Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Is it conceivable that our universe is Incomplete?

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Is it conceivable that our universe is Incomplete?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I think this is an odd question. Here are some immediate logica for our delectation.

What do we mean by complete? ?...........No loose ends? No gaps? No degradation? No growth?

If the universe is complete, always was, and necessarily always will be ?.. then there is a universal sense in which the universe does not change and therefore does not grow. Its birth and death, if it had any, must be instantaneous since growth and decay imply incompleteness. Change is not the same as growth, but non changing completeness is a lack of growth even in a generally changing universe.

What do we mean by incomplete? ?...... Faults. Inconsistency. Missing elements. Lost elements.

If the universe isn't complete, never was and never will be ?... then something will always be missing somewhere. But such a universe does hold the possibility growth, by virtue of its incompleteness. In fact such a universe even holds the possibility of limitless growth..... but never to the point of completion.

I think there may be a real philosophical dilemma here.

Option A - If we choose to believe in the complete universe, then it is delusion (presumably by our human incompleteness), to believe that anything truly grows and decays ?.. including ourselves. Change is now completeness changing. Our actions neither add to or take away from the completeness of the universe, even though we apparently grow from a relativistic perspective.

Option B - On the other hand to choose to believe in an incomplete universe doesn't feel right. There is something missing and will always be missing. Or maybe that does feel right....... and just downright uncomfortable!

Suppose you consider the above two options as presenting an undesirable hobson's choice.

Option C - A third possibility is that the universe starts out incomplete and then becomes complete by creating or finding what was missing..... And at that point will cease to grow. Wanna live in the universe beyond that point? No growth, just change. Back to option A. No? ?...... Then presumably you don't consider what is missing as something you want to add to the universe to make it complete. Ie such a view would give you a feeling of Guilt because you neither want to live in a complete universe or worse still, create it.

Option D - But suppose the universe started out as complete, then became incomplete forever. If we live in the incompleteness stage we are able to believe in personal growth while living without fear of the universe ever becoming complete. Moreover in the context of 'the fall' from completeness we may even experience at times that divine element which started to go missing, without guilt..... Is this therefore the most attractive option for human beings to believe in?

(How about the following addition ?... as a kind of recompense to the universe for taking such a negative overall view, purely for our own benefit and need for personal growth, we can even graciously believe that it was people of the past that caused the incompleteness in the first place! This quality of humanity simultaneously guards us from living in a complete universe on the one hand, and moreover the guilt is not out of our choosing ?...... but our nature.) Smile

any other metaphysical tricks we might use in the context of the completeness of the universe?

@pagan,

Most of the universal matter undergoes degredation, so I would have to exclude that point. and I hope you don't mind that I leave it there. I gotta work in five hours and should really bed for the night. I intend to come back to this so i shall see what else you have to say. Thank-you and goodnight. It is one am if you are wondering.

@urangutan,

I see the options as such:

1a) matter can be created: Matter can be created and it keeps on being infinitely.

1b) matter can be created: At some point it stops and rearrangement of matter keeps going infintely.

1c) matter can be created: At some point it stops and stops rearranging; the universe is fully formed

2a) matter cannot be created: It rearranges infinitely.

2b) matter cannot be created: At some points it stops rearranging and the universe is fully formed.

In any case if one assumes that the universe can be 'fully formed' IMO they are assuming that there is a specific progression of the formation thereof. A specific formation progression would, I think, imply some sort of directive/higher power. It would at least imply a pre-existing set of laws outside the seeming randomness of the universe. If one assumes that the universe is ever changing, one could assert that laws outside the universe and/or a universal director are non-existent.

@GoshisDead,

Hmmm .. I see the Universe as Is but constantly changing. Sort of like moving water in a bottle. However, I do not preclude the possibility that things might be added into the mix or taken out by each individual consciousness or consciousness as a whole. But it cold also be simply a matter of expanding and shrinking sort of like a hurricane might.

Rich

@pagan,

First off I think materialism is fundamentally wrong.
Matter is merely condensed energy and energy is much harder to measure.
Second off I think the notion of "being" as opposed to "becoming" is fundamentally wrong the universe is changing from moment to moment so the concept of something missing is a little hard to grasp in the flow of time.
Third, there seem to be features of the universe which are not detectable by our experimental apparatus or by our sensory apparatus, dark matter, etc.
So in sum I think the notion of "something missing" is misconceived. IMHO

@prothero,

well each to their own as to what the universe includes ..... and whether it is complete or not. But if it is complete?

---------- Post added 08-07-2009 at 02:42 AM ----------

prothero, richrf, GoshisDead, urangutan

i invite you to give your own opinion in your own terms ..... is the universe complete? Smile

@pagan,

pagan;81681 wrote:

well each to their own as to what the universe includes ..... and whether it is complete or not. But if it is complete?

---------- Post added 08-07-2009 at 02:42 AM ----------

prothero, richrf, GoshisDead, urangutan

i invite you to give your own opinion in your own terms ..... is the universe complete?

