Can the Universe Exist without consciousness?

[PlatinumDoodles]

Nope, just enjoying the conversation. I just love talking about this stuff.

[Violet]

This is sort of like the "If a tree falls in the forest" argument, but I would like to add something to it.

The 'argument' cited is as point-missing as 'I think, therefore I am.': You've presumed the conclusion in the former statement. 'I think' and 'it thinks' and 'it is' and 'I am' all state existence. 'If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?' misses the point by asking as asinine a question as that and expecting something to come of it. It is not an argument: it is a question. And philosophical questions do not have but a single answer.

The reason the tree does in fact make a sound is because it is part of a universe in which consciousness does/has/will exist. I am proposing that in order for the the multiverse and every universe within to exist, at least one of said universes must contain consciousness. Our universe contains some form of time and at some point within that time consciousness existed, so, the universe did in fact exist before consciousness came about because it would contain consciousness at some point in time.

Existence is not 'essence'... everything necessarily exists, even should it amount to nothing, which must also exist. Something will always exist, however it is organized.

You see a computer, ant sees a mountain, giant sees a pebble, space alien sees food... how the universe is organized is the result of the observer, not of the material being observed.

And this is part of why 'If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?' is such a piece of shit: without the observer... there is not even a tree, nor a forrest of trees, and sounds but a faint nothingness upon the chaos. The material that made up "trees" and "forests" and "sounds" is there regardless of whether it be a "fire" or a "cancer" or a "time machine" or sixteen Japanese dancers or "Rusfafnoaw" in a left ankled "Soamenfnaa". The suggestion puts a focus upon whether the sound exists if it isn't 'observed'... when it has already assumed 4 other things exist without being 'observed'.

My point is: If there was no consciousness in any universe in the multiverse, there would be no one to prove that it existed, if one cannot prove it, one cannot say for certain that it exists. I feel that the multiverse somehow has it's own laws of "physics" that force consciousness to come about.

Certainty has exactly nothing to do with correctness. Perhaps this will break your mind, but logic is entirely circular and taken on faith. So our best tool for determining what is and is not 'true' is itself taken on faith.

A question: Why does it matter that there is nobody to prove the cosmos exists if there is nobody in the first place?

Please discuss, this is a new theory I'm working on and I would love some input.

Input granted... theory needs serious out-of-textbook testing Welcome to the forum, by the way.

[PlatinumDoodles]

Thank you, glad to be here.

A question: Why does it matter that there is nobody to prove the cosmos exists if there is nobody in the first place?

That is exactly my point. Without anyone in it, all the universe would be is a useless place in which everything that happened within wouldn't matter because the universe would end in blackness for eternity (or repeat the process for eternity) and the time that all takes to happen would also be meaningless. There would be no point to the passage of time.

[Violet]

Ah, here I thought you were bringing forth a solipsistic argument that consciousness somehow spawns existence (and my hate of solipsism is unparalleled). My apologies

Even with people in the universe... it still seems to be a pretty useless place to be. That's what it should only be used for self-entertainment

[theVOID]

1. I'm saying that because the universe contains all of time, at some point in time consciousness does exist. If consciousness exists at any point in time, then it can exist. They create each other, but neither can exist without the other. Unless of course, you believe that consciousness can exist outside the universe itself and does not require a physical body of sorts.

But suggesting that because consciousness can exist the universe cannot exit without it is absurd. Saying because rocks can exist in the universe the universe can't exist without them is just as valid given the argument you've presented.

You say they can create each other? Please present me one example of consciousness creating universes.

2. Kind of the same as above... we just haven't proven it yet, but if we do or if some other form of consciousness somewhere out there proves it at any point in time then it is certain that it exists.

So you think at every single thing that can be known is known by some consciousness at some point in time? Not only is that highly dubious at face value the Heisenberg uncertainty principle may even rule it out altogether, particles have both a momentum and position but it is impossible to measure one without affecting the other, the less the uncertainty about the position (Δp) the greater the uncertainty about the momentum (Δx) is. The precision (standard deviations) of the two multiplied is always greater than or equal to Plank's constant (ℏ) divided by two; ΔxΔp≥ℏ/2

So you can never be certain about either, the more certain you are about one the less certain you are about the other, or you can be equally uncertain about both meaning no consciousness could ever be certain about both, meaning no complete 'knowledge' of particles at any one time exist... By your reasoning if no complete knowledge of particles exist then no complete particles exist...

[theVOID]

That is exactly my point. Without anyone in it, all the universe would be is a useless place in which everything that happened within wouldn't matter because the universe would end in blackness for eternity (or repeat the process for eternity) and the time that all takes to happen would also be meaningless. There would be no point to the passage of time.

So let me get this straight; Your point is that a universe without consciousness in it is one that wouldn't matter to anyone and it would be devoid of meaning therefore consciousness is a necessary part of a universe? That's a complete non-sequitur and also an imposition of your values onto the cosmos - Of course there is nothing matters if there aren't any sufficiently intelligent creatures to care - but this says nothing about the universe being contingent upon the existence of consciousness at some moment in time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for fielding this one calmly and cooly Void, I was tempted to just lose my patience and take this argument far into the absurd.

[theVOID]

It remains to be seen if he'll listen.

[Anomalocaris]

Nope, just enjoying the conversation. I just love talking about this stuff.

The universe can exist without your talking about this stuff. In fact it can exist better.

---

I am an atheist through and through, so please do not take what I'm about to say the wrong way, I'm simply about to play devil's advocate.

If you say that something can exist without the need to prove it, then why can't God exist without us proving that he/she/whatever does?

First of all, Things can be proven without the need to prove it. So even if it can not exist without being proven, things can still definitely exist without the need to prove it, So if you want to remain rediculously confused, at least state your confusion clearly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Definitely engaging in projection on a massive scale.