If there was no life in the unvierse, would the universe exist?

I don't know Vanitas but I reckon he meant biological life, since his post was in response to DRs about alien life in the universe.

OP--if you are around--please clarify...

Originally posted by YourForever
Laws of physics operate all the same whether or not life is there to observe. I would say inanimate existance is not dependent on life, imo.

Well, yes, of course (and that's what the OP probably meant).

But that's just one possible point of view.
From a philosophical and metaphysical point of view it could also be argued that "inanimate existence" is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

And besides... define "inanimate".
(Again, I am serious.)

And I'll repeat (or rephrase): could the Big Bang be called "inanimate"?









[edit on 8-10-2008 by Vanitas]

Sorry for being away for a while, I have read up on your comments and see that I have a couple of questions to answer!

To clarify the point of what I meant by 'life':

In the original question, I meant biological life. Something which can sense it's surroundings and react to it. But after reading that even rocks have a certain level of consciousness, it does pose some even more ineresting questions.

As this is such an abstract question to answer and I agree with some of you who think this can't be answered, I would like to make some clear statements which I hope will at least give us some foundations to keep on topic.


1. By life I mean cellular life, aware, conscious and biological. Even on a basic level such as single celled organinsms

2. I do not percieve the universe to have a creator, if there was a creator, then it would constitute as 'alive' by my definitions, thus the universe would always exist; negating my question.

3. By 'no life in the universe' I mean ever, past present and future.

In theory, I would agree with the people who say that even if there is no life, the physical objects are still there, physical laws still apply. However, with the lack of any life, ever, this universe would have absolutley no point at all. It would be never observed, never sensed. An infinite amount of time would pass and it would amount to nothing as it never really 'existed'.

I think the key is possibly in that word, 'exist'. What does it mean? Does something need mass or charge to exist? Could something like emotion actually 'exist'?

It seems more questions are coming from this than I originally expected.

Could the universe only be a manifestation of everything within it? Quantum theory.

...And if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around... Its kinda the same question. I have to say it seems a bit of a redundant question. I don't believe we know anywhere near enough about 'our place' in the universe to answer such a query, I think the real question we need to ask is; what makes life? what is the starter motor for life? If we can agree that a hypothetical universe exists, then what causes the start of life in this hypothetical universe?

the chicken...or the egg?


Cool Thread!

Anthropic Principle

Did the universe come into existence just so that intelligent beings (self aware) could observe and understand it?

Or is it just some kind of random luck that we exist at all?

During a two week series of synopsia in Poland 1973 celebrating the 500th birthday of Copernicus. Brandon Carter asserted that Mankind holds a special place in the Universe.( Weak Anthropic Principle) This theory was diametrically opposed to Copernicus's theory. Which basically states
that just by existing in this Universe, that we carbon based creatures impose a cosmological selection effect on the Universe so that we DO exist.

Here is the official version of the Weak Anthropic Principle:
From: (The Anthropic Cosmological Principal by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p16)

Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

Then Carter sprung this whammy on his principal...The Universe HAD to create mankind!
This is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). It is highly teleological and speculative at best.

Again the official version
From: (The Anthropic Cosmological Principal by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p21)

Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.

One more even more speculative principal ( actually, there two separate ones, but I consider them as two affirmations of the same theme.( ie: one supports the other)) Are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principals.
Which basically state that not only did the Universe have to create intelligent self aware beings,
but that we are necessary to collapse the Universe's waves and probabilities from superposition into
reality. Further, the Final Anthropic principle adds that once self aware beings are brought into being, the Universe cannot and never will die.

Some of the finest minds in the world are trying to understand the implications of the OP's question.

Peace

Sources:
Physics department of SFSU:
Source
A theologian's view:
Bill Craig A theologians view
Why is the Universe isotropic? Dr.S.W. Hawking's view:
Harvard Physics

reply to post by Unsane


Wow that question hurts my brain. I'm gonna say yes because i believe that Energy is the one thing that connects us all whether physical life exists or not

[edit on 30-11-2008 by MCoG1980]

I guess you are assuming that life is the most significant event in the universe.

Maybe the mites in my bed feel the same ways....