Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Did we create the Universe?

  1. Apr 7, 2009 #1
    I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God? The reasoning behind my madness is from my basic understanding of quantum physics.

    I am aware that by merely observing something we can cause its existence and/or influence it to act in the way it does, be it from sticking a cold thermometer in to a warm bowl of water and therefore lower the temperature of the water, to the classic wave/particle experiment with photons and slits.

    Is it so mad to assume that by observing the big bang, we actually caused it to happen and therefore we created ourselves?

    I apologise if this is old news or already addressed elsewhere, but I could not find anything on the subject.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2009 #2
    I think that it is probably coherent to assume that there is no difference between being in an airtight, sound-proof, etc. cardboard box in an otherwise empty universe as compared to being in the same box in Chicago or on a boat at sea or on Pluto.

    Don't we really all create the universe every morning when we wake up?
     
  4. Apr 8, 2009 #3
    yes, it is kind of mad...besides nobody has obsrved the big bang..only it after effects...
     
  5. Apr 9, 2009 #4
    This no good, you need see doctor.
     
  6. Apr 9, 2009 #5
    If the universe is based on information (and not many agree that is is) then something 'like us' could have done it IMO. i.e. an advanced life form with very good physics, mathematics and computing skills. They probably did the design and implemented it and then just left us to get on with it - obviously they could not come up with something better designed (faster) than evolution - it is a little too slow IMO.

    Its not out of the question that we are sitting in an aliens computer and he has forgotten about us! (I can supply legitimate references for this from a University professor!)
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2009
  7. Apr 9, 2009 #6
    Now that would be something worth reading! ;

    Its not out of the question that we are sitting in an aliens computer and he has forgotten about us! (I can supply legitimate references for this from a University professor!)
     
  8. Apr 9, 2009 #7
    This is one reference:
    http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

    Another is an American Professor being interviewed but I cannot find it at present - sorry. He said we should all hold up a large message saying "We know this is a simulation" for the young lad who is running our Universe on his quantum PC to read.
     
  9. Apr 9, 2009 #8
    This is a very touchy subject. Assuming that we create 'Everyone's' universe by simply waking up in the morning is a little silly. Presuming it is your own perspective that you are living in everyday. You make what your fate seals for you. But I believe it is choice that effects us. I think that there is an experiment being carried out about this same issue- Parallel Universes. It states, vaguely, that every choice we make/could have made, has happened somewhere out in the universe. And that there is to be exact copies of ourselves.
    See: http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/parauniv.html

    This is very challenging, from what I got out of it. It almost seems like there is giant mirror in the center of the universe, looking like a flat disk just how presumably our galaxies planets and stars were formed.

    Truthfully, all that I have lived. From what I have experienced and witnessed in my life. I know that there can not be a second copy of myself. Because with so many choices in life, we are bound to make one where I or you or the president or anyone for that matter will not exist. Take this for example: Me and a friend are walking downtown one day, when we go to cross the street. My friend see's that the light is yellow and maybe we shouldn't cross. We do anyways. A driver from just turning onto the street parallel to us see's the light yellow and does not see us crossing. He speeds ahead and turns left in our direction hitting my friend and killing him. Now what if we had not of crossed? What if the driver was in traffic. What if that day I ended up getting sick.

    The point is, choices we make in life effect everyone around us. Evening if we don't see it. Someone is always talking about you somewhere, always thinking, always wondering.

    I think that if we created the universe we would know, and would not have to question one another. I do not think we are some science project either for we ourselves are our own scientists. If aliens created us and put us here...we would never know. Because ignorance would block that from us, no one would except it.

    I believe it is simpler than that though. If we look at an atom, we know that positive and negative charges surround it. Just like positive and negative choices we could make. In the nucleus is what? Do we know? Will we ever? And do we ever truly know ourselves? Do you? Will you ever? The answer in most cases is no, arrogant people will say they do. Until the day the unexpected happens and we are forced to do something that could impact us or everyone around us in a way no one expected. The only time we truly know ourselves is in death. When all that matters is gone, and we are one with our self and no one else has an input
     
  10. Apr 12, 2009 #9
    Yes, NOTHING in atom. Neutrinas go through many not banging. Why.
     
  11. Apr 12, 2009 #10

    alxm

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What you're saying has nothing to do with quantum physics (which, let's be clear: is not anthropocentric in the least). Rather, it sounds like a weird re-interpretation of http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm" [Broken] metaphysics.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Apr 12, 2009 #11
    It may seem ridiculous to think that we've created our own universes, but essentially that's what we've done. Reality is relative, and it can be shaped and tuned according to an individual's experiences. But remember that everything you experience from day to day is an illusion. As your hands move over the keyboard and touch each key, you really only see shadows and effects of an underlying reality that we can never truly experience. This is the reason that reality as we experience it is so pliable. I would recommend reading "Dancing Wu Li Masters" and Plato's allegory of the cave.
    You were created by me, but I'm only here as long as you believe that I am.
     
