Is the Universe Pointless? Now is the reason for our discontent

In a famous conclusion to his book The First Three Minutes, physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, "The more the universe appears comprehensible, the more it also appears pointless." This comment echoes the sentiment of many contemporary scientists. Though they may wax lyrical about the awesome beauty, majesty and subtlety of the natural world, they nevertheless deny any point or purpose to the universe.

Appealing to science to bolster the doctrine of cosmic pointlessness is by no means new. Bertrand Russell used the second law of thermodynamics in a trenchant attack on theism. This law states, in effect, that the universe is dying, descending inexorably into chaos as its reserves of useful energy are squandered. Russell reflected on the "vast death of the solar system" that will follow when the sun burns out in several billion years, and concluded that these depressing facts were consistent only with a philosophy of "unyielding despair". His position seemed to be that if the universe as a whole is doomed, physical existence is ultimately pointless; even human life and endeavour are, in the final analysis, futile.

The argument, however, is bogus. First, it assumes that chaos is the appropriate indicator of cosmic change. Russell picked it because it paints a bleak picture of a doomed universe. But there are other ways to describe cosmic evolution. We now know the universe began in a state of almost total blandness. The richness and diversity of physical systems we observe today have emerged since the beginning through a long series of self-organising processes. Viewed this way, the conspicuous story of the universe so far is not one of decay, but of unfolding enrichment.

Second, it is wrong to claim that a system with a finite life span cannot have a point. Humans have all sorts of goals and purposes. To claim there is no point to human life because we each will one day die is clearly ridiculous.

Weinberg's thesis of cosmic pointlessness has been supported by a number of biologists, such as Stephen Jay Gould. Darwinian evolution is based on purely random accidental changes, some good, some bad. Nature, being blind, cannot look ahead to anticipate solutions to evolutionary problems. Hence, says Gould, there is no direction to evolution, no "progress". It is not going anywhere, just meandering purposelessly through the vast space of biological possibilities. Gould concludes that if evolution is blind, the universe is pointless.

Is Gould right? Taking the biosphere as a whole, its complexity has clearly risen since life on Earth was restricted to a few microbes. The issue, however, is whether there is a systematic trend towards greater complexity. On this score, the fossil record is somewhat ambiguous. Some trends are discernible; for example, the ratio of brain mass to body mass escalated persistently during hominid evolution. Some contemporary biologists, such as Simon Conway Morris, of Cambridge University, make a case that, at least within certain lineages, there are trends towards greater complexity.

Recently, some cosmologists have attempted a catch-all argument for cosmic pointlessness by invoking the multiverse concept. This is based on the theory that what we have hitherto considered to be "the universe" is but a small component in a vast assemblage of universes. The universes may co-exist in parallel, so that they are physically disconnected, or they may connect to each other in remote regions of space or through "wormholes". Universes may differ in their physical laws, in such a way that all conceivable laws are represented in a universe somewhere. The overwhelming majority of the universes would go unseen because their laws and conditions would not be conducive to the emergence of life and conscious beings. Only in a tiny subset where, purely by chance, things fell out just right would observers arise to marvel over the ingeniously contrived appearance of their universe.

The relevance of the multiverse to cosmic pointlessness is easily grasped. If some aspect of nature suggests an underlying purpose, then this superficially amazing fact could be shrugged aside as a random accident that is observed only because that very same accident is a prerequisite for our existence.

The multiverse explanation suffers from a number of problems. In most versions, the existence of the other universes cannot be verified or falsified, even in principle, so its status as a scientific theory is questionable. Second, if the peculiar bio-friendliness of the natural world were the result of randomness, we might expect the observed universe to be minimally rather than optimally bio-friendly. But the degree of bio-friendliness observed in the universe is far in excess of what is needed to give rise to a few observers to act as cosmic selectors.

Cosmic pointlessness has also been argued on philosophical grounds on the basis that the very concept of a "point" or "purpose" cannot be applied to the universe because it makes sense only in the context of human activity. But scientists often project onto nature categories rooted in human society. Each culture uses technological metaphors to describe cosmologies. The Greeks built a cosmological scheme based on musical harmony and geometrical regularities, because musical and geometrical instruments were the current technological marvels. Newton's universe was a gigantic clockwork mechanism. Russell's was an imperfect heat engine - a sort of Victorian industrial contraption writ large and running out of fuel. Today it is fashionable to describe the universe as a gigantic computer. Information theory, which certainly stems from the realm of human discourse, is nevertheless applied to physical problems in science.

All these designations capture in some imperfect way what the universe is about. It is not a clockwork mechanism or an information processor, but it does have mechanistic and informational properties. Living organisms have goals and purposes, and I see no reason why we may not use the organism as a metaphor for the universe, as did Aristotle 2 millenniums ago. I am not suggesting that the universe is alive, only that it may share with living organisms certain properties, such as possessing "purposes", in the same way it shares with a machine the property of having interlocking parts, a finite fuel supply, etc.

Science is founded on the notion of the rationality and logicality of nature. The universe is ordered in a meaningful way, and scientists seek reasons for why things are the way they are. If the universe as a whole is pointless, then it exists reasonlessly. In other words, it is ultimately arbitrary and absurd. We are then invited to contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of reasoning are grounded in absurdity. The order of the world would have no foundation and its breathtaking rationality would have to spring, miraculously, from absurdity. So Weinberg's dictum is turned neatly on its head: the more the universe seems pointless, the more it also seems incomprehensible.

