The mystery of our existence
On this site we have already shown that the justification of the existence of the universe and of our existence leads to tautologies. The consciousness of our existence justifies that of the universe of which we are an integral part. We are also an all-encompassing part of the universe through our mind, which allows us to consider it in its totality.
Is a consciousness required for providing an existence to the universe or any other object (what we will call “external existence”)? When this consciousness is about myself, we will call it “intrinsic existence”. Are extrinsic and intrinsic existences of the same nature?
That’s a lot of questions, the only answer, a little frustrating, that we have proposed is based on existentialist philosophy: existence cannot be explained, it can be only noted. Let us emphasize the tautology since, in order to note its existence, one must exist.
Creation and existence
Per our usual patterns of thought, using the concepts of time and space (immediate objects of our consciousness according to the classical philosopher) we wonder why there is something instead of nothing. As Leibnitz said: « Why something rather than nothing? « . It can be objected that if there is « nothing », there will be no consciousness to see it, which is again a tautology.
Therefore we assume that a creation must have intervened for there for getting something It is in this classic schema that the standard model of cosmology is situated, with a creation of the universe (birth), a life (evolution in time as we get in age) and, in general an end (death) that can be postponed to infinity in some models.
We note the « anthropomorphic » nature of this description of the phenomenon.
Spacetime baffles the concepts of the Standard Model
It is surprising that the relativistic Standard Model of cosmology, defined by the Einstein’s equation which defines not a space and a time but a spacetime, is interpreted in terms of space and time, which are Newtonian concepts.
Interpretation in terms of spacetime provides a much more interesting solution.
Indeed, the notion of the creation of a spacetime has no meaning insofar as a spacetime is more than space and time separately, which are only « appearances » of the spacetime.
In fact, a spacetime exists independently of any other external constraint and does not need to be included in anything else, either « spatially » (would have a container) or « temporally » (would have a dynamic cycle of creation-life-death).
A spacetime has no past, no present, no future, notions that are Newtonian notions, it « exists » as spacetime.
These notions (past, present, future) are internal elements of spacetime, which result from arbitrary formation of spacetime (slicing), producing, as a result, appearances of the spacetime such as time and space, without any physical character..
Space and time cannot create a concept that transcends them.
Concerning a putative creation in time and space of a spacetime, it is impossible to conceive how time and space, which are appearances of spacetime, could generate a spacetime, a concept that would be “superior “to it [1].
Indeed, spacetime is not an assembly of time and space but the fundamental indivisible physical entity associated with the theory of general relativity.
In this spacetime scheme, this confirms that the evolution of the universe, the expansion of space, its (arbitrary) slicing into time and space are « internal » parameters of spacetime and not external parameters that would apply to the spacetime describing the universe [2] .
Spacetime, as a paradigm for explaining our existence?
From the fact that our existence can only be noted and that the spacetime representing the universe also needs nothing else for existing and that, as well, we can only note its existence, we deduce that there is a morphism between the two entities.
The study of the concept of spacetime, which is a mathematical object, then understandable by our minds, can then serve as a paradigm for understanding our own existence.
Interestingly, when our minds seem to be confronted with a conceptual limitation, their formal attempt to model nature opens up a path for us to overcome it [3]. This tends to prove that it is indeed in the formal structure of nature, spacetime for example, that the solution lies.
The study of the nature, even if it often baffles our habits of thought, [4] is the thread that we must trust, despite all the renunciations of thought that it invokes, so that knowledge can continue to progress.
Notes
[1] In theology, it is assumed that God cannot create a being who would be superior to him.
[2] This point has been made explicit in many pages of this site.
Intrinsic, extrinsic, implicit existence. 25/02/21 Shortness of Humanity and Existence 14-2-25 Science: description of nature or description of the knowledge of nature? 21/02/25 Existence: Tautology vs. Transcendence: What Limits for the human Mind? 18/01/24 Are physical laws only a creation of our mind? Consciousness and existence: (03/25/22) Existence of the universe: an unavoidable tautology? 06/09/22 Let us understand that the most important is what we do not understand! 9/08/22 Paradigm, essence, existence, creation (updated 6/09/22)
[3] For quantum mechanics, it was necessary to « invent » a formalism to describe it. It has been said, with regard to quantum mechanics, that « When humans sought to know nature in its ultimate recesses, they found strange imprints: « they were their own ».
[4] We must force ourselves to abandon the concepts of time and space in favor of that of spacetime, which is almost impossible to understand.
Author J. FRIC Published on April , 11, 2025