Cosmic Indifference: What do you do after you realise the Universe doesn't care?

[idav]

It is an exercise of ego to think that we are somehow special in the universe, but it's equally an exercise of ego to think us somehow unspecial. Either way, we have made it about us.

To remove us from the picture is to see the uncaring universe, but on the other hand, caring exists. We exist.

Uncaring may fit, this universe isn't designed for us humans, but we do have our niche for the moment.

 

[atanu]

If there is no god, man has no special place or significance in creation. The universe was not "created" for us. We are simply here. we may be the result of underlying physical processes, but it does not carry any moral significance. ....

And here we are on this one tiny piece of rock hurtling round a giant ball of molten gas, and as tiny particles of organic matter with an infinitesimally small lifespan by comparison, we try to comprehend our significance amidst it all. why is the universe so peaceful when mankind is so violent? Is that a consequence of our egotism or do natures conflicts simply work on different timescales?

We are the universe. We know the universe. Universe does not come and say "I know you" or "I gave birth to you". The Vedantic understanding on this subject is distilled in a special kind of sacrifice called Agnihotra, which means sacrifices to the divine-mystic fire (the Will).

I reproduce the text from Chanogya Upanishad below. Before I do that, however, it will be good to have a summary of the essential understanding. It is understood that we are made up of five airs-breaths (the five breaths are: up-breath; back-breath; down-breath; on-breath; and out-breath; and that these breaths are non-local and actually signify one Being: the Lord. It is taught that whatever we do, if the result of that doing is sacrificed to these airs in us, the universe is delighted and in-turn we are delighted. In this particular Agnihotra yajna (sacrifice), first five morsels of food are dedicated to the five breaths in our body. The Upanishad then says that when these five airs in the body are happy, the whole universe is happy.

No doubt this concept may sound meaningless and/or ridiculous to some. It is simply not for them.

Spoiler: Agnihotra

Agnihotra yajna while eating
(From Chandogya upanishad)

'Therefore the first food which a man may take, is in the place of Homa. And he who offers that first oblation, should offer it to Prâna (up-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Prâna (up-breathing) is satisfied,

'If Prâna is satisfied, the eye is satisfied, if the eye is satisfied, the sun is satisfied, if the sun is satisfied, heaven is satisfied, if heaven is satisfied, whatever is under heaven and under the sun is satisfied.. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.

And he who offers the second oblation, should offer it to Vyâna (back-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Vyâna is satisfied,

'If Vyâna is satisfied, the ear is satisfied, if the ear is satisfied, the moon is satisfied, if the moon is satisfied, the quarters are satisfied, if the quarters are satisfied, whatever is under the quarters and under the moon is satisfied. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.

'And he who offers the third oblation, should offer it to Apâna (down-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Apâna is satisfied. If Apâna is satisfied, the tongue is satisfied, if the tongue is satisfied, Agni (fire) is satisfied, if Agni is satisfied, the earth is satisfied, if the earth is satisfied, whatever is under the earth and under fire is satisfied.

'And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.

'And he who offers the fourth oblation, should offer it to Samâna (on-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Samâna is satisfied,

'If Samâna is satisfied, the mind is satisfied, if the mind is satisfied, Parganya (god of rain) is satisfied, if Parganya is satisfied, lightning is satisfied, if lightning is satisfied, whatever is under Parganya and under lightning is satisfied. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or cater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.

'And he who offers the fifth oblation, should offer it to Udâna (out-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Udâna is satisfied,

'If Udâna is satisfied, Vâyu (air) is satisfied, if Vâyu is satisfied, ether is satisfied, if ether is satisfied, whatever is under Vâyu, and under the ether is satisfied. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.

'If, without knowing this, one offers an Agnihotra, it would be as if a man were to remove the live coals and pour his libation on dead ashes.

But he who offers this Agnihotra with a full knowledge of its true purport, he offers it (i.e. he eats food) 1 in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs.

'As the soft fibres of the Ishîkâ reed, when thrown into the fire, are burnt, thus all his sins are burnt whoever offers this Agnihotra with a full knowledge of its true purport.

Even if he gives what is left of his food to a Kandâla, it would be offered in his (the Kandâla's) Vaisvânara Self. And so it is said in this Sloka:--

'As hungry children here on earth sit (expectantly) round their mother, so do all beings sit round the Agnihotra, yea, round the Agnihotra.'

