Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,488 comments
- 1,140,298 views
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Likes =/= shared opinion. Further, when looking at posts of yours like this...
...what likes are you expecting to garner? I mean, that wasn't even placed as a hypothetical, you straight said people that dont need purpose or meaning to lead happy and successful lives are alienated nihilists that likely do drugs, commit crimes and indulge in gross materialism. You think that nonsense even deserves a like?Aye. If people either culturally or individually cannot deal with a meaningless and purposeless existence, they are likely to do all sorts of dumb stuff like violence, crime, drugs, and suicide with cocktails of crazy self-justifications, as you say. A perfect enactment of a meaningless and purposeless life. If human life on Earth indeed is random and lacks meaning and purpose, then of course so do our own lives. All we have to do is accept and deal with it. A grudging philosophy of nihilism, gross materialism and alienation is definitely one way to go. Of the seven deadly sins, my personal favorites are sloth, lust and gluttony.
Question: How best to deal with the nihilism and alienation that follows from a purposeless and meaningless life?
- 87,578
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Which doesn't establish anything, much less that "meaning and purpose are neither necessary nor desirable". Hardly "easy" if you're failing at the first hurdle.
Likes for Dotini's posts: 0
Likes for not-Dotini's posts: 27
You may as well say that "Dotini is neither necessary nor desirable" if that's your criterion.
- 87,578
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Is there no one else who thinks meaning and purpose are worth arguing for in the God thread? I'd like to think so, but I'll believe it when I see it.
A short while back, I posted this in the Britain - The Official Thread:
Now this poll may well be defective, but if it is even remotely apt, then at least someone, somewhere, thinks meaning and purpose are lacking and need support. Won't someone please support meaning and purpose here, with me?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Thank you for your contribution!!
No, I do not think meaning and purpose are intrinsically and uniquely bound to a belief in God.
Here is how this all came about:
For all of my life until this summer, I have not believed in universal purpose and meaning, nor God. My vote in the poll is and always has been "Maybe". I believed life was random and the only purpose and meaning in life was what I instilled into it. And I still do believe that I instill meaning and purpose to my life. But this summer I read two books by astronomer Bernard Haisch, The God Theory and The Purpose-Driven Universe. The books find meaning and purpose in the universe due to fine-tuning, and propose that all humans therefore have meaning and purpose as well. The books reject notions of a traditional creator God, and instead presume a higher intelligence - not a being or creature per se - created the universe. He calls it an "infinite intelligent consciousness", and equates that with a better definition of the word God. The basic idea goes back to the Greek philosophers, and has come to be known as The Perennial Philosophy. These books reject traditional religion, and all the pantheon of traditional Gods who are so obviously harmful. A secular, more humanistic "religion" - without dogma, bibles or preachers - accepting the Big Bang, evolution, etc., is offered instead.
It is an idea. It is an interesting, provocative thought. Just because I hold a thought in mind and talk about it doesn't mean I or anyone else should accept it.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
― Aristotle
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
From MIT, experimental evidence objective reality does not exist. Could it be a function of...*something else?
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
by Emerging Technology from the arXiv
Mar 12, 2019
Back in 1961, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner outlined a thought experiment that demonstrated one of the lesser-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics. The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.
Since then, physicists have used the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment to explore the nature of measurement and to argue over whether objective facts can exist. That’s important because scientists carry out experiments to establish objective facts. But if they experience different realities, the argument goes, how can they agree on what these facts might be?
That’s provided some entertaining fodder for after-dinner conversation, but Wigner’s thought experiment has never been more than that—just a thought experiment.
Last year, however, physicists noticed that recent advances in quantum technologies have made it possible to reproduce the Wigner’s Friend test in a real experiment. In other words, it ought to be possible to create different realities and compare them in the lab to find out whether they can be reconciled.
And today, Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and a few colleagues say they have performed this experiment for the first time: they have created different realities and compared them. Their conclusion is that Wigner was correct—these realities can be made irreconcilable so that it is impossible to agree on objective facts about an experiment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The experiment produces an unambiguous result. It turns out that both realities can coexist even though they produce irreconcilable outcomes, just as Wigner predicted.
