I don't think a conscious source is a more reasonable idea. There's no logic to the idea. Why must there be a purpose?Nick_A wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 3:32 pmThis is a bit much to swallow. The universe exists because it can with no purpose. The great cycle of time exists because it can with no purpose:Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 2:47 pmWhen the anthropic principle is used with You speak about the purpose of our existence. We exist within this Universe, which has particular fundamental parameters, constants and laws. Thus, our existence in this universe is proof that the universe allows for beings like us to come into existence within it.Nick_A wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 9:53 amI've heard of it but not too familiar with it. The idea as I understand it is that laws are the source of existence. I agree but add that since we live in a conscious universe, the quality of being is determined by the blend of laws and consciousness on a given level of reality.
Do the great laws sustaining our universe appear by themselves? It doesn't make sense. They need a conscious creation so we're back to the question of their source.
When coupled with the multiverse hypothesis, the anthropic principle answers the reason for our existence - because we can exist. If an entity is incapable of existing or persisting, then it doesn't.
Can't buy it. A conscious source in which the universe serves a lawful purpose seems far more reasonableIn Buddhist cosmology, during a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again by chance.
After all, the universe is not exactly chock-a-block with consciousness, is it? We know of one small oasis (or hellhole?) of consciousness in an impossibly vast cosmic desert.
By contrast, it's clear that reality today is largely a collection of that which can persist. Anything that can't persist, doesn't, like natural selection playing out on a cosmic/existential scale.