The universe is engaged in a continuous process of creative advance. It is different from moment to moment. So at each moment it is both incomplete and complete.

@pagan,

pagan;81681 wrote:

prothero, richrf, GoshisDead, urangutan

i invite you to give your own opinion in your own terms ..... is the universe complete?

Hi,

Not complete in the sense of finished. Something new is always being created (at least in form).

Rich

@pagan,

I am a bit of a romantic idealist.
I tend to see the universe as slowly progressing towards the actualization of potentiality. In that sense the universe is always incomplete, only a partial actualization. Non the less the universe moves forward slowly, but steadily toward higher degrees of order, complexity, life, mind, novelty, creativity and the actualization of aesthetic and ethical ideals.

So is the universe incomplete?
In the sense that it is a work in progress, not a completed act and in the sense that it is engaged in a neverending process of creative advance.
Yes. IMHO.
Is the universe incomplete in the sense that energy or matter are missing or being added or subtracted, not really the right question in my view. It is the arrangments of matter and energy which give value. :listening:

@prothero,

yes thanks guys

can you see what i am getting at. From the human perspective incomplete is more attractive than complete because of the need for a sense of growth, but still a bit of an unsatisfactory comment to make of the universe ...... better if both. But they are mutually exclusive states, so from one to another is potentially better. Prothero hinted at what is a new metaphysical trick so far Smile

it oscillates constantly from complete to incomplete.

The change from complete to incomplete is a fall, the change from incomplete to complete is a rise. BUT in the complete state the overall rise and fall finishes. ie no overall growth or decay, though both maybe occur within on a smaller scale.

It is as if we want not only a personal sense of growth but one that must also be tied to a universal growth. ie That our lives add something to the universe. If the universe is complete and our growth and decay is part of its changing completeness ....... then that feels unsatisfactory. There is a sense in which we really don't like it. We want to live in an incomplete universe.

@pagan,

pagan;81602 wrote:

I think this is an odd question. Here are some immediate logica for our delectation.

What do we mean by complete? ?...........No loose ends? No gaps? No degradation? No growth?

If the universe is complete, always was, and necessarily always will be ?.. then there is a universal sense in which the universe does not change and therefore does not grow. Its birth and death, if it had any, must be instantaneous since growth and decay imply incompleteness. Change is not the same as growth, but non changing completeness is a lack of growth even in a generally changing universe.

What do we mean by incomplete? ?...... Faults. Inconsistency. Missing elements. Lost elements.

If the universe isn't complete, never was and never will be ?... then something will always be missing somewhere. But such a universe does hold the possibility growth, by virtue of its incompleteness. In fact such a universe even holds the possibility of limitless growth..... but never to the point of completion.

I think there may be a real philosophical dilemma here.

Option A - If we choose to believe in the complete universe, then it is delusion (presumably by our human incompleteness), to believe that anything truly grows and decays ?.. including ourselves. Change is now completeness changing. Our actions neither add to or take away from the completeness of the universe, even though we apparently grow from a relativistic perspective.

Option B - On the other hand to choose to believe in an incomplete universe doesn't feel right. There is something missing and will always be missing. Or maybe that does feel right....... and just downright uncomfortable!

Suppose you consider the above two options as presenting an undesirable hobson's choice.

Option C - A third possibility is that the universe starts out incomplete and then becomes complete by creating or finding what was missing..... And at that point will cease to grow. Wanna live in the universe beyond that point? No growth, just change. Back to option A. No? ?...... Then presumably you don't consider what is missing as something you want to add to the universe to make it complete. Ie such a view would give you a feeling of Guilt because you neither want to live in a complete universe or worse still, create it.

Option D - But suppose the universe started out as complete, then became incomplete forever. If we live in the incompleteness stage we are able to believe in personal growth while living without fear of the universe ever becoming complete. Moreover in the context of 'the fall' from completeness we may even experience at times that divine element which started to go missing, without guilt..... Is this therefore the most attractive option for human beings to believe in?

(How about the following addition ?... as a kind of recompense to the universe for taking such a negative overall view, purely for our own benefit and need for personal growth, we can even graciously believe that it was people of the past that caused the incompleteness in the first place! This quality of humanity simultaneously guards us from living in a complete universe on the one hand, and moreover the guilt is not out of our choosing ?...... but our nature.)

any other metaphysical tricks we might use in the context of the completeness of the universe?

Of course it is incomplete...It is missing tomorrow...

@Fido,

hi fido

...... another incompletist! lol

@pagan,

pagan;81735 wrote:

hi fido

...... another incompletist! lol

Well; I have limits, and you are testing them...

@pagan,

pagan;81724 wrote:

yes thanks guys

can you see what i am getting at. From the human perspective incomplete is more attractive than complete because of the need for a sense of growth, but still a bit of an unsatisfactory comment to make of the universe ...... better if both. But they are mutually exclusive states, so from one to another is potentially better. Prothero hinted at what is a new metaphysical trick so far it oscillates constantly from complete to incomplete.

