The Truth (As I see it)

Wayne, now you're being an ass. Just because I won't accept spontaneous generation, doesn't mean I accept a deity. I personally think this is the latest universe to have come into existence so far, in that the last universe collapsed and then turned into the primeval atom, thus becoming the last Big Bang. Either that, or this is a simulation and we're all virtual entities in a post-human computer model.

 

God always seemed like nothing more than a redundant middleman in that context to me. Introducing him simply postpones the question about the origin of the universe rather than answering it. If it was God who created the initial singularity, what created God? If "God has always just been there/he spontaneously came to be" is a satisfying answer, why "The universe has always just been there/it spontaneously came to be" isn't?

 

Gross, now you're just being my penis, cause you're fucking stupid. Nah, I'm joking, you're a fine gentleman; I just needed to get that joke in there; no offence intended; but my point was that not allowing him a certain answer excludes that response, and if that is indeed the cause of the singularity thing (whatever you want to call it!), or at least what he thinks, then not allowing him any answer is just as effective, since he can't give the right one or the one he thinks is right!

I agree. Also, since I don't know a lot about it, is the singularity just a hypothesis, since they haven't got to t=0 yet? Is it possible, based on current evidence, that there was no beginning to the expansion of the universe, in the same way there is no first member of the set of fractions, if the dimensionless point of the beginning of the universe is meant to be infinitely small and dense?

 

If it's infinitely dense, does that mean the universe has infinite mass? That seems to be the implication, and if it is, then the universe should also be conceivably infinite in size. What if it never expanded, and we're really within the confines of something that's comparably the size of the period at the end of my previous sentence? Or even smaller? It could be that our perception of the universe getting larger is really just our misguided interpretation of getting smaller and trying to rationalize it. "Oh, everything is gradually getting further apart. The universe must be growing."
The same thing could happen if everything in the universe was getting smaller. In fact, turn the proportions of things around, and that's exactly what's happening.
If the universe was stable as an infinitely dense zero point mass, what made it unstable?

 

It does?

I don't get this except for the 'turn the proportions around' bit, and since we'd be changing the proportions of measurements, then I don't think it would be fact; but I may have misunderstood what you were saying!

It was (stable)?

 

Well, honestly, that's only my impression of things. I can't imagine something with infinite density that doesn't also have infinite mass. But that's just me.

No, you understood it. What I meant by turning the proportion of things around was, however, that we should take a different perspective on the so-called expansion of the universe. We might actually be shrinking! Really, this means the same as the universe around us getting bigger.

No one knows for how long the universe was an infinitesimal object of infinite density. Speculation on my part. I simply guessed that if it was so small, and stayed that way for any period of time, then it was possibly stable at that size.

 

Of course you do. I thoroughly expect that 99% of the world prefers bliss to truth.

"Your own ignorance may be blissful to you, but my own is a gnawing pain." - The Threat of ValleorBy Dan L. Hollifield

 

I suppose if the earliest universe was infinitely small, with no dimensions, then any mass it had (which would have to be constant, I think..?) would give it infinite density.

That's the same thing, though, because you could be observing from any aul' planet or star!

Well, the creation of the universe was the creation of time, so I suppose it makes as little sense to ask how long it remained in its original state as asking where it was at the time.

Really though, I'm sure it doesn't make sense to talk about this. The idea is so inconceivably foreign to us, that I don't see how you can talk about normal masses and densities!

 

I disagree, space and mass can exist without change. With the introduction of change, you introduce motion. With motion, time. As our ability to experience requires time and change, we cannot experience timeless space. But it could theorically exist.

This doesn't mean that I believe that it exists or had existed or will exist. This just means that I won't eliminate the possiblity of it just because we have not or cannot experience it.

 

"There was nothing, which exploded." vs. "A wizard did it. Where'd the wizard come from? He was always there."

...Heh.

And don't give me the infinite cycle loop, 'cause that ain't an explanation.

My thought: if at any time in the future someone has access to time travel technology and decides to check out the beginning of time, that action causes the universe to begin, so to speak. Problem: time travel is for ninnies.

 

I'll rephrase.

The creation of the universe was the creation of the universe.
The universe is made up of spacetime (not absolute space and absolute time).
Space is certain dimensions of spacetime.
Time is a certain dimension of spacetime.
Therefore, the creation of the universe was the creation of spacetime; thus, the creation of space, and the creation of time; so to ask where and when the beginning of the universe was, makes no sense, because there is no continuum with which to refer to give any values. Ask yourself this: where is the universe, in its entirety, right now?