  13. Apr 12, 2009 #12
    I disagree with some of that above - "You were created by me, but I'm only here as long as you believe that I am." no, no, (IMO) - If I don't believe you are there, then you are still 'there' - just not in my 'small universe'. I think you are getting confused with Von-Neumann-like machines (our brains) that can create their own little reality (say in a dream), but that reality is limited - our brains don't really create an extensive reality like the one we live in - well, there is a philosophical case that nevertheless it is a reality but it is weak case IMO. Again, a 3d video game could be equally 'real', they are just not very extensive at present.

    Indeed, a super massive computer creating AI and very intelligent characters is a kind of reality IMO - the whole universe could be one as it may be a von-neumann-like machine like our brains! But just one person 'thinking' is not enough IMO. Its a matter of scale. Don't forget too, that 'thinking machines' can embed in each other very well and still be independent in thought. e.g. a mac OS in a Linux OS. I suppose one could embed a character in our brains that think on their own. I know actors can get quite confused because a character they have copied can become real in their minds - (embedded von neumanns usually work very well).
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2009
  14. Apr 13, 2009 #13

    wavering

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think you are maybe referring to the new book by Martin Rees:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article767308.ece

    Actually, this idea has been explored many times in Science Fiction (eg the Matrix films)
     
  15. Apr 13, 2009 #14
    I think it's silly to think that I'm real to me, and you're real to you, and we're imaginary to each other.

    The truth of the matter is that I'm real, and you guys are figments of my imagination. None of these posts exist before I come read them.

    The reason it's not well to dwell on theories like this is that *there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove them*. I'm not sure how one could prove that anything exists, save the self... and I certainly don't see how one could prove that others exist.
     
  16. Apr 18, 2009 #15
    There is a book called Conjecture of Self that describes a model of reality in which every living thing creates its own reality. Each living thing "shares" its reality with others - they coexist, kind of like a superimposed collection of realities. Moreover, as a life form evolves, its reality becomes more complex based on past experiences.

    So I do not create you and you do not create me. We each create our own reality and we superimpose upon each other. :)
     
  17. Apr 18, 2009 #16
    If you view the brain as a von neumann-like machine (ie there is data and a processing area + inputs and outputs) then it can produce its own reality in that its a self contained data processing area. Then its easy to transfer data from one brain to another just like a computer can - which is a classic von neumann machine. Von Neumann machines can nest one within another 100% perfectly. A windows system can nest a Linux system perfectly within its memory - its a perfect Linux system within the windows memory space.
    Brains can learn from each other - which (IMO) is a similar sort of nesting process.
     
  18. Apr 18, 2009 #17
    In describing the model in the book, perhaps I was unclear by the phrase "creates its own reality". I did not mean merely "within a creature's brain, a version of reality is simulated". I mean that each life form IS a reality. All of a creature's reality is a part of the creature. Each creature IS an entire "universe". And each "universe" superimposes with another. In this model, there is no reality "outside" of a creature, except for other creatures. So, it is not the standard model of a material reality. It is akin to Bishop Berkeley's idea (Immaterialism, but without the assumption of a god.)
     
  19. Apr 18, 2009 #18
    We did not create the universe. It created itself, through a quantum wave evolution of probabilities, one of them creating a universe with biocentric laws, hence picking itself a universe in which observers emerge. Not necessarily human observers, just any observers.
     
  20. Apr 19, 2009 #19
    It occurred to me that everyday scientific knowledge improves, but the universe becomes one day closer to it's "end" (matter spreading out, all the stars dying etc.) Any intellegent life reaching that point at the peak of scientific and technical knowledge may decide the only thing really left to do is travel back in time and cause the big bang.

    That was either my thought or battlestar's.
     
  21. Apr 20, 2009 #20
    Interesting idea, but IMO it lacks a mechanism to travel back in time. But the intelligent life would not need to, because if, as I believe this Universe is a kind of computer simulation (in a giant quantum computer-like structure, for example) then intelligent life would not be able to 'get out' of the simulation before its demise, but it would be able to create another universe (in a big compter-like structure) and leave it to evolve into intelligence again. The 'life-form' would have been good engineers and designed an evolution path for itself to re-emerge.
    Of course, I do not know this for sure, its just a possibility.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Did we create the Universe?
  1. Can we create God? (Replies: 0)

  2. We did it first (Replies: 18)

Loading...