20180718

Why does the universe exist?


PSI Blog 20180718 Why does the universe exist?



The universe exists because it cannot not exist. Nonexistence is impossible. That is because nonexistence would require perfectly empty space, which is completely imaginary. Space is one of the ideal end members of the empty space-solid matter continuum. As with all idealizations, empty space and solid matter cannot exist. According to “Infinite Universe Theory,” everything in existence has both characteristics. We use those idealizations to avoid hitting walls and to go through doorways even though walls are not perfectly solid and doorways are not perfectly empty.

In other words, the universe exists because empty space is impossible. The universe produces an infinite number of things, but it cannot produce perfectly empty space. Production requires the convergence of other “things”. “Perfectly empty space” is not a thing, so the convergence of “nothing” to form more “nothing” is oxymoronic. However, when we consider “space” as matter, it fits our definition of matter as an abstraction for all things.[1] Also, according to infinity[2] , all things contain other things. That is why we have never been able to find any perfectly empty space[3]; and why perfectly solid matter is impossible.[4]

Although the infinite universe cannot be completely understood by anyone, we gradually accumulate knowledge that allows us to survive and to “make sense” of our surroundings. Again, the scientific answer to why the universe exists is simply that it is impossible for it not to exist. When folks ask: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” they are sensing “something,” but only imagining “nothing.”

Idealists inclined to ask these questions are unlikely to be satisfied by the answer provided by Infinite Universe Theory. That is because idealists tend to think in absolute terms. For them, space is empty and matter is solid. By its nature, the infinite universe always “passes the buck.” They will continue to ask the question: “But where did it all come from?” Each thing in the infinite universe is a complex formed from still other things in the universe. The nice, tidy finite universe of the Big Bang Theory appeals because everything we have observed had a beginning. To finally realize those observations do not apply to the universe as a whole is a grandiose step. It is to finally reject cosmogony[5] and to join the Last Cosmological Revolution. 




[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 17 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].

[2] The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.

[3] Absolute zero (0oK) cannot be obtained and the “vacuum” of outer space contains enough matter to yield a temperature of 2.7oK.

[5] The study of the origin of the universe. Cosmogony, of course, assumes that the universe is finite and that it had an origin, with the additional implication that it will have an ending (see also “Blog 20160330 The death of heat death”).

6 comments:

Bligh said...

It exists so that we can pay taxes.

Vincent Sauvé said...

Glen, if empty space is not possible then how can matter move?

If there is no empty space AT ANY LEVEL then everything would be matter (defined as something that occupies space and has inertia). The bottom line is, I don't see the necessary dialectic logic in your line of thought.

Unknown said...

I don't know what others think, but to me this question, "why does the universe exist," is not a scientific one, but one for philosophers or religionists. Science is more about predicting the behavior of the physical substances, both large and small, in the universe. Pretending to be able to answer questions about why, using science, are in my humble opinion, more in the realm of scientism.

Glenn Borchardt said...

From Nick:

Glenn
Congratulations! Your post, "Why does the Universe Exist?", was at the top of the popularity list for all posts on the CNPS Facebook page. I imagine that was partly due to its being in the batch of relatively recent posts. However, I think that the post's "catchy" title was also a factor - people want answers to the "big" questions. (Or possibly there's a very large Glenn Borchardt fan club!) I think people visiting the CNPS website are also good potential viewers for being attracted by that title so you might add a news article on that topic to said website.

Incidentally, when I clicked on your post, I didn't see very much except for your short, initial post - I was expecting more - e.g., dialog on that topic - I think that for many, when you raise such a big question, you also raise people's expectations .
Nick

Glenn Borchardt said...

From Neil:

Hi Glenn :)

Thanks for sending this to me :) I agree with every bit of it. It is so nice for me to be hearing someone, aside from me, saying all the same things I have known for a long time. You have a good way of expressing these understandings, which makes it easy for other people to grasp. And that is important.

We definitely should stay in touch!

Best Wishes,

Neil

Luis Cayetano said...

"Production requires the convergence of other “things”. “Perfectly empty space” is not a thing, so the convergence of “nothing” to form more “nothing” is oxymoronic."

Why can't divergence produce a perfectly empty space in some part of the universe? Saying that the "production" of empty space is precluded because production requires convergence just seems like a play on words.

Additionally, just because one end of a spectrium is an idealization does not necessitiate that the other end must be one too.