Yes it is.

I see you've changed your mind about infinite cycle loops.

 

I don't know about you guys but when I try to comprehend how God created everything and then how was God created and what created that and so on my mind begins to hurt. It is like there is something in my head that stops my train of thought, like a fail safe that knows if I think too much my mind won't be able to comprehend it and explode (or turn crazy). I believe God placed this fail safe in our heads for a reason. You all talk about how there was nothing then it exploded, isn't the latest theory that an exotic particle slipped into our 'dimension' and that is what exploded? Doesn't that mean then that there are other dimensions? Other planes of existence? How long have they been around for? What created them? How do I tell which way is North with my watch? How do I-
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zsTRxXvQY0s?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zsTRxXvQY0s?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Zanza, it's possible that you subconsciously don't want to know that much. I do. I constantly wonder about these things, and I'm pursuing a degree in physics so I'll hopefully one day understand as much about this topic as I can.

 

Just to keep the can-o-worms overflowing...

"We have whittled away the scientific objections to God by placing him outside the reach of measurement. This means that a person's subjective experience of God cannot be challenged - at the quantum level, objectivity and subjectivity merge into each other. The point of merger is the soul; therefore knowing God comes down to this: like a photon nearing a black hole, your mind hits a wall when it tries to think about the soul. The soul is comfortable with uncertainty; it accepts that it can be in two places at once (time and eternity); it observes cosmic intelligence at work and is not bothered that the creative force is outside the universe....
"The mind is creeping closer and closer to the soul, which sits on the edge of God's world, at the event horizon. The gap of seperation is wide when there is no perception of spirit; it grows smaller as the mind figures out what is happening. Eventually the two will get so close that the mind and soul have no choice but to merge. When that happens the resemblence to a black hole is striking. To the mind it will be as if falling into God's world lasts forever, an eternity in bliss consciousness. From God's side, the merging takes place in a split second; indeed, if we stand completely in God's world, where time has no meaning, the whole process never even occurred. The mind was part of the soul all along, without even knowing it...
"In India, the closing of this gap was known as yoga or union... Because the Indian sages had thousands of years to analyse it, the entire process of joining with the soul was turned into a science. Yoga precedes Hinduism, which is a particular religion, and at its inception, the practises of yoga were intended to be universal."

- Deepak Chopra.

 

The best explanation I've heard is spontaneous gener....

Aw, sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit!

Well, to be honest, I have no idea why the universe began. However, as others have already pointed out, the addition of a putative creator doesn't really answer the question. And it certainly makes no difference to us.

In any case, the philosophical construct of "the creator of the universe" is completely different from the human-centric concept of a "jealous God" or a "loving God" or whatever religions usually harp on about. So whether or not there was a "creator" is a separate question from whether or not any given religion is true. Which is fortunate, seeing as how any given religion is demonstrably false.

Also, I can tell the difference between a best-guess scientific theory and an illogical stream of nonsense that speculates about an imaginary soul and tries to relate it to quantum theory and black holes in order to make some pointless rambling sound important.

 

I'm by no means saying I don't want to know the answer, what I am referring to is when you sit there ans seriously try to make heads or tails with a paradox such as the chicken and the egg. If the chicken came first then what came before the chicken. People will spout rubbish about evolution as an answers, they are only distracting themselves from the true question. It isn't about what literally came before the chicken, it is about what created the first chicken? What came before the thing that created the chicken? And before that? Some theories claim there was nothing then something? What created that something? What came before that? Did it always exist? Then how did it come into existence?

When I sit down and seriously attempt to comprehend these answers my mind automatically stops me, it tells me trying to understand a paradox will only damage yourself.

 

Wel, we can't all have ytzk's genius level IQ...

 

Thy mother, English!!

 

Yeah I'm stuck at a mere 132.

 

I don't think it's a big deal, cause paradoxes can't exist in nature; so, it was either the chicken, or the egg. When I was a little kid, I said it was the egg, cause I had it in my head that it would be 'easier' for a chicken egg to come out of something that's not a chicken than for a chicken to do so, and I still think that. I'm likely wrong; but all that means is that there is an answer.