That raises some fascinating questions that are forcing physicists to reconsider the nature of reality.
The idea that observers can ultimately reconcile their measurements of some kind of fundamental reality is based on several assumptions. The first is that universal facts actually exist and that observers can agree on them.
But there are other assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality.
If there is an objective reality that everyone can agree on, then these assumptions all hold.
But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.
Of course, there is another way out for those hanging on to the conventional view of reality. This is that there is some other loophole that the experimenters have overlooked. Indeed, physicists have tried to close loopholes in similar experiments for years, although they concede that it may never be possible to close them all.
arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080 : Experimental Rejection of Observer-Independence in the Quantum World
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ts-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
*Many Worlds QM
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
by Emerging Technology from the arXiv
Mar 12, 2019
Back in 1961, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner outlined a thought experiment that demonstrated one of the lesser-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics. The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.
Since then, physicists have used the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment to explore the nature of measurement and to argue over whether objective facts can exist. That’s important because scientists carry out experiments to establish objective facts. But if they experience different realities, the argument goes, how can they agree on what these facts might be?
That’s provided some entertaining fodder for after-dinner conversation, but Wigner’s thought experiment has never been more than that—just a thought experiment.
Last year, however, physicists noticed that recent advances in quantum technologies have made it possible to reproduce the Wigner’s Friend test in a real experiment. In other words, it ought to be possible to create different realities and compare them in the lab to find out whether they can be reconciled.
And today, Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and a few colleagues say they have performed this experiment for the first time: they have created different realities and compared them. Their conclusion is that Wigner was correct—these realities can be made irreconcilable so that it is impossible to agree on objective facts about an experiment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The experiment produces an unambiguous result. It turns out that both realities can coexist even though they produce irreconcilable outcomes, just as Wigner predicted.
That raises some fascinating questions that are forcing physicists to reconsider the nature of reality.
The idea that observers can ultimately reconcile their measurements of some kind of fundamental reality is based on several assumptions. The first is that universal facts actually exist and that observers can agree on them.
But there are other assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality.
If there is an objective reality that everyone can agree on, then these assumptions all hold.
But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.
Of course, there is another way out for those hanging on to the conventional view of reality. This is that there is some other loophole that the experimenters have overlooked. Indeed, physicists have tried to close loopholes in similar experiments for years, although they concede that it may never be possible to close them all.
arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080 : Experimental Rejection of Observer-Independence in the Quantum World
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ts-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
*Many Worlds QM
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Isn't "reality" stretching it a bit? Wigner only knows the outcome once he asks the primary observer. For Wigner the supposition state collapses when he finds out the result. For the observer (who found out the result before telling Wigner) the supposition state collapses at the point he makes his observation. Thank you, Wikipedia.
Stretching that to anything meaningful in everyday human perception seems... pointless. It might be better to say that we can each perceive different things at once (e.g. three blind people describing an elephant by touch) but that's to state the obvious that we all occupy differing frames of reference. Quantum-wotsits are very interesting but not applicable to "is there a God", surely?
- 30,003
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I've only just taken an actual look at it, and the poll is...perplexing.
To what god does it refer? Should I read into the "him" and the "god" appearing un-capitalized, taking that to mean it doesn't refer to "the" God?
And what about the "maybe"? Is that "maybe [a] god exists" (which makes some sense) or "maybe I believe" (which...kind of doesn't)?
To what god does it refer? Should I read into the "him" and the "god" appearing un-capitalized, taking that to mean it doesn't refer to "the" God?
And what about the "maybe"? Is that "maybe [a] god exists" (which makes some sense) or "maybe I believe" (which...kind of doesn't)?
