I don't come on here too often, to be honest, but something has really been getting at me lately. "How did the universe become?" I can't necessarily consider myself an atheist, and if I did it would be a "soft" atheist, but overall, I'm more of an agnostic. Basically, do any of you have any theories or have heard of any theories or ideas concerning the topic of our origins? Did the universe just pop up out of nowhere? Is there a higher power?
This is interesting because it fits very nicely with the concept of an inertial reference frame. Essentially, if you were in a space capsule (with no windows), travelling in a straight line, at constant velocity, AND the capsule was not spinning - you would have no means of determining either your velocity or your direction. There is no tool existing that could, as yet, measure this for you.
@ Dalton....I suppose I too have an over active imagination. I like "what if's" for some reason. Your scenario sounds reasonable to me. I would surmise that something would need to show decay or growth to measure any aspect of time. But as far as I know, such a perfect vacuum doesn't exist that we know of.
Is it possible that time does not exist inside the box?
Sorry Dalton, but I still don't know enough to say. As I suggest to friends, 'I expect more than I know'.
As to my 'expectations'.
I think there is no god, no vast conscience that fills space/time, and no purpose above what is created by sentient beings.
Being is a given, but originates out of the processes of the universe around us.
We are short-term patterns or 'connections', that are projections of processes that create the observed multiplicity around us.
We are not issolated from these processes, but are directly and indirectly dependent upon them.
Our being is directly or indirectly dependent on both vast to small scale processes, some of which may not be directly observable due to time scales.
That the human mind is capable of understanding, but that understanding is dependent upon perspective and our tools.
Asking questions, good or bad, is a primary component of a sentient mind, observation and analysis of details can offer us insight into processes from which we ourselves draw our being.
At some level, 'understanding' can be a deep spiritual activity for the sentient mind, from which humility, wonder, and perspective, deepens our connections with each other and our present mortality.
That we are not complete in our evolution, and we are always at the cusp of change.
With the expansion of the universe, it seems pretty clear that it must have been a Big Bang of some sort. Before that? It's anyone's guess.
Personally, I feel like the universe is dwarfed by infinity. It's only a mere 13.75 billion years old. And it's easy to imagine yourself out in the multiverse, just outside our universe, watching the universe expand. So it's not infinitely big either. I used to like my infinities without beginnings or endings. Because, without true infinity, there had to be a beginning. And that just seemed impossible.
That is, until modern cosmology gave us a universe from nothing (which was popularized by Lawrence Krauss). To me, it's a pretty satisfying model of the universe . . . though I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how realistic it really is. Check out the link if you haven't already. It's a video by Lawrence Krauss that will blow your mind if it's new to you.
Dan Dennett used to tell theists that he did believe in a great power that keep the Universe working.....he calls it Gravity.
And at that he's only acknowledging one of the four basic forces--the other three make it interesting.
What if there's a natural form of a Hadron collider in another dimension that somehow pumps out big bangs?
Maybe a type of black-hole in another dimension that blows out material into this one.. not continually but every once in a big bang?
something like this wouldn't explain the origin of the other dimensional black hole or hadron collider but it would remove the idea of a sky-daddy taking a hands on approach to the creation of the earth and adam and eve etc...
Would remove the sky-daddy idea from what? From the mythology that so many cherish?
One current popular theory of the origin of the universe has one "brane" ("membrane") bumping into another one and thus causing the universe. Perhaps the universe began with The Big Bump, not The Big Bang.
Sadly this once again just creates another layer of regression, 'where did the branes comes from?'