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.
Unavoidable tautologies?
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.
A « self-dual » situation
As we are integrated into the universe, let us note that we integrate it, through our mind, which models it, in its entirety, in the cosmological approach.
It is a very special property where the content is also the container. It is our awareness of existing in something that we strive to model that makes this possible.
What are the implications?
On the indisputable observation of our existence, naturally this encourages us to question its nature, its meaning and also its origin. As for the origin of our existence, it is conditioned by the origin of the universe, since our material substance is formed by the fundamental elements of the universe, without which we would not exist. In the classical approach, independent time and space, the existence of the universe is generally considered to be a predecessor in the time and space of our existence.
In the « spacetime » approach to relativity, where the existence of the universe is not located in « classical » time and space, fundamentally, this notion of precedence does not exist because the universe is the whole, the notions of precedence being an internal characteristic of this spacetime resulting from an arbitrary layering of time and space. This is not easy to admit, but strictly speaking, this is how it should be considered.
The standard cosmological model invokes an independent time and space.
In a chronological cosmological approach, (Big Bang theory), where the analysis is done in terms of space and time (the universe appears in a given place on a given date and its spatial component evolves in time), the knowledge we have of cosmology (constitution and dynamics) and the evolution of species shows that our arrival, with its consciousness to think it, is very late, but we do not know whether, elsewhere and before, other evolved forms of structures « thinking with consciousness or/and even more efficient » exist or have existed.
These hypotheses invoke a « creation » of the universe, while the notion of « creation » (going from nothing to something) repels our minds.
Note that we are wondering about the emergence of the universe (beginning of its existence) by means of one of its structures (our consciousness) that already exists!
We understand the tautological nature of the situation.
Is the spacetime universe untying this Gordian knot?
The approach, suggested by the relativity of a spacetime (where time and space are only phantoms) is more convincing since it describes the universe (we speak of a block universe) in its « spatio-temporal » totality, which includes us, and in this case we can dispense with talking about the origin in time and space of the universe and our late appearance, which have no physical character, since all this is part of the universe defined as the whole (in all its spatial and temporal extension in Newtonian language). In this approach, only the existence of a spacetime arises, the rest, whose evolution is relative only to an internal structure of this spacetime.
This analysis, invoked by general relativity, a theory well verified by experience, even if we know that it is not perfect and destined to be improved, seems more appropriate to the analysis of the problem.
We will no doubt find limits to this, for it is doubtful that we will ever be able to find a perfect ultimate theory, but at least their nature will tell us more precisely about our condition in this universe.
A first conclusion that we propose in our analysis is to note that any analysis of our existence in terms of space and time is erroneous and can only lead us astray.
This tells us what not to do, but not how to approach the problem and even if some paths are mapped out, the approach is difficult because it rebels to our habits of thought. Some food for thought.
This is a fundamental principle for an analysis free of the concepts of time and space inherent in our thinking.
1-Existence cannot be thought of as something that has appeared in time and space. As already stipulated, existence, that of the universe, ours, has no predecessor, this term being used in the formal « mathematical » sense, the most general, not only limited in time and space. Nothing implied existence, it is not the result of anything else!!
This resolutely existentialist assertion imposes that any analysis of our existence must respect this hypothesis.
2-Existence implies a consciousness in order to ascertain it. Thus we must consider a « block » universe including what is usually (mistakenly) called all its « spatial and temporal extension », including a consciousness to think about the universe. Otherwise, we would be forced to consider that the existence of the universe (including us) begins with the emergence of our consciousness.
3- To be continued.
Appendix – Brain-Storming
In these additions, which must be considered as pure speculative reflections (or even fantasies, not to be taken too seriously), let us 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 spacetime 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 spacetime 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 spacetime 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 (spacetime 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. The Sun with the Earth would have been enough and the chain of evolution of life on Earth could have been avoided, for example.
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 unravelled it, but we maintain that it is only an artifact of our mind and does not have a universal character.
Third fantasy: 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 remains 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 fantasy: 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 retention, this information must not have existed.