Knowing the environment and the creation of the universe

[heartless]

Hello,
I just have a quick question, if people would know the exact mechanics of the universe, by all means, would it be possible to also derive the exact theory of creation of the universe? I think no, but I'd like to hear something from you, as you're more educated in this.

Thanks,

 

[Chronos]

Physics, as we know it, only takes us back to the first Planck tick after the universe sprang into existence. So, your instinct is correct: no exact theory of creation theory is possible at present, and is unlikely to ever be possible. That leaves God in play. I find that acceptable.

 

[Garth]

While trying, in this Forum, to keep this a physical and not theological discussion, nevertheless as the OP question does have philosophical/theological ramifications I would like to add that there are different definitions of 'God'.

Physics, as we know it, only takes us back to the first Planck tick after the universe sprang into existence. So, your instinct is correct: no exact theory of creation theory is possible at present, and is unlikely to ever be possible. That leaves God in play. I find that acceptable.

This use of the word 'God' is that of the 'god-of-the-gaps', used to answer the unsolved problems of science, but as scientific knowledge advances such a 'God' may well disappear.

However another definition of 'God' is: "The author and guarantor of the laws of science".

In this case 'God' is that of the God-of-science and not that of the gaps-in-science.

This definition may then be used, if ever an exact theory of creation theory becomes possible, to answer Stephen Hawking's question: "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern?"

Just my two pennyworth...

Garth

 

[selfAdjoint]

Garth, your definition shows why they don't like religious topics here. Not because religion is something bad but because religious discussions never end. Don't answer this, but why does the "guarantor of the laws of physics" have to be (a) separate from those laws (couldn't the true and final laws be such that it's logically impossible for them to be false?), or (b) A person?

 

[Garth]

Garth, your definition shows why they don't like religious topics here. Not because religion is something bad but because religious discussions never end. Don't answer this, but why does the "guarantor of the laws of physics" have to be (a) separate from those laws (couldn't the true and final laws be such that it's logically impossible for them to be false?), or (b) A person?

Response to (a): It is taken on faith...

But there are forms of the Anthropic Principle that also attempt to answer this question.

The hypothesis is: There is a multiverse, in most universes the laws of physics vary from place to place and time to time. Long lasting structures from stars and planets to biological systems are totally impossible. In a tiny subset of the totality universes have fixed laws of physics, they have order, long lasting structures and complexity, in most of this subset the laws of physics are entirely hostile to biological intelligent life evolving anywhere within them. In yet another tiny subset of this group a very few universes are propious for life, carbon exists, G is just large enough to allow stable stars and planets to exist, yet just small enough to give a cosmic lifespan long enough for evolution, etc.etc.

In this case and in terms of the OP question, the "exact theory of creation of the universe" is part of a larger whole.

Unfortunately you cannot observe these other universes; they have to be taken on faith...

Response to (b): There are four questions that science raises which point beyond science.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing? (What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? (S.H.))

2. Why is the universe propitious for life?

3. Why is the universe comprehensible? (“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (A.E.) )

4. Why has consciousness evolved from mere physical processes in this universe?

You may well have non-theistic answers to all these questions, but the answer to my 4. may also be the answer to your (b).

Garth

 

[Chronos]

Apologies to all. I didn't intend to open a can of worms, only to suggest the possibilites laying behind the Planck wall are endless. I find all of them equally palatable [mulitiverses, deities, etc.], and equally unscientific. I think it fair to say we are highly improbable entities existing in a highly improbable universe. I also think it is an exercise in futility to attempt force fitting our reality into a statistically palatable model. I have a deep seated distrust of statistics applied to complex systems. They are easily and often abused, IMO.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

i prefer laplace's (or it's lagrange, some french maths guy (-:) famous quote (or a rephrase):"in my work (on celestial objects) i didn't have to use god in my assumptions".