Thought experiment: "There exists in the universe a small grouping of birds called affectionately Flamingos by the local population of curators and protectors. These birds were very special for they held the future of the universe and all of substance and non substance in it's entirety within the ongoing beating of their collective hearts and it had been proven that for reasons not quite fully understood that whilst the birds lived the universe would continue to do likewise and if the birds should die the universe would cease to exist as the last beat of the last birds heart faded. " The question I wanted to pose is really about logic and use of time. To say that the universe would end upon the death of the birds would be incorrect for the universe would never had existed in the first place as all of time and history would be destroyed with their passing. There fore the birds death would be considered as what? And If the birds death was an inevitable fact and thus the universes non-existance is only being postponed can it be logically stated that the universe exists at all given that upon the death of the birds all time and history would be destroyed and that this act would be inevitable given the gamut of pseudo eternal or pseudo immortal existance.* So to sum up the paradox: The universe can not be considered as to have existed or existing as when it inevitably is destroyed all of it's past would go with it. Yet to be destroyed it must exist. Any Flamingos Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! out there wishing to discuss? [* Pseudo Immortality : due to the fact that at no time could an immortal entity consider them selves as immortal regardless of how long they existed, for as eternity is infinite time thus never can be considered as having been lived except as living in the infinite Now which distorts the intent and context of the word eternal]
Reminds me of another thought experiment: Can art exist without life? My intuition tells me that because something is going on (I think, therefore....) and that something has to have taken place somewhere, I have full right to consider that somewhere, the universe, to exist. Then again, my intuition ain't always right.
Not sure why a universe ceasing to exist would also imply it never existed. Effectively, it wouldn't have existed, as there is no possible physical manifestation of a history, but objectively it would have existed. Reminds me of the one where the whole universe expands to ten times its size while you sleep - no possible way to know because everything is exactly the same proportionally, but still I think the perception and the reality are not necessarily consistent. Please explain why the universe would not have existed just because nobody can know it existed. Isn't the existence of the universe a necessity for your thought experiment? If you lived on a desert island and ate grass and effectively changed nothing, and then died - would you never have existed? Just wondering.
