Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
The multiverses theory is an attempt to address the very issue that I raise. That is, since there are so many trillions upon trillions of possible solutions for the values of the physical forces, its proponents hypothesize trillions upon trillion of possible universes in one of which we happen to live. Hence you don't need a creator.
If you don't like the term "fine tuning" because if implies a creator, fair enough. Then use the term "the probability of a particular value randomly being selected over a range of infinite points". The implications regarding the probable creation if the universe are the same.
However I strongly agree with your last statement that consciousness is not linked to the four natural forces. Therefore, this is evidence that it comes beyond our physical universe. Further, I agree that the creation of life and the universe has a simple uncomplicated answer. So what do you think is more complicated? Infinitely many universes with different outcomes for every being simultaneously existing over all time or the existence of a creator? Einstein would have chosen the latter as he was also a proponent of clean solutions.
I also agree with your statement that our current knowledge about consciousness cannot provide a clear answer. However, this can be said about many issues. This does not preclude us from finding better answers and discarding unsatisfactory and unlikely ones.
I must have been unclear. Just the opposite, I don't believe that the universe was created spontaneously from disorder. Probability tells me that the likelihood of this approaches zero. I do believe that there is a simple though well-hidden explanation.
When we come across a manmade object, such as a work of art, in order to better understand it, we try to learn as much as we can about its creator and the creator's purpose. No one has been able to eliminate the possibility of a creator of the universe. I maintain that it is actually the most reasonable explanation. As such, discussion of the nature of a creator of the universe is not only relevant to the discussion of the universe but a requirement.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
This is NOT the point I was addressing, you said in your previous post "it's a scientific fact that Universe is fine tuned" it is this statement which is a falsehood and a misrepresentation of science.
well I suggest you do some research then, because a multiverse is exactly what string theory predicts. Now granted, string theory is by no means a proven and excepted theory and there isn't and most likely never will be any emperical evidence of a multiverse, but don't be mislead by your own biases to think that a multiverse was invented as way of removing god from the equation.Ask Heisenberg. In your own words, String Theory is just that, a theory, and now they are creating further variations of that theory. There is no conclusion from that mathematical theory that multiverses follow as a result. There is no physical evidence of them either.
The multiverse is not required to A) eliminate the necessity of god(s) and B)required to explain the order of the Universe. You appear to be clinging onto this notion that the idea of a multiverse was intentionally presented as a means to try an explain the "fine tuning" of the Universe, yet fail to recognise that apart from the fact that your wrong, science has no need to invent an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away problem which in turn raises even more questions, the idea of doing so blunts Ochams razor an is contradictory to the scientific method.The multiverses theory is an attempt to address the very issue that I raise. That is, since there are so many trillions upon trillions of possible solutions for the values of the physical forces, its proponents hypothesize trillions upon trillion of possible universes in one of which we happen to live. Hence you don't need a creator.
Since when does probability equate to impossible?If you don't like the term "fine tuning" because if implies a creator, fair enough. Then use the term "the probability of a particular value randomly being selected over a range of infinite points". The implications regarding the probable creation if the universe are the same.
Any combination of values are as improbable as the next, just because a certain combination is more significant it does not make it less likely.
The fact that you exist based on the probability of your entire family trees right sperm fertilising the right egg at the right time with right person during a particular moment of intercourse, in hindsight is almost impossible...yet here you are.
Nonsense, it's proof that consciousness is not intrinsically dependent on the fundamental laws. To say that a transcendent force influences the nature of physical beings is an ontological falacy. There exists two seperate domains, physical and metaphysical, you seem to jump between the two in order to justify your position.However I strongly agree with your last statement that consciousness is not linked to the four natural forces. Therefore, this is evidence that it comes beyond our physical universe.
Well considering how overwhelmingly complexed a god that could create Universes must be, the multiverse is both more logical and also aligns with the naturalistic order which science consistenly observes.Further, I agree that the creation of life and the universe has a simple uncomplicated answer. So what do you think is more complicated? Infinitely many universes with different outcomes for every being simultaneously existing over all time or the existence of a creator?
Furthermore, it was once thought Earth was the only planet, our was the only moon, there was only one star like our Sun, one solar system and one Galaxy.....how wrong were we?
If history has taught us anything then the idea of there being more that one Universe should not seem that foreign.
