Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on September 11, 2010 at 4:14pm

I don't really dig most of science-fiction because it's often bad science and even worse fiction. Unfortunately, this means I miss out on the great products of human imagination and intellect that may be mirrored by such literature. That being said, this is kind of what I was saying. However, I don't understand this: "we [...] figure out how to start a new universes and then realize that someone has to go back and start this universe." Or what? If the universe wasn't caused by something, it wouldn't exist, therefore, if we don't start the universe, something else will. But that's a good point. It could be that some intelligent beings close the loop, but there could also be really "short" worlds, with little events and circumstances that close the circle of existence. In these cases, and not only these, the actual laws of that universe would be of such manner that the starting (improperly said) event would happen.

Anyway, I hope the fact that others have thought about this is a good sign that it's not 100% crazy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by willailla on September 11, 2010 at 3:55pm

I like the Wizard of Oz because its theme--there is no place like home--resonates with the notion that there is no Heaven or god--only charlatans who want people to believe there is. And I like Alice in Wonderland because it shows logic does not explain existence.

Below are the various attempts by science to explain it. Their conclusions: no one knows jack. So you're not the only one confused, Radu.

----------------------------------

One can equally hypothesis a universe that came out of nothing. (Note, in a vacuum,
subatomic particles seemingly pop into existence out of nothing, so applying this to a
universe does not deem improbable.)

1. The universe had a beginning
No one has evidence of a universal beginning. Although the known expanding
universe suggests a smaller volume universe in the past, this does not necessarily
mean that it had a primordial "beginning." Recent hypothesis suggest that even a Big
Bang does not require an absolute singularity. Furthermore, various "many-world"
hypothesis proposed by physicists produce many Big-Bangs. There simply does not
exist enough information to determine whether or not the universe had a beginning,
or even what "beginning" means in terms of a universe.

2. Everything that had a beginning must have had a cause outside of itself.
Human short life spans do not allow knowledge about "everything" and we could not
possibly have tested for everything in the universe to see if it had a beginning or not.
Therefore we cannot possibly know everything much less know that everything had a
beginning. And why would "everything" have to have an outside cause? Do quarks
have an outside cause or a beginning? And what does it mean by "outside." Why not
include whatever exists "outside" as part of the total universe?

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause outside of itself
Since we don't know whether the universe exists as open or closed, or whether many
universes exist, or whether it had a beginning, or no beginning, we cannot possibly
determine cause much less an "outside of itself."

4. The universe or universes may have always existed without an initial beginning. No
creator required.

"If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge,
it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for
a creator?"
-Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time)

5. The universe or universes may have come into existence from pure static energy to
create matter-energy. No designer required.

6. Perhaps the universe came out of a singularity or "nothing" (Standard Big Bang).
No intellegent designer required.

7. The Big Bang may have had no singularity at the beginning. No creator required.
(really the same thing as 3)

"It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other
physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe."
-Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time)

8. Maybe the universe cycles though an infinite number of Big Bangs. No designer
required.

9. Perhaps the question of a beginning or infinite universe has no answer and we have
posed meaningless questions to ask because of our limit of understanding.
Although the leading hypothesis, the Big Bang, has some indirect evidence for
support (expansion, black body radiation, etc.), many a hypothesis has proven
incorrect with far less evidence. Regardless of how consistent a mathematical theory
seems, if it does not have good supporting evidence, then nothing about its nature can
produce factual knowledge. Moreover, even the Big Bang requires no need to
postulate an intellegent designer to make it consistent with observation and reason.
Virtually all other hypothesis, Anthropic Principles, Many Worlds,
expansion-contraction theories, TOEs, etc. all come from speculation and have little
to do with fact and evidence.

To conclude, I propose that we do not know enough about the universe(s) to make a
determination about the history of its origin or if it had one. And to introduce a
creator adds nothing to our knowledge of the universe but has only created
insurmountable or inconsistent problems. To date, all useful knowledge about nature
and the universe holds consistent with a non-designer universe. Lest the reader failed
to read the previous sentence, it bears repeating: To date, all useful knowledge about
nature and the universe holds consistent with a non-designer universe. Until evidence
for a creator appears, this universal consistency of a complete lack of evidence for an
intellegent designer makes the non-intellegent-designed universe the leading theory.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more
interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
-Richard Feynman, physicist

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on September 11, 2010 at 4:08pm

Continuing, I'd ask how could an event be caused by the event it caused. Well, it couldn't... that's if these events happen in a world where time exists. But we're talking about nothing here, not even time. So, in a way, everything happens at the same time.

I like it! Perhaps our construct of reality is too heavily biased by being inextricably bound to time. Or maybe it is because we cannot experience any dimensions beyond the three spatial and one temporal; we're like the two-dimensional characters of Flatland who are confounded by the incomprehensible presence of a three-dimensional object. By experiencing time as the threshold of our dimensional experience, we are unable to conceive of anything superseding this dimension and are therefore limited in our perceptions. Because we are locked into the flow of time as individual units, we cannot step outside of time and see it as a whole entity. (I've yet to seriously study physics but I think that I might have just regurgitated some horribly dumbed-down version of string theory. Be gentle with an English major. ;) )

• ▶ Reply