The change from complete to incomplete is a fall, the change from incomplete to complete is a rise. BUT in the complete state the overall rise and fall finishes. ie no overall growth or decay, though both maybe occur within on a smaller scale.

It is as if we want not only a personal sense of growth but one that must also be tied to a universal growth. ie That our lives add something to the universe. If the universe is complete and our growth and decay is part of its changing completeness ....... then that feels unsatisfactory. There is a sense in which we really don't like it. We want to live in an incomplete universe.

Wanting the universe to be this way and that should not produce an effect in your philosophy of it. It certainly does not change what is. The changing is simply in accord with the second law of thermodynamics on a universal scale.
"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value."
While the physical objects that are created that seem to violate the above law are just in following the line of newton's law of universal gravitation. when the accumulating sector or point runs out of energy to gobble up it will also fall victim to thermodynamic laws and run out of energy to stay intact and dissolve into particles that will, in time, come in contact with another sector of accumulating mass and so on and so on...

personal growth is essentially a non-factor of the universe from a materialistic stand point. so in the end nothing can "add" more to the universe. we can only witness it for the very short time we are here.

you must stay relative in your desires to change what you see before you. do not think about it from a universal standpoint, but a human one.

@pagan,

Evidence rules out that the universe is complete. Ask any astronomer. A complete universe would have no growth whatsoever, and would contain the maximum aggregate energy and matter that it can. This is not the case since the universe is expanding. Ask me if you want to know why, and how the universe may end the way it is going.

@pagan,

I think that modern physics tells us the Universe is a closed system, and if it's a fully-functioning closed system then it must be a complete system...

@Leonard,

Leonard;81850 wrote:

Evidence rules out that the universe is complete. Ask any astronomer. A complete universe would have no growth whatsoever, and would contain the maximum aggregate energy and matter that it can. This is not the case since the universe is expanding. Ask me if you want to know why, and how the universe may end the way it is going.

why does growth = added energy?
in inflationary cosmology the expanding agent is energy present from the origin (big bang).

where is your evidence?

Cheers!

@valo,

valo;81857 wrote:

why does growth = added energy?
in inflationary cosmology the expanding agent is energy present from the origin (big bang).

where is your evidence?

Cheers!

I would expand the notion that the universe may consist of more than energy - at least as we commonly think of it.

Does a thought exist? If so, is it energy? If not, what is it? Consciousness/Mind has never been measured nor has a dream or a thought. Does a new thought expand the universe?

Rich

---------- Post added 08-08-2009 at 01:36 AM ----------

hammersklavier;81854 wrote:

I think that modern physics tells us the Universe is a closed system, and if it's a fully-functioning closed system then it must be a complete system...

Hi,

While the reigning Big Bang theory supports this notion, the competing Steady-State Theory does suggest spontaneous formation of matter.

Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory requires that new matter must be continuously created (mostly as hydrogen) to keep the average density of matter equal over time.

The Steady-State theory lost most of its support after the 1965 discovery of background radiation, but despite the overwhelming support for the Big Bang theory, it itself suffers from lots of problems:

BB top 30 problems

Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.

One nice thing about the Steady-State is that it does account for the uniform density of the universe:

Steady State Cosmology: A Cosmological Alternative to the Big Bang Theory | Suite101.com

Steady State theories in general are more than a historical model. The Big Bang model asserts that the universe is expanding from a very dense past. The Steady state model with its creation of new matter also asserts that the universe is expanding but that the density of the past is the same as the density of the present. There has never been an observation of the universe where the past is observed to be more dense than the present. All of these observations seem to completely contradict the Big Bang model for this reason. This has been dubbed the density problem of the BB theory. The steady state theory in one form or another will ultimately prevail as time progresses for this and many other reasons.

So, as always, I think that there are still more questions that are posed by science than answers. Always things to consider and learn.

Rich

@pagan,

I don't think we will ever know if the universe is complete or incomplete, or at least this generation probably won't. Perhaps it may be more answerable to question the completion of your own personal universe with satisfaction.

@Serena phil,

hi serena

Quote:

I don't think we will ever know if the universe is complete or incomplete, or at least this generation probably won't. Perhaps it may be more answerable to question the completion of your own personal universe with satisfaction.

I agree, but our own personal universe as philosophers potentially includes the consequences of questions like this doesn't it? For some of us who are religious the perfection of a deity might be relevant. For atheistic materialists the possibility of creation, loss and degradation become important. (eg are the universal conservation laws necessary for completeness, and does completeness necessarily imply universal conservation laws? .... does the existence of just one universal law that measures degradation imply that the universe is incomplete even if closed?)

hi valo Smile

Quote:

Wanting the universe to be this way and that should not produce an effect in your philosophy of it.

Is that an absolutist position or .....

Quote:

you must stay relative in your desires to change what you see before you. do not think about it from a universal standpoint, but a human one.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Is it conceivable that our universe is Incomplete?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Is it conceivable that our universe is Incomplete?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know