiousness, beyond lanaguage to express.

[Brian Hines]

Cyfer, if you sign up for a TypePad profile you'll be able to substitute your own photo/image for the cool graphics. And get an underline link under your name that will lead to whatever info about yourself you want to share.

[Roger]

Brian,

Noticed, when I log to (left click)a particular thread or comment, the page is blank. I click a second time, the thread or comment will appear. Are you noticing this too?

[Roger]

Testing: My Profile setup

[Brian Hines]

Roger, in both Safari and Firefox, when I click on a comment or a post link in the left sidebar, the post comes up immediately.

Not the comment, which is a defect of TypePad that I hope they'll fix. So I have to scroll down to the comment. But I don't get a blank page. Let me know if your problem keeps happening and I could ask TypePad support about it.

TypePad had some problems yesterday. The bugs may not be completely worked out.

[Roger]

Brian,

The blank, on right side of page, is present when I click on a recent comment or post. You are correct, One just needs to scroll down to find the post with comments. This is just an extra step, do big deal.
Thanks,
Roger

[Obed]

Hi Roger,
Really cute dog.Is it yours?
Regards
Obed

[Roger]

Hi Obed,

No, the puppy is not mine. Just a pic, I found on the Internet. I like to use it on other blog profiles. I have had much fun with pic, many persons have found much joy, looking at it.