Register to reply

The universe caused itself?

by celebrei
Tags: caused, universe
Share this thread:
DaveC426913
#73
Jan29-10, 09:42 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Newai View Post
I don't see why the universe has to have been created at all.
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
#74
Jan29-10, 10:26 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado View Post
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?
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
#75
Jan29-10, 10:29 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
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.
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
#76
Jan29-10, 10:46 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
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.
That changes absolutely nothing about Newai's comment or my response.
Chalnoth
#77
Jan29-10, 11:11 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
That changes absolutely nothing about Newai's comment or my response.
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
#78
Jan29-10, 11:30 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
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.
I got that. It still changes nothing.

Go back to newai's post and insert whichever one suits you.
Chalnoth
#79
Jan29-10, 11:52 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
I got that. It still changes nothing.

Go back to newai's post and insert whichever one suits you.
So are you saying that our evidence doesn't suggest that the universe was created? Because it doesn't.
DevilsAvocado
#80
Jan30-10, 08:50 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,662
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
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.
Thanks, that’s cool. I’m just happy that Gödel doesn’t mess all things up and that the universe is fully consistent.
DevilsAvocado
#81
Jan30-10, 08:55 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,662
Quote Quote by Newai View Post
I don't see why the universe has to have been created at all.
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.
Quote Quote by Newai View Post
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.
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
#82
Jan30-10, 10:51 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
So are you saying that our evidence doesn't suggest that the universe was created? Because it doesn't.
Our evidence does suggest that our portion of it was created.
Chalnoth
#83
Jan30-10, 11:07 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Our evidence does suggest that our portion of it was created.
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
#84
Jan30-10, 11:11 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
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.
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
#85
Jan30-10, 11:15 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
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.
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."
DaveC426913
#86
Jan30-10, 11:27 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
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."
Context. This has not been a discussion about intent. You are broadening the scope of the discussion. In fact, you are the only one so far who has fallen victim to the apparent ambiguity that you warn against.
Chalnoth
#87
Jan30-10, 11:28 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Context. This has not been a discussion about intent. You are broadening the scope of the discussion. In fact, you are the only one so far who has fallen victim to the apparent ambiguity that you warn against.
I think you need to review the discussion again.
DevilsAvocado
#88
Jan30-10, 11:29 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,662
Gentlemen DaveC426913 & Chalnoth, couldn’t we settle all by (this layman logic):
Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado View Post
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.
DaveC426913
#89
Jan30-10, 11:56 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
I think you need to review the discussion again.
OK, granted. In the larger discussion, there is talk about Creation.

However, the three of us (including you an newai) had been discussing creation as an effect of time, starting in post 72, which really had nothing at all to do with intent, nor had either of us used the "creation" word until you introduced it.
Dmitry67
#90
Jan30-10, 01:38 PM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado View Post
If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?
This is impossible
To prove that any mathematical theory is self-consistent, you always need to use more powerful/more complicated theory.
So the whole mathematics is based on the pure belief.

The self-consistency of Peano arithmetics is proven in ZF set theory. And I believe there are no proofs that ZF (or other set theory, there are many different :) ) are self-consistent.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Gravity and universe expansion could be caused by the same thing. General Physics 1
What caused the cooling of the universe? Astronomy & Astrophysics 16
Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves? General Discussion 10
Is Dark Matter a 'Pressure' caused by something 'outside' of the Universe? Astronomy & Astrophysics 5