Paul Davies is with the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His latest book is How to Build a Time Machine.

For the most part, these scientists tend to find what they want to find. Russell lived a very selfish and disorderly life, and wanted to deny that there were any grounds for traditional moral beliefs.

If "there's no point," then although that may seem a bit depressing, you are free to do whatever you like to entertain yourself amidst the bleakness. There's no point in helping other people, worrying about your children, or looking to the long term. Self gratification is the logical response.

Man's life is the metric by which all things such be judged. Nature, the Universe, or anything of the external reality is pointless when considered in a vacuum. The thing that gives it meaning is how it serves man. A beautiful forest is nothing by itself. It is man's perception that makes it beautiful. With man out of the equation, everything is meaningless and pointless. Man creates the meaning and understanding.

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope . . ." (Romans 8:20)

"But if a man lives many years and rejoices in them all, yet let him remember the days of darkness, for they will be many. All that is coming is vanity." (Ecclesiatstes 11:8)

Not bad for a book of ancient, venerable writings.

Paul Davies made an ignorant and arrogant statement of anti-Americanism in a British publication recently and it has soured me on him. He made G W bush his 'villian of the year', called him a chicken, and blamed him for many ills of the world. He confuses defending freedom with imperialism. Just like a Eurotrash leftist... very disappointing. Now he is quoting other leftists, Steven Jay Gould and Steven Weinberg for example, to make all his points.l Sad. I liked some of his books, but when he makes arguable pop science / philosophy points like the above, trashes ALL of religion as of no redeeming value, I sadly have to consider him 'suspect' material.

trashes ALL of religion as of no redeeming value

He never even mentioned religion once.

The essay was about the search for a definable meaning, if there is one, outside of the spiritual realm - so religion is totally irrelevant to the question.

"Paul Davies made an ignorant and arrogant statement of anti-Americanism in a British publication recently and it has soured me on him. He made G W bush his 'villian of the year', called him a chicken, and blamed him for many ills of the world."

I saw a statement by Richard Dawkins yesterday that would also fit your description of Davies'. Maybe these are just examples of people talented in their fields venturing outside them and making fools of themselves (like Hollywood celebrities do).

His position seemed to be that if the universe as a whole is doomed, physical existence is ultimately pointless; even human life and endeavour are, in the final analysis, futile.

Russell had it right. That is the inescapable conclusion of a materialist. All is time+chance+matter. Of course, this leads to gigantic dichotomies in the lives of people who hold such views. Do they view their family members as meaningless? Their emotions (love, grief)? As Francis Schaeffer put it, no one with an atheist/materialist worldview can live life as if it were meaningless, and these are "points of tension" in their lives. It's an inescapable dichotomy. If all is matter in motion, then people are meaningless (no intrinsic value) and love is meaningless (just a chemical process in the brain). Marqus de Sade, from his atheistic viewpoint, adopted the belief (and practiced it!) that cruelty and non-cruelty must be equal in a godless universe. I would wager that few, if any, atheists of today can live as if life is meaningless - there is a point of tension somewhere. If there not be a point of tension, then let us lock up such a sociopath before he hurts someone.

The essay was about the search for a definable meaning, if there is one, outside of the spiritual realm - so religion is totally irrelevant to the question.

This is a silly statement. Without God, there can be no meaning. That is the point. There can be no meaning or intrinsic value to matter in motion. Only if there is a personal infinite God can there be any meaning.

Darwinian evolution is based on purely random accidental changes, some good, some bad.

Ha ha ha. This article is humorous. How can matter in motion be good or bad? It cannot. "Good" or "bad" connotate moral value. I think the author should rethink and rewrite.

I would like to ask Dawkins and Russell and all the other materialists how personality comes from non-personality. People are personal beings with self-awareness (separates us from animals). How can a personality come from a cosmic non-personal explosion?

Russell reflected on the "vast death of the solar system" that will follow when the sun burns out in several billion years, and concluded that these depressing facts were consistent only with a philosophy of "unyielding despair".

Excellent excuse to go cheat on your wife!!

This is loaded with connotative words about meaning. There CAN BE NO MEANING IN A MATERIAL UNIVERSE. ALL IS TIME+MATTER+CHANCE AND THERE IS NO MEANING IN THAT. To say that there is purely non-rational. Naturalistic science is based on rationalism, and this article is certainly not logical in its assertions and pressuppositions.

Without God, there can be no meaning. That is the point.

Then you didn’t read the article, because that was certainly not the author's “point.”

It is merely the point of your opinion, and it is, by definition, unprovable.

There CAN BE NO MEANING IN A MATERIAL UNIVERSE. ALL IS TIME+MATTER+CHANCE AND THERE IS NO MEANING IN THAT.

Oh boy, now we’re in ALL CAP!! territory.

The author does not reach any conclusions about whether that is true. He is discussing the search to find one, but doesn't ever get there.

It's basically an unanswerable question, without falling back on the subject of faith, which can never be proven, no matter how many capital letters you use.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.