In The Puzzle of Reality: Why does the Universe Exist?, Derek Parfit explains a theory about the creation of the universe. Parfit believes that there are no causal answers to the existence of the universe. He thinks the universe exists between nothing and everything. The first hypothesis that he brings up is the Big Bang theory. He believes that the creation of the universe had to have perfect conditions. Parfit compares the Big Bang theory to winning a lottery, saying that there is a very minute chance that it could have happened. He raises the question of why were the conditions perfect. Another possibility is that nothing ever existed, which is the Null Hypothesis. Parfit argues that people would not have logic. The last hypothesis that he brings up is the All-Worlds Hypothesis, …show more content…
Parfit claims that many physicists believe that events are random. In Richard Swinburne’s Response to Parfit, Swinburne argues against Parfits beliefs of who the universe was created. Swinburne believes that there is one substance that caused all of the other substances to come into existence. He argues that, without any substance, there are no real-life principles in which a reaction can occur. One example uses Newton’s Law of Gravity. Swinburne believes that an object that is dropped is attracted to the Earth due to gravity. Another example Swinburne gives is God. The people who believe in God believe in a substance that acts intentionally. Humans are another example of substances that bring effects intentionally.
Derek Parfit’s explanation is more persuasive. One of the hypothesis that he uses is the All-Worlds theory. In his article, he says, “Consider next the all-worlds hypothesis. That may seem the next least puzzling possibility. For one thing, it
In many theories that come into the light in the scientific field, there are always gaps, there are always issues within each that have no explanation to them. For example, the big bang theory, this is a theory that attempts to explain how the universe was created. This theory states that the universe began as a very small, dense, and hot ball (Imagine the universe all put into a ball the size of a pen tip) with no stars or atoms. This ball then expanded incredibly quickly. The universe was then formed as the way it is now. Personally, I feel as if this theory has a major hole that prevents me from believing it is possible. This hole is, “What exactly put this ball into motion in the first place?”
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
The most creative respond in my opinion came from a venerable 9 years old soul Eshal Ahmad, “Reality is what you want it to be, there isn’t a right answer. It varies from person to person.”
434). This is saying that the act of will cannot actually occur without something causing that action. If there is no cause, the will cannot act. This solidifies the idea that the will is not actually free. If the will were free, it would not be dependent on any cause or series of causes. Rée brings about a worthy argument involving a stone which aids in the illustration of the nonexistence of free will. In order for the stone to change position from where it sits at that very moment, whether it be by being thrown or by being kicked, its necessary cause must be present. As Rée states: “The stone will fly through the air if it is tossed” (Rée, p. 434). In this case, the cause would be the tossing of the stone, and the result would be the stone changing its position by flying through the air. This example proves that free will is nonexistent. The stone does not decide whether it is tossed or not. If the cause of the motion is present, then the will acts. However, if the cause of the motion is absent, then the stone would not move at all and would still sit at the same place. I agree with this argument. The motion of the stone is predetermined and there is nothing it can do about it. If the cause is present, the action will take place. Rée further argues that the will is subject to the law of causality and
“The Illusionist” is a short story by Steven Millhauser, which was adapted into a movie directed by Neil Burger in 2008 which both take place in Vienna. The short story’s plot revolves around Eisenheim and his relationship between himself and the state, which is still featured in the movie. Eisenheim’s illusions also cause him a bit of trouble; in the short story the cause of trouble is an illusion, which produces two spirits by the name of Rosa, Elis, and a boy who appears to be no older than eight. In the movie adaptation, the final straw that causes the Crown Prince to finally pursue persecution of Eisenheim is the illusion that again, produces a spirit, which turns out to be his dead fiancée. Because of Inspector Uhl’s growing obsession of Eisenheim, throughout the movie and the short story, it further ignites the blur between what is the reality and what is his illusion. Uhl’s obsession over Eisenheim and his illusions helps blur the reality around him.
Rebecca PettiboneMs. CookENG1027 Oct, 2017Breaking down panpsychism, and the patterns it holds can be a tricky task. Despite it being a newly developed theory, there is still a lot of information out there; however, panpsychism is the answer. The patterns developed in the world, and throughout the universe have a striking resemblance to each other. Panpsychism is the bridge between them. This may sound crazy, causing one to simply dismiss panpsychism, or the connections between patterns as mere coincidences. Whenever someone is dealing with metaphysics, it can be difficult to obtain a definitive answer; however, there is quite a bit of evidence to say that this theory heads in the right direction.The
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
The cosmological argument is the existence of God, arguing that the possibility of each existing and the domain collected of such elements in this universe. The inquiry is that 'for what reason does anything exist? Why as opposed to nothing? In this paper, I will explain for what reason does everything need cause? Why is God thought to be the principal cause?
Despite the detail and thought that went into both Pereboom and Kanes’ work, the debate of free will is nowhere near being settled. Regardless, it is the possible ideas and theories such as these that allow us to explore and understand the concepts that make up our universe.
An underlying theme present throughout the series is the possibility that our existence is not the only one. According to current theories in physics, it is entirely possible that our universe is just one of many universes f...
(Harris, 2012). Look at it like this every single thing in the universe obeys the laws of physics, every single thing in reality obeys the laws of causality, everything that happens is a reaction to a prior action within an exact locality. Your physical body and brain are made entirely of molecules, how these molecules are arranged depends on your jeans and environment. Every choice you make results from molecular based electrical impulses and chemical transmissions between two tangible brain cells all these impulses and transmissions must obey the fundamental laws of physics including the laws of causality. Is it more likely that everything that pops into your head almost magically is a reaction to a reaction that happens
... it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend both matter and time to create matter and time. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.
While analyzing Kurosawa Akira’s Rashomon in the essay, “Irreconcilable Realities”, Aaron M. Kerner writes, “The substance of the film hinges on what is irreconcilable, and “resolving” the narrative would run contrary to the film’s central concern.” In this quote, Kerner is addressing the fact that the film does not have a conclusion where the audience knows the truth about the characters in the film. Rashomon instead addresses the natures of reality and real life through his filming of this unusual mystery story. He addresses storytelling through the eyes of different characters and shows how the different points of view can have a major impact on the telling of the story. By telling the story this way the film creates a commentary on society, but also comments on cinema. By showing that each character can participate in the same story, but retell the story differently with different outcomes, Kurosawa acknowledges that cinema is also a way of storytelling. Each member of the audience reads the characters differently due to their different backgrounds. The audience member is always participating and making meaning of the film, but they come to different conclusions based on their personalities. Therefore, the film’s “central concern” is acknowledging that stories are affected by the background of the storyteller. By “’resolving’ the narrative” Kurosawa would not only contradict the film’s main point, it would completely destroy it. To resolve the story, Kurosawa would have to give the audience a conclusive answer at the end of the film and instead of showing that each character created a different reality, the audience would conclude that the characters that did not tell the truth were merely liars instead of constructing their o...
A world that can be explained by reasoning, however faulty, is a familiar world. But in a universe that
The big bang theory has evidence to support it. An example of this evidence is the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background was discovered in 1964. The cosmic microwave background is radiation left over from the beginning of the universe or the big bang. This background is important because the radiation is the type of radiation that was seen at the beg...