- 2,295
- Indiana
- pie4july
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
How do we answer the question of "is there a God"? Maybe it is a wide-open question with no rules. But maybe rigorous rules should be applied. We could rule out subjective evidence. We could could rule out objective evidence. Is there any other kind of evidence to rule out or in? Let's say we rule out subjective evidence for sure. And let's say we rule out quantum physics for sure, even though quantum physicists insist quantum laws played an essential role in the early universe shortly after the Big Bang. Let's say the only evidence allowable is everyday human perception. That makes it much easier to come to some kind of a clear conclusion, but can we be sure the conclusion is correct? Is everyday human perception always 100% objective? Isn't everyday human perception at least partially subjective - different frames of reference?
Or perhaps only classical physics should be allowed to answer the question, "is there a God".
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Perception is absolutely not objective. Observers are full of preconceptions, biases, experiences and self interests, and no two individuals share all of the same. Anything observed, even without the concept behind the Wigner's friend test, is already seen through a biased filter. Further, once observed, that instance becomes a memory, which adds a whole new layer of issues. Ultimately, this is why we use tools. Regardless of who is doing an experiment, building something, even playing music, if the same tool and set of instructions are followed, you get the same results. When we want to make a definitive truth we dont rely on human observation.
Religion and god are not definitive truths, they are personal truths. They mean something different to each person. They are shaped by the same variables as their observations. Moses talked to God through a burning bush, but Fred over there tending his goats watched Moses inadvertently take in a huge lung full of burning acacia tree smoke, get really high and start talking the tree. The definitive truth is that an acacia tree was burning, the observed senario however was different to each person, and to their recollections, equally true. To date, there have been no tests done that show verifiable, repeatable evidence of any sort of god. Only personal evidence. Personal observations shaped by their biases. Surely the fact that we have run the gambit of so many different religious, and subsets of the same religions can attest to this fact that.
Religion and god are not definitive truths, they are personal truths. They mean something different to each person. They are shaped by the same variables as their observations. Moses talked to God through a burning bush, but Fred over there tending his goats watched Moses inadvertently take in a huge lung full of burning acacia tree smoke, get really high and start talking the tree. The definitive truth is that an acacia tree was burning, the observed senario however was different to each person, and to their recollections, equally true. To date, there have been no tests done that show verifiable, repeatable evidence of any sort of god. Only personal evidence. Personal observations shaped by their biases. Surely the fact that we have run the gambit of so many different religious, and subsets of the same religions can attest to this fact that.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
I like how pick-and-choosey you get with some of these articles. This article is devastating to your consciousness theory. The theory of creation is built around an objective reality that needs an explanation. It further reveals the false dichotomy of "it was either a consciousness or random".
If you look at the direction of science in this area, it appears to be headed to a different conclusion, which is whether we understand what it means to exist. And that is the only answer that really has the merit of addressing the question. Where did all of this come from? Well, this is what it would look like if there were nothing. It's an almost inescapable conclusion when you consider the regress of questions. That's not a very satisfying answer of course, be cause need to understand how that's possible.
The point is, more evidence, more research, more confusing experiments, more science is needed to continue to learn. We do not need conjecture and assumption. We need patience.
- 249
- Ireland
- firstmivec
Can I get your thoughts on the comments/questions you didn't respond to from my last post... ?
You're contradicting your own evidence.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together."
Encyclopaedia Britannica
"Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”
The Encyclopedia of Religion
"Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."
The Encyclopedia Americana
"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching"
Mark 7:8 This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’. You are so busy holding on to the traditions of men that you let go the commandment of God!”
Question: #1
If Jesus was God on earth, then it renders meaningless the fact that God rewarded Jesus for his great sacrifice.
Or are we supposed to believe that God rewards himself for being loyal to himself and gives himself gifts that he has always possessed?
Question: #2
If the Son and Spirit are equal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit? (Luke 12:10)
Question: #3
Jesus said that ONLY His Father knew the day of the second coming, not the Son (Mark 13:32). What about the Spirit? Apparently he does not know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the Father knows that the Spirit does not? If so, in what sense can the persons of the Trinity be equal, and of the same essence?
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
I already explained how God and Jesus can be and are called Alpha and Omega but you didn't respond. Also verses I posted show Jesus is not God. Jesus plainly said that he was God's Son and even used the expression "my God" when he worshiped him and was obedient to him. Your only response was to say...
