The universe caused itself?

DevilsAvocado

I don’t agree. The 'designer hypothesis' immediately raises the larger problem - Who designed the designer!?

Furthermore, the 'designer' has exactly the same problem as quantum fluctuations – how to choose a moment for BB – in a 'period' where there was no time and no moments to choose...

And Occam's razor prefers simpler explanations, as 'nothingness', than an extremely complicated 'designer', to do the same thing.

Chalnoth

My point is that you simply define a mathematical structure as being a fully-consistent set of axioms. This definition means that there may be things which we call mathematical structures which actually aren't. And there are certainly many things which are mathematical structures which we are unaware of.

Our inability to be absolutely 100% certain whether or not everything we call a mathematical structure actually is one is basically irrelevant to the point.

An inconsistency is an impossibility. We may not be able to prove the mathematical structure which we think is isomorphic to our universe is consistent (and thus an actual mathematical structure). But we know that if it turns out not to be consistent, it can't describe our universe.

DevilsAvocado

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I think I see the light now...

We already know that the universe is fully consistent, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, right? Or we would be here, but a lot of people would get killed on the 'inconsistent highway' everyday – by Boltzmann Brains popping out of nowhere and smashing into their windshields...

So, if we can find a mathematical structure that describes this fully consistent universe, it is okay. And then we would know that the universe is isomorphic to that mathematical structure.

Correct?

Newai

I don't see why the universe has to have been created at all. The perception of time we have is perhaps something we should not pin to the nature of the universe. Slice time out of the mystery, and it might be easier to grasp.

DaveC426913

Well, our current evidence seems to suggest it was.

Or more to-the-point: our current evidence seems to suggest that, at one time, it wasn't.

Chalnoth

Well, just bear in mind that we may never be certain as to which mathematical structure it is (this would basically be a theory of everything).

As of right now, we don't even have a fully-developed mathematical structure that might conceivably be a theory of everything.

Chalnoth

That's not true. All that our current evidence shows is that our region of the universe had a beginning. This may have been a transition from some previous state, or it may have been started from nothing. We just don't know.

DaveC426913

That changes absolutely nothing about Newai's comment or my response.

Chalnoth

But what I'm saying is that evidence about the status of our own region says nothing about the status of what lies outside our region, pro or con. So we can't honestly say we have evidence for a beginning of The Universe. Just our observable part.

DaveC426913

I got that. It still changes nothing.

Go back to newai's post and insert whichever one suits you.

Chalnoth

So are you saying that our evidence doesn't suggest that the universe was created? Because it doesn't.

DevilsAvocado

Thanks, that’s cool. I’m just happy that Gödel doesn’t mess all things up and that the universe is fully consistent.

DevilsAvocado

If you’re thinking of "Steady State" – forget it. We can rewind the (observable) universe and 'something' definitely happen 13.8 billion years ago – and we can prove it. If it was a Big Bounce, colliding Branes, or a new bubble in the Multiverse, or the beginning of everything from nothing – that we can’t prove, yet.
Time is a fundamental part of space-time in our (observable) universe and cannot be sliced out that simple. It’s like trying to explain life and slice out the parents of a newborn...

DaveC426913

Our evidence does suggest that our portion of it was created.

Chalnoth

But that language is highly misleading. Our evidence suggests that our portion of it had a beginning. But "was created" implies intent behind said creation. Simple formation out of a random event is far more likely.

DaveC426913

Well, you are making that inference; I am not. Nor did I think anyone else was.

If we are talking about intent that is a whole 'nother ball of worms.

Chalnoth

Yes, it is, which is why I prefer to use words which carry no such implication. Because whether you like it or not, "was created," does carry the implication of intent to many readers. So I simply opt to use neutral language, such as "began" or "had a beginning."