Can the Universe Exist without consciousness?

[PlatinumDoodles]

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

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.

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.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Whether or not there is consciousness (you seem to be using this as a replacement for man, or at least some sapient thing) has no prescriptive power or authority over existence. Your quote "what is not proven cannot be said to exist" only applies to ourselves. Because we care about what exists, and what does not. Whether or not we existed to prove the concept of a star, there would still be the star. The gist of your argument is briefly touched upon in "The Grand Design", but it is formulated in a much more delicate manner. The devil is in the details. Perhaps a more proper way of phrasing your statement. "What is not proven, cannot be said to exist by man" would be more appropriate.

[PlatinumDoodles]

I didn't mean man, per se, just any form of consciousness.

I'm not trying to defend this, just want to hear other thoughts on the matter. I want to say that if there were no consciousness at all then there would be no point to existence, but that is just my human mind restricting me to thinking there has to be meaning in everything.

As an analogy: How can there be any knowledge if there is no one to learn it?

That's kind of what I'm trying to say with existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

What we call knowledge is dependent upon observation. We are not always the best at observing things, and yet we are surprised often enough that they exist after all. Mans knowledge is impossible without consciousness, but the existence of the cosmos is not dependant on man (or any consciousness) having knowledge of it. Knowledge is the measured observation of existence. It's describing a thing, not prescribing a thing.

As an example. We describe gravity. Our description however has no ability to make gravity conform to itself. This is why we have been wrong about gravity before (and indeed could still be).

[theVOID]

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

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.

"Sound" is oscillating pressure wave moving through matter, would that exist without consciousness? Yes. Would the experience of hearing exist? No.

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.

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.

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

Two lines of argument come to mind to refute that notion;

1 .If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon then it has to emerge from something else, if it emerged from the universe then by way of causality the universe necessarily existed first - If the universe existed before consciousness then it can necessarily exist without.

2. Do you think we have proven everything about the universe? No, right? Does the stuff we haven't proved to exist still exist? Yes? Then it seems like a conscious being having proof that something exists is in no way necessary for that thing to exist.

[PlatinumDoodles]

1 .If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon then it has to emerge from something else, if it emerged from the universe then by way of causality the universe necessarily existed first - If the universe existed before consciousness then it can necessarily exist without.

2. Do you think we have proven everything about the universe? No, right? Does the stuff we haven't proved to exist still exist? Yes? Then it seems like a conscious being having proof that something exists is in no way necessary for that thing to exist.

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.

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.

Basically, the universe can exist without consciousness if it wants, but if there is no consciousness to prove it does then neither one of us could say that it does or doesn't, it cannot be proven. We wouldn't even be able to have the conversation of, "'does it exist?' 'yes' 'prove it' 'i can't, we don't exist.'" it wouldn't make sense. The only way to prove 100% that something exists is if there is a consciousness to prove it to.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're having a seriously fundamental block on this one. The concept of proving something to a consciousness that doesn't exist is preposterous yes, but the state of the universe that this consciousness is, or is not in, is not determined by their existence. Consciousness is a function of life, itself a product of the universe. It's not some nebulous thing that floats around making squares square and circles circular.

[PlatinumDoodles]

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?

[Violet]

Answer to thread question:

Yes.. however: that universe would be entirely undefined.

If this were otherwise, then the Solipsists would be right, and I'd have to kill everything because it is all mine to destroy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, certain gods are not disproven because of what we don't know, but because of what we do. Point to a god of the gaps, and I will happily admit that it is possible. I will question you on whether or not you really wish for that god to be as small as the gap, I will ask if the text you are using as a reference or source supports the idea, but in the end, until that gap is filled, I have to suffer the asshole. Of course, I only have to suffer his theory, I don't have to accept it as fact.

---

Are you expecting to field that sort of response btw? Are you rehearsing for a debate?