I'll be amazed if you respond to half of whats here.
You say.." Firstborn is not an order of things in time," But the link you posted says firstborn "could refer either to something or someone that is first in order of time" And when reading about Jesus being "the firstborn from the dead" the author says... "Jesus was the first person in time to come back from the dead never to die again."
You're contradicting your own evidence.
What I actually said was..."If the Trinity is the "core doctrine of christianity" why isn't it explained clearly in the Bible or even mentioned in it?"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together."
Encyclopaedia Britannica
"Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”
The Encyclopedia of Religion
"Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."
The Encyclopedia Americana
"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching"
Mark 7:8 This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’. You are so busy holding on to the traditions of men that you let go the commandment of God!”
Question: #1
If Jesus was God on earth, then it renders meaningless the fact that God rewarded Jesus for his great sacrifice.
Or are we supposed to believe that God rewards himself for being loyal to himself and gives himself gifts that he has always possessed?
Question: #2
If the Son and Spirit are equal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit? (Luke 12:10)
Question: #3
Jesus said that ONLY His Father knew the day of the second coming, not the Son (Mark 13:32). What about the Spirit? Apparently he does not know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the Father knows that the Spirit does not? If so, in what sense can the persons of the Trinity be equal, and of the same essence?
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
I already explained how God and Jesus can be and are called Alpha and Omega but you didn't respond. Also verses I posted show Jesus is not God. Jesus plainly said that he was God's Son and even used the expression "my God" when he worshiped him and was obedient to him. Your only response was to say...
Actually the Bible defines Jesus as the Son of God in the one and only way the Father & Son relationship is always understood. However you haven't given any reason why anyone shouldn't believe in the regular Father & Son relationship the Bible speaks about. You do acknowledge that the Bible says they're separate, but this goes against the man-made non biblical teaching of The Trinity, which is somehow more important and therefore all logic and reasoning get shoved aside and you're forced to explain (which you haven't) an alternative view to the simple meaning of Father and Son.
But I'm literally posting them for you, and asking for an explanation you haven't given..
I'll be amazed if you respond to half of whats here.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
Stare with me into the abyss…
Let’s talk about nothing for a minute. Where does all of this reality come from? Why is there matter and energy and plastic toys for children with The Flash on a motorcycle… I mean he can run faster than a motorcycle right? What’s up with that? Why is there anything at all? Why not nothing?
Well, let’s consider what nothing would look like. I’m going to capitalize it to mean a universe which lacks anything at all, which I will call Nothing. So what is Nothing?
Nothing would have to consist of a lack of space and time (and any other dimensions any physicist can come up with). Dimensions are something, and very much a part of our reality. So I want you to picture that in your head, a lack of space and time. Go ahead… it’s hard isn’t it. You want to picture a void with no stars and no light, just blackness. But of course a void is something. In Nothing, there is no void.
Let’s ask some questions about Nothing. Where is it? Nowhere, everywhere. That’s not a well defined question. There is no space, so asking where Nothing is is nonsensical. Is it here in my room? Yes, no. Do I have Nothing in my room? Well yes, technically a lack of space exists in my room, but also it doesn’t exist (by definition, because it is nothing). How long did Nothing exist? Well, forever… and never. This is also a nonsensical question. Nothing has no time, so it exists for an eternity, and not at all. What came before Nothing? Also a nonsensical question, it has no time. So nothing came before Nothing, and after. Also everything came before Nothing, and after.
Let’s pretend you have $100. I ask you, do you have $0? Well no, I have $100, $100 is not zero. But do you also possess $0? Well yes, $100 + 0 = $100. So I have $0 in addition to the $100. So you have nothing, and you don’t have nothing.
So did Nothing exist? Of course, and no. Does it exist now? Of course, and no. Will it exist in the future? Of course, and no.