Please display some intellectual integrity, these sort of comments during philosophical discussions display both desperation and ignorance.Einstein would have chosen the latter as he was also a proponent of clean solutions.
Well you've got an epistemological problem to deal with then. On one hand your claiming the creator of the Universe exists externally, not part of the physical Universe, independent of Spacetime and now you're saying in order to understand the nature of the universe one needs to learn about the creator.....the creator which exists independently from the Universe.When we come across a manmade object, such as a work of art, in order to better understand it, we try to learn as much as we can about its creator and the creator's purpose. No one has been able to eliminate the possibility of a creator of the universe. I maintain that it is actually the most reasonable explanation. As such, discussion of the nature of a creator of the universe is not only relevant to the discussion of the universe but a requirement.
How can one learn to understand something that doesn't exist within this Universe?
Gods are only necessary in the presence of ignorance..... the ignorance of being intellectually reliant on metaphysical explanations for questions which currently lay beyond the scope of our knowledge. This is simple god of the gaps mentality where you insist on replacing i don't know with god.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Well, this is the property of the neutral element of a group included in the algebraic field (in german Körper) of real numbers. The property that i was talking about was the time of special relativity. This eigentime , is measurable and even detectable in experiments and behaves like the predicted time dilation. The fact that clocks move slower (observed from far away) in a strong gravitational field is measurable. But for themselvesLaurence wrote: ↑August 4th, 2018, 11:23 amAgreed.RJG wrote: 1. Without 'something' happening, 'nothing' happens.
2. Without 'time', 'nothing' can occur (happen).
3. Without a 'place' to happen, 'nothing' can happen.
Agreed.Steve3007 wrote:Yes, as I said, I think RJG is clearly right to say that it is self-contradictory to say something like "time has not always existed" because "always" is a word that means "for all time". It is a temporal word. This is of course the problem with discussing a subject like General Relativity using our natural languages with their temporal words.
I hope you mind if I open the discussion again as I had something to say and I've been away.
How about putting it like this?...
0 = (-x + x) * time
The left hand side could be considered as nothing. The right hand side includes the axis of time and some other stuff. There is no "creating" going on here. They are logically equivalent to each other. It is stupid model of the universe but it shows what is logically possible in a different representation.
The right hand side of the above equation has no limit to the axis of time. Hence that side is infinite. However the equation itself shows something as nothing.SimpleGuy wrote:So forever is something observer dependent
they behave normal and you would detect nothing special happening. The realtiy transforms for the observer into a different one through time dilation and length contraction for a discjoint (for himself non moving) observer. If the event horizon would be reached this would result in a standstill of time for you although time would behave for a particle close the event horizon quite normal physical (after special relativity).
What you were talking of are general algebraic properties of algebraic fields , which are some kind of basis no matter which physical model one would assume to model your observable realtity.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
First, we cannot discuss all of the intricate details of string theory, or as you know, super string theory. String theory was developed to answer the question as to what composes quarks or the smallest components of matter. Vibrating strings were theorized which give rise to the basic elements of matter. The vibration of the string, determines the type of matter like the different vibrations if a violin string produces different notes. The equations for string theory make the most sense when 10 dimensions plus time are assumed. Multiverses are not a requirement. Now you may place the theory of multiverses on top of the theory of strings if you want, but one does not necessarily imply the other.
Second, I very much like your analogy of the earth-centered theory of the universe imposed during the Middle Ages. The religious authorities required that the first premise be that the earth is the center of the universe. Therefore all observations had to be made to fit that model. The mathematics to explain the motion of the planets to comply with this was a mess. Copernicus redid the calculations, assuming a solar-centered solar system, and the mathematics was simpler and made more sense.
Today we have the opposite. Secularists are requiring that no mention of God or of a creator be allowed for whatever reason. Then the theoretical models must explain the observations of the universe and our existence. This is the flip side of the same mistake made in the Middle Ages. Now we nave some of the most convoluted theories imaginable. The theory of a creator should be argued, pro or con, like any other theory. If there is a creator, then he, she or it is just as much a part of our world even if he is beyond it as well.
If we are going to rely on the theories of great scientists, then referring to all of their thinking is by no means precluded.
"Any combination of values are as improbable as the next..." Really?
Good discussion
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
0/1; These two Singularities issuing forth from the same Source are the same yet
different, the value of Zero-0 is less than the value of One-1.
