2007-12-21 11:24:01 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Yes. Post this in Philosophy.
2007-12-21 11:29:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to give a qualified agreement while sharpening your comment. Our very existence as carbonaceous observers depends on the precise values of a few microphysical constants - fine structure constant, gravitational coupling fine structure constant, etc. - which condition the existence of a stable isotope of carbon. However, the values of those constants also constrain the scale of physical objects from atomic particles to stars, and delimit the physical properties and material evolution of all things in the universe, indeed even of the universe itself. Consequently, the universe you observe could not be much different than it appears to you because this would necessitate that those microphysical constants were also different, and this would bar your very existence, which depends sensitively upon those values. Read more about the weak version of the anthropic cosmological principle and begin your journey...
2007-12-21 19:56:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, this is just simply stating that you exist, because the universe exists. However, the converse and inverse and contrapositive are incorrect:
If I exist, then the universe exists
If I do not exist, then the universe does not exist
If the universe exists, then I exist
If the universe doesnt exist, then I dont exist.
Just basic skills from geometry, the first (biconditional statement) is true, obviously, because both you and the universe exist. However, the inverse, converse, and contrapositive create paradoxies (I think....) Although, the last one (contrapositive) makes sense for obvious physical reasons....
2007-12-21 21:58:00 · answer #3 · answered by Synthuir 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember Descates: "I think therefore I am". As far as I am aware the greatest thinkers of all time have not been able to definitively progress beyond this statement. There has been plenty of original thought and statements about what "must be", it is all based on various assumptions.
Basically noone has been able to prove that an external universe really exists. Bust you should really post this under "Philosophy" to get a fuller answer.
2007-12-21 20:19:25 · answer #4 · answered by Quadrillian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok, only if you want to mix Einsteins theory of relativity with philosophy. but in all reality that doesnt really work its not really factual.
look at the tree falling in the forest idea. it doesnt matter if no one is there to hear it, it still disturbs the air and makes a sound. if you die the universe lives on whether u observe it or not.
the poster above me has a very good point too. the universe was around for 13.7 billion years before you, so you observing it makes no difference at all.
2007-12-21 19:42:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a extreme case of the Anthropic Principle.
The milder case simply says that the universe appears to be designed for us, simply because if it were not, then we would not be here to discuss it.
Having said that, one of my in-laws lives with this conviction that the universe (and other people) have been created to serve her...
2007-12-21 20:02:07 · answer #6 · answered by Raymond 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It´s a question of perspective. This is the antropomorphic way to see it. There is another: the universe came to life 13,700 million years ago, with or without us. It exists by itself.
2007-12-21 19:31:18 · answer #7 · answered by Asker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is merely (in effect) a confirmation of relativity. The universe exists for your frame of reference. Its appearance isn't absolute; it is relative to how you view it.
2007-12-21 19:28:14 · answer #8 · answered by The_Doc_Man 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is the same as the tree falling in the forest.
2007-12-21 19:26:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it makes you happy to believe this, then, fair enough.
2007-12-21 19:27:46 · answer #10 · answered by john g 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