[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
If all sentient life in the universe ceased to exist then in a sense the universe itsself would cease to exist,because there would be nothing to know it was there.
[/QUOTE]
Metaphysical solipsism is an entertaining notion for dorm room bull sessions but, as Bertrand Russell observed, it has no real application or use. The external universe will continue to exist, or not, dependent not one whit whether you are paying it any mind. Any philosophy that states otherwise is built on the undisciplined egocentricism that the philosopher is manifestly important to anyone other than himself.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Well, there are two theories about this.
1: the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is that until waveforms are resolved, overlapping quantum states actually exist as such simultaneously, so if there is no “observer” to collapse the waveforms, the entire Universe would be one big uncollapsed waveform, instead of all these stars, galaxies, etc.
2: The Anthropic Principle explains why the Universe’s parameters are set up such that conscious life is around to observe it: because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here observing it! (i.e. there’s no physical principle that says that the parameters have to be set up just so, there are other random values they could be set to, but those do not lead to universes with a possibility of life.)
[/QUOTE]
- This is based on an outmoded and incorrect understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. The notion that discrete states exist only as probability waveforms is an idealization, suitable for thought experiements, but in reality things do exist, and persist in existing, functioning in a manner that is entirely predictable on the macro scale by classical and statistical mechanics during an interim period while it is not under observation. (One can speculate that it disintigrated once attention was turned from it and reassembled by flying monkeys just before being re-examined, but this clearly falls under the heading of abnormal psychology rather than legitimate quantum theory.) Even under (most) Copenhagen interpretations, the system still exists; it merely exists in multiple (effectively infinite for any complex system) states which are reduced to a single, discrete state once it is observed.
There’s a bigger problem with Copenhagen, though. (I mean, besides the habitual feline abuse.) The term “observed” is habitually used in describing the behavior of a quantum system, but in fact there is no observation of any system on the quantum level without interaction; hence, an “observer” becomes an intrinsic part of the system just by looking at it. The alleged collapse of waveforms applies as much to the observer as to the system being observed, such that the system could be said to be intwined in the awareness of the observer, and lacking it, the observer has no context by which to be aware. In contrast to solipsism, this suggests that the observer doesn’t exist (in the sense of having sentience) without external stimuli about which to make reference. You don’t exist without the rest of the universe, and cannot seperate yourself from it, in either a physical or observational sense.
Consider Schrödinger’s Cat: we’re supposed to accept that the cat exists as the wavefunction (|dead> + |alive>)/√2 until we peek in on it, but what of the cat? It may not be aware of its own death, but surely it has at least some limited self-awareness that it is alive, and furthermore pretty pissed about being locked in this box over and over again. Wigner’s friend (who stays in the room with the cat while Wigner steps out) is even more problematic; clearly, his personal system exists definitively in one discrete state even if for the external observer it still must be indeterminate until he checks on it. Does Wigner’s friend also exist as a probabliity waveform until observed by the presumably authoritative and consious Wigner? Who bells the cat, so to speak, with regard to the ultimate definition of a collapsed waveform? Clearly, there is a larger mechanism at work which regulates the states and interactions of all actions, articles, and observers in the universe, and none of them are independent.
- The Anthropic Principle is even worse, the height of bombastic ego; a mangling of Descartes famous proclaimation into “I am, therefore I think.” (Incidentially, talking about bombastic egos, this was one of Ayn Rand’s favorite sayings.) That the universe is suited to us is nothing but an indication of how we evolved into it. It’s not as if we were placed in it fully formed, complete with fig leaves over our nether regions.
The universe exists, and we exist (in physical form) as an indivisible part of it. Our self-awareness and catabolic processes are ephemeral, to be certain, but there is absolutely no basis for the notion that these neurological and biomechanical processes have any impact upon the progress or direction of the natural world except insofar as they are translated into the actions of our bodies.
As for the question posed by the o.p., it sounds suspiciously like a request for an explanation for life, the universe, and everything. I believe the answer is fairly well known, but I would suggest the o.p. demur from trying to formalize the question, as this could result in the universe suddenly disappearing and being replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable.
Stranger