As a Singularity of Zero-0 issues forth from the Darkness of the Great Void, from the
Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity, a Random Infinitely Finite Indivisible
Singularity of Zero-0 is transformed into a Singularity of One-1; a Singularity of Zero-0
being reborn a Singularity of One-1.
A Singularity of One-1 attaining its numerical vale of One-1 by being the First in a series,
the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the
Evolutionary Process.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
So does that mean the universe had a beginning.Eduk wrote: ↑August 8th, 2018, 3:58 am My father was incapable of love, I lived in squaller and he used to beat me for the smallest reason. Often these reasons were unpredictable and illogical and I lived in constant terror. However I went to live with my mother who made the flip side of the same mistake and loved me dearly, taking care of me and punishing (without resort to violence) for consistent reasons. Fortunately this enabled me to grow up well adjusted.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/marten-w ... 12773.html
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
[Irrelevant links about anal penetration removed by mod. SimpleGuy, we do not need to know about your private passions, thank you.]
This could really widen your horizon. And just from my feeble math status a beginning and an end is included, so the problem can be mathematically embedded !!!
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Note: You've received WARNING #1.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
If God did not want men to have anal sex, why then did he put the prostate gland RIGHT next to the butt hole??
Answer that!
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
So does that mean the universe had a beginning?ThomasHobbes wrote:If God did not want men to have anal sex, why then did he put the prostate gland RIGHT next to the butt hole??RJG wrote:SimpleGuy, please do not post these type of links here. These are wholly inappropriate and irrelevant to this topic. Thank you for your cooperation.
Answer that!
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
We seem to be in agreement here, the point I would still like to highlight though is the idea of a multiverse in that the scientific method did simply create the hypothesis as an ad hoc attempt to remove god from the equation. String theory predicts 9 spatial dimensions, the higher dimensions are supposedly wrapped into Calabi-yau manifolds and the fundamental laws of physics are determined by the geometry of the manifolds. Given that the different mathematical model of these manifolds is something like 10 to the 500, the multiverse or "string landscape" becomes necessary if the theory is proven to be true.tommarcus wrote: ↑August 7th, 2018, 10:24 pm Thinking critical:
First, we cannot discuss all of the intricate details of string theory, or as you know, super string theory. String theory was developed to answer the question as to what composes quarks or the smallest components of matter. Vibrating strings were theorized which give rise to the basic elements of matter. The vibration of the string, determines the type of matter like the different vibrations if a violin string produces different notes. The equations for string theory make the most sense when 10 dimensions plus time are assumed. Multiverses are not a requirement. Now you may place the theory of multiverses on top of the theory of strings if you want, but one does not necessarily imply the other.
In regards to the geocentric model, I don't believe that society conformed to this model due to religious instruction, more so I suspect that the people who wrote religious script fell victim to the same errors that all natural philosophers of the day did. This point also weakens the accountability of scripture as any form of evidence for a god.Second, I very much like your analogy of the earth-centered theory of the universe imposed during the Middle Ages. The religious authorities required that the first premise be that the earth is the center of the universe. Therefore all observations had to be made to fit that model. The mathematics to explain the motion of the planets to comply with this was a mess. Copernicus redid the calculations, assuming a solar-centered solar system, and the mathematics was simpler and made more sense.
Today we have the opposite. Secularists are requiring that no mention of God or of a creator be allowed for whatever reason. Then the theoretical models must explain the observations of the universe and our existence. This is the flip side of the same mistake made in the Middle Ages. Now we nave some of the most convoluted theories imaginable. The theory of a creator should be argued, pro or con, like any other theory. If there is a creator, then he, she or it is just as much a part of our world even if he is beyond it as well.
I don't quite see your point in regards to the god hypothesis? I see no valid reason to contemplate the possibility that metaphysical beings should even be considered in any attempt to explain the origin of our Universe. For one, unless gods or creators can be explained, gods or creators as explanations explain nothing at all. Second,anything which transcends this world lays beyond the domain of both scientific and logical examination, an ontological explanation will always be limited to the faculties of our mind.
This experiment can be carried out with a die, write down any 6 combinations of numbers including 1-6, six 6s and any other combinations, statistically the chances of rolling either one of the 6 combos are even. The probability reduces as the possible variables increase not the order of the variables."Any combination of values are as improbable as the next..." Really?
AgreedGood discussion
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023