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?
Yes that is true, but is life made more rich by supposing?
Well I think it's more rich by imagining. John Lennon's imagine song, was a big hit world wide. Theme of the olympics in 2012.
I makes by brain hurt to think about it too much. I wish I understood these thing better, but that's not my strong suit. I'm glad that there are those more intelligent than me to figure stuff out!
Don't feel bad about it. Every scientific discovery comes from standing on the shoulders of others.
The only origins that is really knows, is the origins of the species on earth, also known as biology or evolution. There isn't enough data to go on in regard to the origin of the entire universe or multi-versses etc.
In saying that however, I would still call myself an atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any form of a deity. I don't believe in any form of a deity, everything else outside of that has nothing to do with atheism. Agnostic answers a different question, its the question of knowledge, not faith.
This would be a good X-mas gift for yourself. http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/14...
Dawkins does his best to describe the Big Bang, The origin of life, and the process of Evolution. I have it on Audio book, narrated by Dawkins himself, and I've listened to it several times. It's one book that I'll go back to several times.
I was reading the other day that time may be an emergent property from quantum entanglement. Without the universe there is no guarantee there would be any quantum entanglement, and certainly possible that there is no such thing as time (being an emergent property of something which may not exist). Is it even possible to consider "origin" without the concept of time?
One of the most basic problems with time is the same as that of free will. We THINK we know it. We THINK we experience it, yet why are both so frustratingly impervious to definition? Many physicists take seriously the idea that time and space (at least as we think we experience them) are not real at all. For one thing, did you know that according to physics, time is directionless? It can be run backwards as well as forward. Why it seems to run in just one direction remains unexplained.
This interesting article is worth a read.
Just had an aha... how would we ever know whether time was moving "forward" or "backward"? Perhaps it's going back and forth all the time, either creating memories or erasing them.
I expect that this question piggy-backs onto a similar question, 'if there are time travelers, how could we tell?'
Would certain moments in time be more or less interesting to a time traveler?
There is an old SF book, I think from the 60's I think called 'Cryptozoic' which has this as a theam, with 'time' actually going backwards.
Can time be considered to exist without any thing to leave evidence behind? Say you have a sterile box with a total vacuum inside, and it is completely shielded from all known types of radiation, and you left the box sealed for 100 years. Could you possibly tell from the inside of the vacuum sealed, radiation proof sterile box that that any time at all has passed inside? When something happens inside the universe, there is evidence left behind, at least for a little while. Without anything to observe, or be observed later, can time really be said to have existed at all?
I'm not a physicist of any kind, just a guy with an over active imagination and too much time on his hands. So take it with a grain of salt and a slice of lemon.