As I already alluded to, there are other forms of nothing. Not only does $100 (reality) + $0 (nothing) exist, but also $100 - $100. Is that $0? Yes, and no. If we have Nothing, should it be 0, or +1 - 1? Or +100 -100? Yes. All of those are Nothing. In terms of dimensions, what does negative even look like? What does “negative” time look like. Well, time. Especially if you’re not comparing it against “positive” time. What does “negative” space look like. Well, space. Especially if you’re not comparing it against “positive” space.
If you had a universe bubble that had positive space and time, and another universe bubble that had negative space and time, and you put a creature inside each one to observe it (but not the other), both of them would perceive space and time. But as far as the balance of universes go, it’s + 1 -1, in other words, Nothing.
So the question of “why isn’t there Nothing?” is easy to answer. Because that would be nothing. Also there is Nothing. Everywhere, and nowhere, all the time, and never. The question of “why is there Something?” is harder to answer, but the answer could come in the form “because it is Nothing”. And I suspect that this answer may be required of this question.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
You also have any fraction of $n between nothing (or 0) and $n. However, the convention for saying how much there is of something is to give the amount of thing between nothing (or 0) and n. So while you do have $7 you still have $100. Most speakers of English would understand that saying you had $7 when you had $100 would be an erroneous answer, subsequent attempts to explain that ah-HA! you also had $7 as part of the $100 might well be laughed at.
You definitely could not say you have $0 because that is no thing. Something is not made of nothing, something is literally that, some thing. If there is absolutely no thing then there is no thing. No thing is not part of some thing. Unlike some civilisations we use a numeric descriptor for no thing (0) which perhaps gives raise to that "0 is part of n" jape, but 0 is not. It is no thing.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,403
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
But he has a hundred dollars in his (say) hand, and nothing more. Doesn't that means he has an additional amount of nothing? When a magician says he has nothing up his sleeves is he not also demonstrating the quantifiable nature of nothing?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
I want to watch that video, but I think I'm out of time before I leave the house. Not out of time to post this though, which is about time, ironically. I'll respond to @TenEightyOne later if @UKMikey hasn't already said everything I would have.
What I want to talk about a little bit is the notion of the big bang happening before our current existence. In a certain respect, the big bag is happening now, and never happened. The problem is that you're talking about "when" something happened with respect to a unit of measure, "time", which did not exist "when" it happened. It happened outside of time, time was born from that process.
So when did the big bang happen? Now? Never? Always? Probably all of those things are defensible. Where did it happen? Everywhere, nowhere? Probably all of those is defensible. Because space was created by it as well. We like to think that something existed before time, but we allow ourselves this strange conceit of applying time to what came before time. It happened (if I can really even use past tense here) outside of time. So from our perspective, the event has no time. Only once time begins to exist can we even refer to an order or an age of an event.
My point is that we constantly try to use the reference frames of our universe, which only make sense within our universe, to discuss things which happened outside of our universe.
Edit:
To be fair, I'm doing it when I say "happened". First, the past tense implies time, but also to "happen" implies time. What I should say is that we use reference frames of our universe to describe things which exist outside of our universe.
What I want to talk about a little bit is the notion of the big bang happening before our current existence. In a certain respect, the big bag is happening now, and never happened. The problem is that you're talking about "when" something happened with respect to a unit of measure, "time", which did not exist "when" it happened. It happened outside of time, time was born from that process.
So when did the big bang happen? Now? Never? Always? Probably all of those things are defensible. Where did it happen? Everywhere, nowhere? Probably all of those is defensible. Because space was created by it as well. We like to think that something existed before time, but we allow ourselves this strange conceit of applying time to what came before time. It happened (if I can really even use past tense here) outside of time. So from our perspective, the event has no time. Only once time begins to exist can we even refer to an order or an age of an event.
My point is that we constantly try to use the reference frames of our universe, which only make sense within our universe, to discuss things which happened outside of our universe.