...

 

[atanu]

To remove us from the picture is to see the uncaring universe, but on the other hand, caring exists. We exist.

Brilliantly said.

 

[Willamena]

Would you say caring is the same as love?

No, they are different.

Everything right (upright/not tilted) is essentially related with love. Even tilt, which in relation to itself is untilted, is related in love. Love is right relation.

Caring is brilliantly described in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." With caring we will know the world rightly: we know the parts of our motorcycle well enough to dismantle it and restore it to proper functioning order; we know the relation between rider and bike, between bike and road, and between the bike, the rider, the road, and the rules of the road. With caring we involve intellect in right being.

 

[Berserk]

What follows from the claim there is no God and "the universe doesn't care about us?"
Well, as we learn from metaethics 101, one implication is that there is no answer to the question what makes right actions right. Bluntly put, that means we have no answer to the question, "Why shouldn't I harm others gratuitously, if it gives me pleasure and I can get away with it? Morality or ethics is ultimately reduced to a herd instinct that evolved to preserve social cohesion and hence individual survival. That means the goal of being a good and decent person merely expresses the desire to satisfy a group consensus and have a certain sense of harmony in life. But there is no good answer to the sadist, except the threat of punishment, which is a pragmatic concern, not a moral concern. If there is no God, how can right and wrong exist in any objective or meaningful way? To have meaningful morality we need the accountability provided by a just God or a karmic system.

There is an easy answer to the question, does God decree because it is right or is it right because God decrees it? By definition, no absolute normative standard can exist apart from God. But what if God is is sadist oaf? Then, constituted the way we've evolved, we would brashly declare that we reject God's moral rules. But then we have no meaningful system to counter God's system. But suppose God is love, as the NT teaches. Then morality is a system that works out what God's love means in practice for God and God's human creatures.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If there is no God, how can right and wrong exist in any objective or meaningful way? To have meaningful morality we need the accountability provided by a just God or a karmic system.

Right and wrong don't exist in any objective way. Such is the reason why even what Christians consider right and wrong vary from culture to culture, from time to time, and even among various ethnic groups. Ultimately there is no right or wrong, only consequences. But most people have empathy, and even those with impared or no empathy still care for their families, their neighbors, and the state of humanity. And even those who look towards their religious text (including the Bible) for guidance can still commit horrible deeds. But just because some people will do bad things and the universe doesn't care does not at all mean we loose our conscious and/or ability to care for others. There are even numerous examples of social non-human animals caring for each other, and for punishing those who break the rules.
It seems to suggest Darwin was correct when he wrote that social animals will develop such features, as by promoting mutual cooperation and the well-being of the group it enhances the life and survivability of the individual.

 

[idav]

Right and wrong don't exist in any objective way. Such is the reason why even what Christians consider right and wrong vary from culture to culture, from time to time, and even among various ethnic groups. Ultimately there is no right or wrong, only consequences. But most people have empathy, and even those with impared or no empathy still care for their families, their neighbors, and the state of humanity. And even those who look towards their religious text (including the Bible) for guidance can still commit horrible deeds. But just because some people will do bad things and the universe doesn't care does not at all mean we loose our conscious and/or ability to care for others. There are even numerous examples of social non-human animals caring for each other, and for punishing those who break the rules.
It seems to suggest Darwin was correct when he wrote that social animals will develop such features, as by promoting mutual cooperation and the well-being of the group it enhances the life and survivability of the individual.

We couldn't survive nature without our niche, some ways surpassing even the physical need for each other. In nature we couldn't make it alone, even days, well at least most people aren't expert survivalists. It would be horrible Armageddon if the potential was there to lose that niche. The movie 5th wave aliens really clobbered humans, they essentially wiped out our "humanity" on the first wave.

 

[s13ep]

This is reddit, pseudo-philosophy propaganda. Who are you, what research have you done, or any philosopher for that matter, to say that "the universe doesn't care?"

I'm part of the universe, I care, that's enough to disprove your point.

 

[Acim]

A material universe that isn't concerned with your individual consciousness, much less your (alleged) divinity?

Welcome to the understanding gnostics have held for thousands of years.

