Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude

[C C]

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/unive...s-conclude

EXCERPT: [...] Physicists at CERN in Switzerland have made the most precise measurement ever of the magnetic moment of an anti-proton – a number that measures how a particle reacts to magnetic force – and found it to be exactly the same as that of the proton but with opposite sign. The work is described in Nature.

“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” says Christian Smorra, a physicist at CERN’s Baryon–Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment (BASE) collaboration. “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is.” [...]

MORE: https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/unive...s-conclude

[stryder]

The statement of "The universe should not actually exist" bases that the universe is a naturally accidentally occurring phenomena. The thing is that the universe contains lifeforms that exist within it (sentience cares about existing, strata does not) and therefore would invest in making sure that it exists and continues to exist, otherwise life should not exist. This could be further conjectured into "If life didn't exist, nor would the universe."

"There's a whole lot of arm waving going on."

[Syne]

Quite contrary to the "universe shouldn't exist", these fine-tuned balanced actually suggest that it couldn't help but exist. There's little reason to expect to find an asymmetry this far removed from its origin.

[C C]

The statement of "The universe should not actually exist" bases that the universe is a naturally accidentally occurring phenomena. The thing is that the universe contains lifeforms that exist within it (sentience cares about existing, strata does not) and therefore would invest in making sure that it exists and continues to exist, otherwise life should not exist. This could be further conjectured into "If life didn't exist, nor would the universe."

At the very least the vast majority of the cosmos -- the mindless "strata" -- would lack any empirical and reasoned evidence of itself existing without consciousness and intelligence somewhere (i.e., qualitative manifestations and symbolic thought activity). Either science or naturalism can be depended upon as a precondition (of laughter) to reject panpsychism ever alternatively being the case (barring sudden climate change in Hell having coincidence with such a flip-flop policy change).

I'm skeptical of the commonsense view of time (presentism or only "now" exists)[*], anyway, and thereby don't worry much about the be-ing of everything in this speciously "objective moment" being dependent upon an origin circa 14 billions years ago not having flaws or gaps in its abstract description.

- - - - - -

[*] Wherein a global state of the universe is annihilating and replacing itself continually in yoctosecond intervals (so as to accommodate changes at the subatomic level). Should that incredibly rapid blinking in and out of existence not be magical enough, then the maintenance of consistency throughout the process over eons without any literally potent explanatory principles or hidden metaphysical machinery to provide / ensure the regulation certainly is (another "it just happens" marvel).

- - -

[Zinjanthropos]

I don't find it difficult to understand why some people think there's more going on then meets the eye, as far as the universe and life goes. I'm hoping like hell that some day soon life is created in the lab but as long as that outcome seems unattainable then I expect more of the same with regard to special hypotheses with no support of probability. Be it gods, consciousness', metaphysics, etc there will be nothing like it when a human creates a life form from scratch. Until then just grin and bear it. That and confirmation of extraterrestrial life should move the parameters of understanding somewhat.

Universe doesn't exist? Well I guess we'll just have to get use to what nothing looks like.

[Syne]

Scientism.

[Zinjanthropos]

Scientism.  

Ya, somehow it just keeps happening. Still, secretly I'd still like to see something of the non science hypotheses proven. Then again I would just think of it as naturally occurring. I want to think there's unnatural stuff going on but alas I'd be faced with the same dilemma. In a world that's total unnatural from ours, would occupants consider our world unnatural?

[Syne]

Scientism.  

Ya, somehow it just keeps happening. Still, secretly I'd still like to see something of the non science hypotheses proven. Then again I would just think of it as naturally occurring. I want to think there's unnatural stuff going on but alas I'd be faced with the same dilemma. In a world that's total unnatural from ours, would occupants consider our world unnatural?

Sorry, but that's just contradictory. You're asking for "non science hypotheses" to be "proven" by scientific methodology.

[Zinjanthropos]

Sorry, but that's just contradictory. You're asking for "non science hypotheses" to be "proven" by scientific methodology.

Exactly, and that just keeps on not happening, but they keep trying. (couldn't ask for a better response, thanks)

[Syne]

Who keeps trying?