Is the Complexity of the Universe Limitless?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mkbh_10
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical implications of understanding the universe's origins and the limits of scientific inquiry. Participants express skepticism about ever fully comprehending how the universe was created, suggesting that even with advancements like those from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), questions about the formation of particles and fundamental forces will persist. There is a consensus that humanity's quest for deeper knowledge may be endless, akin to peeling layers of an onion, without reaching a final answer. The term "God" is used metaphorically, referencing the fundamental nature of the universe rather than a deity, emphasizing the search for underlying principles rather than divine intervention. The conversation also highlights a desire to focus on manipulating existing knowledge and technology to improve life, while maintaining hope that a unified understanding of the universe may eventually be achieved, provided society remains civil and supportive of scientific progress.
mkbh_10
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
By my imagination we will never be able to know how universe got created even if we get something out of LHC because we will be still asking how did the particles formed, how did Higgs boson formed, where did that come from , we will be always looking for answers & we will go deep in that but still we will be asking "HOW did that particular thing came into existence" , we will never know how deep the hole goes coz if we say everything came from nothing then how did that nothing came . I think its better to manipulate what we have got rather than searching for GOD
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I fail to see how searching for the mechanisms behind discoverys means searching for god. Maybe we will never see how deep the rabbit hole goes, but I think that a unified understanding of all or most of the phenomenon in our universe will eventually be found. As long as we as a society can stay civil long enough for the physicists to figure it out.
 
robertm said:
I fail to see how searching for the mechanisms behind discoverys means searching for god. Maybe we will never see how deep the rabbit hole goes, but I think that a unified understanding of all or most of the phenomenon in our universe will eventually be found. As long as we as a society can stay civil long enough for the physicists to figure it out.

I think mkbh was using god in the same manner as Einstein - rather than meaning a diety, it is more meant to represent the deepest fundamental nature of the universe; "god doesn't play dice" is a good example of this, saying the laws of nature do not involve probability.

It seems to me that mkbh argues that as a species we're constantly looking for deeper fundamental levels of physics, and we always shed another skin of the onion, so to speak, only to reveal something deeper, without reaching an end. I think he argues that we'll never reach the end and 'find god', so instead we should be content with our current understanding.
 
mkbh_10 said:
By my imagination we will never be able to know how universe got created even if we get something out of LHC because we will be still asking how did the particles formed, how did Higgs boson formed, where did that come from , we will be always looking for answers & we will go deep in that but still we will be asking "HOW did that particular thing came into existence" , we will never know how deep the hole goes coz if we say everything came from nothing then how did that nothing came . I think its better to manipulate what we have got rather than searching for GOD

What do you mean by "manipulate what we've got rather then searching for God"?

If it means what I think it does, we are manipulating what we've got whilst also finding out new 'stuff'.
 
Daniel Y. said:
I think mkbh was using god in the same manner as Einstein - rather than meaning a diety, it is more meant to represent the deepest fundamental nature of the universe; "god doesn't play dice" is a good example of this, saying the laws of nature do not involve probability.

It seems to me that mkbh argues that as a species we're constantly looking for deeper fundamental levels of physics, and we always shed another skin of the onion, so to speak, only to reveal something deeper, without reaching an end. I think he argues that we'll never reach the end and 'find god', so instead we should be content with our current understanding.

That's what I meant , we don't know how deep we will go but one thing is sure we will never be content with the depth
 
I see no proof that the nature of our world is infinitely complex. We are only just coming to the point were our social situations and technological abilities are allowing us to probe fundamentally the nature of the universe.

Just because the world is very complex, doesn't mean that it is infinitely so. What you are saying may very well be true but there is no proof or evidence that it is so. We have only been practicing modern physics for a few generations.

I am hopeful (maybe naively so) that one day if the modern world holds out, if we as a species choose life over our darker evolutionary traits, then we may very well come to some fundamental understanding.
 

Similar threads

Replies
34
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
140
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top