The Purpose of the Universe

Does universe as a whole (and the laws governing it) have anything to do with the welfare of humankind? Science contends strongly that there is no connection! It has so far not found any convincing reason to belief that the laws of nature have emerged with humanity or anything else as a goal. Indeed, there is no goal, no end in aim for the universe. Like a mammoth machine wound up and left to itself, the universe continues on and on. Its constituents evolve in accordance with the laws to which they are subject.

While it is true that it is because of these laws, living organisms in general and human beings in particular have emerged like planets and stars, all these are merely some of the countless consequences of those laws. Sometimes we benefit from them, at other times we suffer. But the universe is in no way affected by whether we gain or lose. The phenomenal world is looked upon by science as being neither good nor bad to us, merely indifferent to the human predicament (situation)

“The more the universe appears comprehensible, the more it also appears pointless”  

-  By Physicist Steven Weinberg, in his book 'The first three minutes'

The lack of purpose for the world at large is a conclusion from much of what have been able to observe and understand by the adoption of the scientific methodology for exploring the universe, and not a formal à priori doctrine or assumption

What is Real?

Science contends that there are external entities in the physical world whose existence does not depend on the presence of the human mind. This belief in an external world of objects and entities independent of the human mind is generally referred to as ‘realism’.  Some have rejected it totally, holding that the entire world is no more than the creation of the human mind, that the whole cosmic show is a consistent fabrication of complex brains. What we actually recognize as reality is the reaction of our nervous system to the stimuli emanating from that world. 

The most we can claim to know and try to explain is what results from the interaction between an external world and our sense perceptions. ‘Empiricism’ implies that the only world we can know is the one resulting from sense perceptions, that there is nothing beyond sense perceptions.  Thus, can we even be sure that there is an external objective world? It must be noted that the view of a mind generated reality, known as pure idealism, is not without logical merit. 

A scientist recognizes that the things we see and feel around us are not exactly as they appear to us. Things are not intrinsically red or blue, rough or smooth. Our senses can sometimes deceive. Understanding the perceived world, stripped of all illusion-generating factors, is a major concern of science. The enhancement of our perceptions and the removal of misleading intrusions are accomplished through instruments and carefully devised experiments.

Reality can be looked upon as that which remains unchanged with the passage of time, and will be there all through eternity. Reality is the distinction between the permanent and the transient. However, it is important not to trivialize the transient phenomenal world. The world, like human life, may be too short to be taken seriously from a larger cosmic perspective; but it is too long not to be taken seriously in the context of human affairs. Exploring ephemeral transient world and trying to understand it are the goals of the scientific enterprise. 

Cause and Effect

One of the universal principles implicit in science is that of causality. Every occurrence in the world is caused by something or other. Nothing happens by itself, un-caused and un-provoked. The myriad phenomena we see around us are the results of a myriad others which themselves are caused by still others. The countless facets of the world are all intertwined by complicated causal chains. Science makes attempts to seek the precise ways in which a cause is linked to its effect. 

Since it is practically impossible to ascribe any event to a single cause, the problem becomes all the more difficult.  (E.g.  It is easy to say that the cause of a ball’s fall is gravity, but would it have fallen if there had been a table top to support it? Thus, is not the absence of a table equally a cause of its fall? ) The assumption in science is that while an event may – and often does – have more than one cause, it cannot be without any cause. Though one speaks of cause and effect, these are extremely complex to track down, both in theory and in actuality. The world results from an enormously complex web of causal connections whose congruence can have enormous possibilities.

Also science has concluded that it takes a finite interval of time for a cause in one region to produce an effect in another. In other words, it is impossible for something to occur in one part of the universe and for its effect to be produced simultaneously in some other remote part. This is one of the cornerstones of scientific thought. Some doubt has been cast on this tenet of modern physics as a result of certain quantum mechanical considerations and experiments. This is called 'Locality'

Science is NOT same as Technology

The aim of science is not to discover useful results which may be applied for practical purposes. Nor is it the goal of science to make life more comfortable for humankind, to find cures for diseases, or to develop weapons of warfare. It is possible for a society to be quite successful in exploiting the practical applications of science without making any scientific breakthrough. In other words, a country can be productive in industry and successful in technology without any of its members being engaged in serious scientific research. Technology can thrive without science in a world where technological know-how can be shared, openly or otherwise.

Conclusion

The goals and assumptions of science may seem arbitrary, but they are implicitly accepted by the scientific community. Some of these assumptions may be wrong. For example, one may say that events can or do occur in the world without any cause. Indeed, we know that in interpreting certain microcosmic phenomena such as radioactivity we need to refine our common sense notions of cause and effect. 

Thus the assumptions of science are not rigid and inflexible. In fact some of the assumptions of science have in a sense become a habit in the minds of scientists as a result of the successes flowing from them. Individual scientists may reject some of these in their personal capacities, but they cannot afford to do so as working scientists. Some scientists have tried to further the cause of science by suspending allegiance to some of these assumptions, but thus far no one has been spectacularly successful in this.

The knowledge and understanding about the world gained on the basis of the scientific framework have turned out to be rich and extensive, interesting, insightful, unsurpassed, and culture-independent.