A: To get a better look at itself.
That sounds like a cute thing to say, but in a sense, I think that is a better reason than most.
The models based on observed increases in distances between galaxies show that the universe seems like it must have expanded at different rates at different times, and that those rates are superluminal (faster than light speed).
To me, this suggests a profoundly relativistic, perception-based cosmos in which the scale of phenomena and how they fit in the overall layer cake of scale frames, is more fundamental than local ontological considerations (such as material mechanisms, ‘energy’, matter, etc).
“Moreover, we know that there is no contradiction with special relativity when faster than light motion occurs outside the observer’s inertial frame. General relativity was specifically derived to be able to predict motion when global inertial frames were not available. Galaxies that are receding from us super-luminially can be at rest (their peculiar velocity* vpec=0) and motion in their local inertial frames remains well described by special relativity. They are in no sense catching up with photons (vpec=c). Rather the galaxies and the photons are both receding from us at recession velocities greater than the speed of light.” - http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf
I see this as supporting my view that light has no speed and in fact, light is a sensitivity of matter to itself. With different scales of coherence, any particular participant in the universe experiences matter with a different fisheye-lens perspective according to their own scale, and thus the scale of their sense capacities or perceptual inertial frame. General relativity therefore, refers to universal perception - a lowest common sense of spatial and temporal causality.
*”Hubble’s Law only works for distant galaxies. For nearby galaxies (in the Local Group), stars inside the Milky Way, and for objects in our Solar System, the relationship between distance and velocity does not hold. The reason for the discrepancy for nearby galaxies is the “peculiar velocity” of the galaxy, that is, its real velocity through space that is unrelated to the expansion. For distant galaxies, their peculiar velocities are small enough that they still lie on or near the line for Hubble’s Law. For nearby galaxies, though, their peculiar velocity is larger than their velocity from the expansion, so their peculiar velocity dominates their total velocity, causing them to lie far from the line relating velocity to distance. For example, the galaxy M31 does not even show a redshift, it is blueshifted, showing that its peculiar velocity is pointed towards us, rather than away from us.” - page on Hubble’s Law
If we dare to set aside our Occidental-technocratic pacifier for a moment and consider the possibility that the existential meaninglessness of the cosmos may not be a foregone conclusion, we can entertain the rather more interesting conjecture that in fact, the converse is the case - not that there is a theological ‘meaning to existence’, but that the universe is meaning itself. Literally. The universe is a solitrope**. It is the something that is about everything and the everything, which, through its anti-self-juxtaposition becomes some things and not others and tells some stories through those things and others directly as stories.
The expansion of the universe then represents the same thing that we do when we want to get more of a scene into a photograph, we recede or pull back on our camera’s perceptual frame. The further apart everything is, the better the view of the totality from each vantage point, if it were true that stars and galaxies can feel or ‘see’ each other (even if they can’t, other things like people can do their seeing for them).
In addition to capturing a wider angle self-perception, the spatial expansion of the outer universe provides a kind of heterotropy or variety of orientations. Not only does space give us infinitely more stuff to see and do, but it creates another infinity of perspective on each thing that happens. At each distance, a new possibility for qualitative richness emerges, or rather is recovered from the solitrope.
“Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations; it is derived from the Greek isos (ίσος, equal) and tropos (τρόπος, manner). Precise definitions depend on the subject area. Exceptions, or inequalities, are frequently indicated by the prefix an, hence anisotropy. Anisotropy is also used to describe situations where properties vary systematically, dependent on direction. Isotropic radiation has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement, and an isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how the test particle is oriented.” - Wiki
**Solitrope is a neologism referring to a fully realized model of cosmos which respects both interior sense and exterior realism. Similar to other concepts such as the Absolute, Totality, Singularity, Tao, Ein Sof, or Supreme Monad, I would like to think that solitrope gives the possibility for more scientific traction as it suggests a realization relation through intensional-temporal and extensional-spatial juxtaposition. In addition, the solitrope is conceived of as a state which ‘feels like something’ in particular, i.e. it is the provision for a feeling of security, solidity, and solace in the universe. Like the I Ching hexagram Chi’ien, it is the home-base grandaddy of all super-signifiers: Heaven