 

[That one dude...]

I'm much more affected by indifference from fellow humans than from the cosmos.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is reddit, pseudo-philosophy propaganda. Who are you, what research have you done, or any philosopher for that matter, to say that "the universe doesn't care?"

Because if anyone of us dies today, life keeps going on without a concern or even a pause or consideration that those who died are now dead. We are so insignificantly minute in the universe that not even the other planets on our solar system are effected. You have a bad day, not only does the universe not care, life doesn't care and it keeps on going without you.

I'm part of the universe, I care, that's enough to disprove your point.

That doesn't disprove anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is reddit, pseudo-philosophy propaganda. Who are you, what research have you done, or any philosopher for that matter, to say that "the universe doesn't care?"

I'm part of the universe, I care, that's enough to disprove your point.

Who ordered the compositional fallacy?

Your body is made up of cells that are each invisible to the naked eye. This doesn't imply that your body is invisible to the naked eye.

Your universe contains beings that care. This doesn't imply that the universe as a whole cares.

 

[Nietzsche]

I'm part of the universe, I care, that's enough to disprove your point.

Oh you're just adorable. That's like an ant rising up and saying "I am free". No, wait, that's not right. The scale is all wrong. I cannot think of something small enough to properly show just how small and insignificant you are to the universe. The best that could be said about you is that you are not-nothing. That's it. You're just not-nothing.

And so am I. And our beloved nigh-Penguin. And Jesus. And Odin. And all things. The Universe is so massive, unknowable, and alien, that the BEST WE CAN EVER BE is "not nothing".

That. Is. It.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

No, they are different.

Everything right (upright/not tilted) is essentially related with love. Even tilt, which in relation to itself is untilted, is related in love. Love is right relation.

Caring is brilliantly described in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." With caring we will know the world rightly: we know the parts of our motorcycle well enough to dismantle it and restore it to proper functioning order; we know the relation between rider and bike, between bike and road, and between the bike, the rider, the road, and the rules of the road. With caring we involve intellect in right being.

First, again let me say I am sorry for this belated reply, the real world demands more and more attention that and time than I seem to have!

Ok, I think I understand your answer! I too reject the materialistic view that love and caring is only a simple response to 'environmental' stimuli. I also believe that each of us, all of our actions thoughts etc influence our version of the universe. The only question I have is do meta universe exist each existing as individual personal universes, or is there just one large universe as per classical theory?. There's good theory that support each idea. However, all of these theories are attempting to remove the creator as a rational viable alternative explanation for how the universe began, and the 'why are we here' questions.

 

[idav]

There's good theory that support each idea. However, all of these theories are attempting to remove the creator as a rational viable alternative explanation for how the universe began, and the 'why are we here' questions.

I haven't seen any theories that attempt to remove a creator. Science goes by the premise that the stuff exists and can't look passed the point physics breaks down. Science isn't finding some mundane deterministic universe, there finding a rabbit hole from alice in wonderland.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

d

I haven't seen any theories that attempt to remove a creator. Science goes by the premise that the stuff exists and can't look passed the point physics breaks down. Science isn't finding some mundane deterministic universe, there finding a rabbit hole from alice in wonderland.

Yes, science is supposed to be an unbiased system that uses certain methodology to investigate our universe in a search for answers that best fits the evidence. The problem is that scientist's are human with human emotions. It's those emotions that cause problems ranging from coming to conclusions based more on wishful thinking, ie attempting to prove a pet theory, to down right fraud. Think Piltdown man or any number of scientific frauds exposed in the last hundred years. So, while the latter are extreme examples its not that difficult to determine even with a cursory examination that some current theories are guided and tainted by the desires of the researcher/scientist. The latter is especially true in the 'purely theoretical' areas of physics and cosmology due to the limits of current theory and other factors. Hawking demonstrates his 'emotional addiction' (the need to prove God does not or need not to exist) by clinging on to the 'many worlds theory' in his latest attempt at a 'origins of the universe theory'. In other word he is substituting a theory (the MWT) that has no empirical evidence to construct a theory sans a creator IMO.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'm much more affected by indifference from fellow humans than from the cosmos.

Indeed, and agreed!

