What is Objectivism's view of cosmology?

I'm fairly new to Objectivism and agree with the main axioms: existence, identity and consciousness, but it would seem these axioms need something preceding them. For something to exist, there would need to be a material "thing" to exist, be identified or be conscious of.  One might state than an idea is a thing that is not material, but the idea has to come from some mind, and given Objectivism's denial of the mind/body dichotomy, we're talking about a brain- a physical object.

So my question is, where did the physical objects the exist originate from?

Thanks for answering this.

Origins may be secondary, but one cannot simply ignore them.    I accept the Objectivist axioms of primacy of existence, etc.  

So, are you saying the universe is eternal?  To me, that makes no sense.  Recent and current cosmology indicates the universe had a beginning. 

BTW, wherer are you located in FL?  I'm in Melbourne Beach.

(Edited by Mike Masztal on 2/19, 12:22pm)

I would say that there is a key difference between talking about a specific thing, no matter how extensive it is, like "the universe" as compared to talking about "existence" which would include "the universe" and, quite simply, everything.  This would seem to be both metaphysics and epistemology (but more epistemological).

For almost anything we can think of, it makes sense to ask about its origin.  Where did you come from?  What created this? etc.  And that can predispose us to think that this is a property to be found of all things.   But, consider a "thing" that is actually a category, like "mammals."  If we ask where mammals come from, we will need to find a causal category that matches 'mammals.'  It has to be a cause that works to explain humans, zebras, chimpanzees, etc.  In other words, the cause must be of such a nature, epistemologically, as to match the effect we are imputing to it.

We might say that the universe came from the big bang, but there has to have been something that existed prior to an effect for any causal explanation to work.  (Remember Luke's warning to avoid the infinite regress).  Now, if, instead of "the universe," we say, "existence" and mean by that "all that has ever existed," we have included whatever caused the big bang.  We have, by the nature of the concepts, arrived at the point where we have to say that existence has always existed, and that existence cannot be made out of non-existence.

If one were to say that it makes no sense for existence to be seen as eternal, that would be equivalent to saying that something could spring into existence from non-existence and clearly with no cause since a cause has to be about something that exists so as to be able to cause something to happen. 

I find it easier to accept that existence has always existed, and that there never was a time when nothing existed, then to accept an idea that could violate the very nature of causality and hold that anything could spring into being with no precursor whatsoever.  And it appears to me that the confusion most often arises out of a conflation of astronomy's understanding of the 'universe' with the philosophical understanding of 'existence.'

Thanks for the input Steve.

Luke:  I'll see you tomorrow @6 at B&N.  I looked at the topic and just happen to have Allison's book which I read a couple years ago.

At 61, I guess I qualify as an old white guy.

As Andrew Bernstein said in a debate with Dinesh D'Souza, for there to be an explosion (i.e., the Big Bang), there has to be something to explode! ;-)  Nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing. 

The Universe was created from nothing in the sense that the quantum vaccuum is not an observed thing-ness. Hence the title of Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing".

What we do know is that the QV contains enough energy to coalesce and form a heat gradent (Linde) and thereby begin the proceess of Guth Inflation  (not a 'big Bang, btw).