Introduction
On this site, ( https://vous-avez-dit-bigbang.fr/), the theme of existence, of the essence of things, among others of the universe and of ourselves, and of our particular position in relation to this problem, since we are « judge and party », has been addressed in several articles in the « philosophy » section.
In these articles, we largely took up debates and ideas that have animated the philosophical sphere since it existed and even before, through religions.
It also appeared that we came up against tautologies, apparently unavoidable, since in order to establish our existence, we must exist and since we are an integrated part of the universe, this implies its existence.
We are also an integral part of the universe through our mind, which models it, in its entirety, in the cosmological approach.
Moreover, the notion of « creation » (going from nothing to something) is rebellious to our minds.
In these complements, which must be considered as pure speculative investigations (or even elucubrations), we try to untie this Gordian knot.
The aim of this article, in accordance with philosophy, is not to claim to reveal a « truth », but to stimulate reflection on these themes on the part of the reader so that he or she can form his or her own opinion.
We will see how untying this Gordian knot could be resolved, without resorting to Alexander’s radical method.
First elucubration
Suppose an entity that transcends us (God for example) who created the universe and ourselves. Note that in general it is implicitly assumed that this was done, in a given place and at a given time.
This is the point of view of a human, but it can be assumed that the divine, who has powers that we cannot even imagine, created the universe in its totality, without these contingencies: The universe is an inseparable entity in its existence.
It should be noted that this is more consistent with modern concepts of cosmology, since it corresponds to the concept of space-time of general relativity, an equally inseparable entity (inseparable into fundamental elements) of which time and space are only shadows (appearances), which needs nothing but itself to exist.
It should be noted that the decompositions into space and time carried out by leafing through space-time are no exception to this rule, because they are totally arbitrary and do not correspond to any structural division. They can only be useful from an operational point of view (to make calculations).
In this context, the notion of creation, in a place and at a time, is useless, if not impossible, since the space-time entity, which is more than time and space, which are only appearances, could not emerge from time and space, which are poorer structures.
One could object that, in this space and time, there was a more elaborate structure (space-time for example), but this does not solve the problem, it only postpones it.
In general, it is assumed that this divine entity that transcends us created the universe, which is very complex, just for us, while we occupy, at least materially, an insignificant place in it.
If we take our mind into account, the situation can be estimated differently, but our mind considers that we could have done it simpler to get to us.
This can of course be disputed because let’s not forget that it is our mind, with its limits and constraints, that finds the scenario complex, so considered synthetically as a single block, it can be otherwise.
It is by arbitrarily decomposing the entity into time and space, by breaking the unity of the universe, that we introduce this complexity by generating a history and a nature of the universe. This complexity would then be nothing more than an artefact linked to the limit of our thinking.
Second elucubration: tautologies
As indicated in the introduction, in the analysis, we come up against tautologies that testify to the sterility of our reasoning.
In particular the notion of existence which would imply the necessity of a creation, a concept to which our mind is rebellious: Something cannot emerge from nothing!
There is no evidence that this is impossible. Since this phenomenon has never been observed, this attitude would result from habits of thought, because our mind is contingent on its environment and experience.
Let us recall how modern theories (relativity-quantum mechanics) have swept away many certainties that were considered intangible.
If we accept that a creation, as defined, can exist, then this Gordian disappears. We have not unraveled it, but we maintain that it is only an artifact of our mind and does not have a universal character.
Third investigation our place in the universe
By virtue of our integral situation, of the necessary modeling in our mind of the cosmological fact, we seek to define our place in the universe by positioning ourselves as existing as a free entity and independent of this universe, even if we admit to being subject to its material constraints.
Another hypothesis would be that the only entity that really exists is the universe and that we are, within it, only a functional « organ » with only a limited but useful role among many others.
For example, we could have the role of giving consciousness to the universe.
The importance and criticality of this role remain to be determined [1]. Can a universe without consciousness, where no consciousness, which would be internal, (we do not consider an external consciousness, because the universe being the whole it can only be internal), could it establish its existence, exist?
Is consciousness one of the necessary attributes [2], or does it confer an advantage, for a universe?
Fourth elucubration: What can we conclude from all this?
We leave it up to each person to draw their own conclusion.
[1] To draw a parallel with a human, we know that, among other things, our metabolism requires bacteria in our gut to assimilate food. Would we be in a situation of this type vis-à-vis the universe?
[2] This notion of the necessity of consciousness in physics is taken up by Wigner who, in quantum mechanics, considers that during a quantum measurement, the result of which can only be an eigenvalue, it is at the moment when the physicist becomes aware of this result that the result of the experiment exists. You could say that the idea is that a result that cannot be predicted remains unrealized by an experiment until it is known. But it goes further, in information theory, if this information is lost, because of the principle of information conservation, this information must not have existed.