 

[idav]

d

Yes, science is supposed to be an unbiased system that uses certain methodology to investigate our universe in a search for answers that best fits the evidence. The problem is that scientist's are human with human emotions. It's those emotions that cause problems ranging from coming to conclusions based more on wishful thinking, ie attempting to prove a pet theory, to down right fraud. Think Piltdown man or any number of scientific frauds exposed in the last hundred years. So, while the latter are extreme examples its not that difficult to determine even with a cursory examination that some current theories are guided and tainted by the desires of the researcher/scientist. The latter is especially true in the 'purely theoretical' areas of physics and cosmology due to the limits of current theory and other factors. Hawking demonstrates his 'emotional addiction' (the need to prove God does not or need not to exist) by clinging on to the 'many worlds theory' in his latest attempt at a 'origins of the universe theory'. In other word he is substituting a theory (the MWT) that has no empirical evidence to construct a theory sans a creator IMO.

Well thats hawkings job so to try and figure out the impossible but nothing I have seen from any science removes a creator, even hawkings stuff. I agree he wants to remove a creator, he said as much in his own words, but hasn't been done, can't be done. What is being pointed to beyond what we can measure, is a break down in physics in which pretty much anything is possible including a timeless all knowing universe.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Well thats hawkings job so to try and figure out the impossible but nothing I have seen from any science removes a creator, even hawkings stuff. I agree he wants to remove a creator, he said as much in his own words, but hasn't been done, can't be done. What is being pointed to beyond what we can measure, is a break down in physics in which pretty much anything is possible including a timeless all knowing universe.

Oh ok! I am sorry I misunderstood your take on the subject, but now we are on the same page. Yes I agree with you. For me, a Christian, the place where our physical laws and other tools of science and discovery 'break down'* is where things become intensely interesting ! I love the un-certain part of the uncertainty principle, the unreality of reality, and other theoretical critters that go bump in the night. The idea that information can and does travel faster than the speed of light is another science discovery that would be right at home in a paranormal story. You mentioned a 'timeless universe'. I am nearly sure time is not a 'real' thing as per a little book called 'A World Without Time', the forgotten legacy of Gödel and Einstein'. Its a great book and it confirmed my suspicions about the nature of time (as in space time). If you are interested in such things you would love the book. The author writes with a clumsy style, still ,more understandable than me, lol, but his understanding of the subject more than makes up for style IMO....

Anyway, God bless this forum and God be with you ~

 

[Guy Threepwood]

d

Yes, science is supposed to be an unbiased system that uses certain methodology to investigate our universe in a search for answers that best fits the evidence. The problem is that scientist's are human with human emotions. It's those emotions that cause problems ranging from coming to conclusions based more on wishful thinking, ie attempting to prove a pet theory, to down right fraud. Think Piltdown man or any number of scientific frauds exposed in the last hundred years. So, while the latter are extreme examples its not that difficult to determine even with a cursory examination that some current theories are guided and tainted by the desires of the researcher/scientist. The latter is especially true in the 'purely theoretical' areas of physics and cosmology due to the limits of current theory and other factors. Hawking demonstrates his 'emotional addiction' (the need to prove God does not or need not to exist) by clinging on to the 'many worlds theory' in his latest attempt at a 'origins of the universe theory'. In other word he is substituting a theory (the MWT) that has no empirical evidence to construct a theory sans a creator IMO.

There seems to be an inherent bias in atheism which has proved a constant barrier to scientific progress. It always seeks the simplest quickest answer that might 'make God redundant'

Static, eternal, steady state, Big Crunch, all proposed to do so by removing the creation event: 'no creation = no creator'
The Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory was mocked and rejected as 'big bang' precisely for this reason.

Similarly classical physics was held to be a complete 'immutable' explanation for all physical reality, leaving no room for mysterious unpredictable forces guiding the universe.
Again, no coincidence that Max Planck (quantum mechanics) was a staunch skeptic of atheism.

Darwinism likewise proposed a system where countless lucky accidents could replace the need for design- as long as the transitions were slow and smooth enough.
Only recently are evolutionists beginning to accept that the gaps are real, not artifacts of an incomplete record, replacing Darwinism with 'punctuated equilibrium'

It's interesting that all the theistic implications that atheists complained of in certain scientific predictions, all mysteriously vanished once those predictions were validated.