Edit:
To be fair, I'm doing it when I say "happened". First, the past tense implies time, but also to "happen" implies time. What I should say is that we use reference frames of our universe to describe things which exist outside of our universe.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Do you think the laws of physics and quantum laws came into existence after the big bang? I have read that quantum physicists insist that quantum operations were taking place very shortly after the beginning of the universe, but that these operations were too complex to have evolved in the time available after the Big Bang.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
My apologies.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I wish I knew. Yes, "before" is not exactly the most appropriate term.
Yes, our space and time were created during our Big Bang, that is accepted. The Copernican Principle suggests that although we and our universe might seem be made for each other, that doesn't mean our universe was planned this way - there must be other universes, other Big Bangs, other spaces and times that are different from ours, having all possible characteristics. We could only originate in this universe, and that's why we are here. But we are forced to accept the pre-existence of some kind of laws or fields of some kind that generate all these other, perhaps infinite number of universes. Quantum fluctuations, often taken as the origin of the universe, cannot exist without quantum laws.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Are we sure that the laws of physics and such were not already in place when the big bang happened? If the big bang is cyclic, as has been theorized, than physics on all levels should be in effect all through the process of contraction and expansion.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
I'm not sure we are forced to accept that.
Let's say there is another universe with other physical laws, let's say the big bang even happened (maybe the same event, maybe a different one) in that universe as well. And let's say that time is running there, and events occur there. What time in our universe does an event which occurs in the other universe occur? That's an undefined problem. It attempts to unify the two universes with a consistent mapping the exists outside of a universe. Which is basically nonsensical. In other words, if an event occurs in that universe, what was the corresponding time in ours? Always? Never? It's all defensible.
Suppose, hypothetically, that the big bang is not actually really an "event" so much as it is the existence of Nothing. And suppose that our universe amounts to Nothing, and so do all other universes that exist. I'll come back to this point in just a sec, I want to explore this concept for a moment. Let's go back to the idea of Nothing being no space, no time, no dimensions, no laws of physics, no existence of any sort. It is zero, literally. Now let's suppose that you consider a different nothing which includes the first Nothing, but also includes +1 -1, and +100 -100, for example all expressions (if you will) of Nothing. All possible Nothings. In order to talk about the first Nothing (which doesn't have these Nothing equivalents), are we actually imposing something? Is it more "structure" to say that the first Nothing is all that can exist? Is it actually a less... artificial.... expression of Nothing to include +1 -1 and +100 -100? Is that the real "natural" state of Nothing?
Anyway, back to my previous point. To say that all possible universes which balance out to nothing exist (and there may even be pairs (or more) of universes which balance out to zero, meaning ours doesn't have to by itself). Let's suppose that each of them has various dimensions and properties and laws of physics and constants. Perhaps some of them have time and some of them do not. To have time and processes implies a beginning, and so the universe has a beginning. Not because something happened outside of the universe, but because that universe needs to exist (for the sake of Nothing) and so it simply does, with a beginning. That universe can play itself out fully, never changing the balance that it amounts to Nothing, and it never even has to have an end. Externally, there is no time. Externally, the universe appears to exist in all of its states forever - an infinite smear of events permanently expressed.
An unstable universe (ours may also be unstable) may also have formed and collapsed on itself, and have a shorter timescale for itself than ours does for itself. But is that universe gone? No. When did it happen in our universe? Always, never. It simply exists as a universe smeared out across its own progression, permanently expressed from the perspective of everything outside of it.
So you can see, there is no need for pre-existence, and in fact the concept of pre-existence is ill defined in the first place.
All of this is mere conjecture, and it's all just me thinking out loud. It's inspired by Stephen Hawking and lots of other physicists, but some of it is just me making stuff up.
"Before" is ill-defined. You mean in some other kind of spacetime?
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
If its cyclic, then there is no real "before." Only pre, intra and post big bang. In that space of time, between collapse and expansion, the intra, that would be the only place of "nothing that is everything." I am curious why in that moment its thought that the laws of physics no longer exist, or if perhaps the laws never stop existing and model the process of expansion, collapse and bang.
Edit: for clarity, I am basing this off a single universe model, not a multiverse.
Edit: for clarity, I am basing this off a single universe model, not a multiverse.
Similar threads
