Re: Why does the universe exist?

[John M <***>]

Hi, Judith,
I apologize for the miniature script, in this
substitute mail-client I did not yet learn how to
adjust things. I had a mailing mishap and am lucky to
have collected some hundred messages, so I missed most
of the reading in posts of the recent past. 
I hope this post will arrive in good health (meaning
for all of you). 
First the least important: "Why does the U exist?" you
have a remark (don't know by whom): because it was
entailed. Reminds me the mountain climber who was
asked WHY he had to climb that murderous pic? and the
answer was: "because it is there". 
Then again I keep pointing to the double meaning of
the WHY, many still look for a purpose, others a
'how'.

I never read to much from Wheeler, did not know how
smart he was - as your quote shows. Jibes with my
criticism of the 'expanding universe' and narrative of
the physicicstic cosmologists about te BB - the
million tests slanted towards proving the theory. 

RR was right in labeling the BB a linear thinking, the
linear retrogradacity in chaotic forward development.
I made up a different narrative, but my feeble human
logic needed a starting point (which involved an end
as well). The "harmonic EX-IMplosion forever" IMO just
bypasses the final question - does not solve it. Of
course I also just pushed it further down the abyss of
the unfathomable "Plenitude" where the infinite number
of universes arose from - with a (human?) logical and
unavoidable origination. "Why" the Plenitude? Ask god,
but first you have to create an askable one. Not a bad
idea indeed. (Remeber: if there are 2 religions, one
is false). 

Then again again "scientific manner" is usually used
as abiding by the figments of the reductionist half-
explanatory narratives with all their axioms, givens,
artifaxes, beliefs, - and their (Wheeler-based) math. 
In the moment when we accept impredicatives, unlimited
variables, non-comp relations, we are out of science
(as is fixed by the Nobel committee and academia).

And - please - let us keep away from the conditional
form of vebs (if it were). Even 'thought experiments'
are fiction, no matter how many decades long some are
the basis of the highest science-discussions (EPR).

You really believe that "we can find out" how the U
works? ask Wheeler. Explanations of observed elements
is not better than the slanted tests. They are within
the reductionist mode framwork allowances. Water you
pour - as H2O? no hydrogen, no oxygen not even the H2O
labeled molecule in it, but a liquid with surface
tension and bulk 'physical' behavior which in a very
special destruction arrives at data representing H and
O (maybe). So that's it. And you believe it. 
Interactive relational causality? yes, if you do not
restrict the participants in the relations. No: if you
think within a limited model and its possibilities. 

((This is all theoretical, we need practical bypasses
for technical results and they were efficient. Now we
try to "think" and wnat to "understand" - maybe better
than the caveman and ever since. ))

Judith, please don't tell me that it was better while
my computer was shut.<G>
This post is NOT against you (or anybody else). Just
my thoughts.

John M

--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> Sorry to be out of touch; I missed your post so I'm
> glad you brought 
> it up again.
> 
> I took a look at the article on John Wheeler at 
> http://home.pacbell.net/claydale/wheelerdisc.htm.
> There was one line 
> in it that really screamed! It was the perfect
> summation of so many of 
> the discussions we have had on this list and also
> the conclusion of my 
> father's scientific analysis of contemporary
> science: "The outcome of 
> the experiment depends on what the physicists try to
> measure..." And, 
> since they're still chasing "the particles" they
> will miss the answers 
> to their questions unless the questions are directly
> about the 
> particles, themselves. Even then, they may not learn
> anything general 
> about particles, but only limited information
> pertaining to those 
> particular particles (... and how many pickled
> peppers did Peter Piper 
> pick?) Further; how will they know what is general
> and what is not?
> 
> My father didn't subscribe to the "Big Bang" theory.
> He thought that 
> was pretty stupid. It's such a linear, human view to
> think of 
> beginnings, endings, inside of, outside of, before,
> after, etc. But 
> the question you are asking is "Why?" not "How?"
> right? My father 
> tended to answer questions like "Why does the
> universe exist?" with 
> "How should I know?" You had to get specific and
> say, "Why do YOU 
> think the universe exists?" He would then say, "Ah,
> well that's a 
> completely different question. And my answer to that
> may not have 
> anything relevant to teach you about the universe.
> As long as you 
> understand that, I'll tell you." Once he got
> reassurance, he'd nod and 
> say, "OK, then. Well... I don't know why the
> universe exists," and 
> break out into a grin as I was swatting at him with
> my magazine.
> 
> It's the sort of question that cannot be evaluated
> scientifically at 
> the current time. The best answer that doesn't rely
> on religious, 
> philosophical, or otherwise unsupported belief
> structures would 
> probably be "The universe exists because it is
> entailed." But to try 
> and establish what the entailments might be would be
> impossible to do 
> in any kind of scientific manner; we don't even know
> what "the 
> universe" IS,  y'know what I mean? We can make
> educated guesses about 
> some of the "ingredients" like space and time, but
> whatever we are 
> perceiving in the universe is going to be the way it
> is because of the 
> way the universe is organized. So it goes back to
> chlorine and sodium, 
> again. If the universe were a salt molecule, how
> would we know what 
> various aspects of the universe would be like if
> they were separated 
> from all other aspects? How could we guess the
> nature of chlorine if 
> our experience of the universe was salt? So, what
> would "time" be 
> like, say, if we could experience it detached from
> everything else? It 
> might be unrecognizable.
> 
> It's also not likely to be useful to have that
> information, really. If 
> the universe were a salt molecule, the nature of
> chlorine by itself is 
> not relevant. We're better off concentrating on
> learning how the 
> universe works and why. This we can find out. One of
> the basic laws of 
> this universe is apparently that everything is
> entailed and the 
> entailments are consistent. We know this from
> studying causality. My 
> father also believed that interactive relational
> causality is the 
> entailed nature of this universe. We can do a lot
> with that, 
> science-wise, combined with the power of our minds.
> But, one thing he 
> was able to conclude from his study of complex
> systems and complexity 
> in general is that no matter how much we learn about
> how the universe 
> works, it will never explain why or how the universe
> came to exist. 
> You can't derive either of those categories of
> information from the 
> other category.
> 
> Judith
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Steve Johnson
Truncated