Rational/Randomized Question About Creating of Universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Thedirtpoet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of reality, the concept of an observer's influence on the universe, and the implications of a higher being or intelligent designer in the creation of the universe. It touches on philosophical questions, scientific reasoning, and the complexity of the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that observing reality can alter it, raising questions about the fragility of reality and the power of the observer.
  • Another participant argues that attributing the creation of the universe to a higher being complicates the question of existence, as it leads to further inquiries about the origin of that being.
  • Some participants propose that the complexity of the universe might suggest a rational basis for its existence without invoking a higher being, while others argue for the necessity of an intelligent designer due to the improbability of the universe's conditions arising randomly.
  • A later reply challenges the notion that the intelligent design theory is gaining traction among scientists, asserting that it lacks scientific backing and is not a mainstream belief.
  • One participant expresses a desire for different perspectives and acknowledges their own limitations in debating the topic, indicating a willingness to learn.
  • Another participant critiques the clarity of earlier posts, suggesting that some statements are difficult to understand and could benefit from editing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the existence of a higher being and the implications of intelligent design, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the probabilities related to the universe's creation are challenged, with references to philosophical arguments about fine-tuning and the nature of probabilities. There is also an acknowledgment of the limitations of scientific methods when addressing philosophical questions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the intersections of philosophy, science, and the origins of the universe, particularly in the context of intelligent design and the role of observation in reality.

Thedirtpoet
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
=
A study conducted by the reaserchers at Weizmann Institute of Science in February 26 1998, reported that when a "Quantum Observer" begins to "watch" a particle it starts to behave more like wave the closer it is observered. Its fair to say from this that simply observing reality can alter reality. Then is reality fragile or is the observer that powerful? If a normal human can alter reality by simply observing, this suggest that reality is fragile. However, if a normal human can alter reality what's to stop a higher being from creating reality in the first place? Its been said that a higher being is simply irrational, but is randomized gravity rational at all?


Gravity can in fact be measured in a numerical number, since gravity doesn't show signs of terminal value than could it be said that gravity alone is infinite? There are some 20+ laws needed for a "Big Bang" to happen, since the odd of gravity being fine tuned to exactlly were it is now is a 1/∞ chance since it can be measured in any numberical value. Now is a 1/infinite chance rational? Not only is Gravity immpossible to randomize the other 20+ laws can't be randomized and insync to the values they are. The chance of
this would be smaller than flipping a coin a million times and landing all heads. Theoretical probability says it could happen, but rationally speaking, experimentally it would never happen. Simply it could but it wont. The only rational way to suggest a coin could land heads a million times in a row, is if an outside force acted upon it, a
loaded coin to land heads everytime could infact land a millions times in a row. The only rational way to be the 1 in an infinite chance would be to "loaded" the odds. For that to happen there has to be an outside force. So for the universe to emerge how it did, there must have been a higher being to "load" those 1 in a million odds. Is it more rational to flip a coin a million times and get heads everytime, or is it to be a 1
and infite chance?

So if an observer could alter or potentially create the reality in which we live in, what's to stop it from also "loading" our odds to exist.

Am i missing something or have false information?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Our world is so complex and since the birth of humanity we have tried to simplify it. The problem with saying that a being created the universe is that it only poses the question 'well what created that being?'. I think that the universe is much more rational than any superbeing because for something to create a universe this complex the being I think would have to be even more complex. And yes, our universe is irrational (ie life), but I think a sentient being without a domain to 'live' in who has the power to create a universe is much more irrational. It's an idea that was posed by the earliest homo sapiens, and although still lingers in current society, is in my opinion dying out.
 
Your comment seems entirely opinion based with no scientific backing at all. Regardless, whether its rational or not is entirely up to the person. The last statement you made is in all reality the exact opposite, more scientist or leaning towards the "Intelligent Designer" theory, simply due to the complexity of life and the universe.
 
I suggest a paper by theist philosophers McGrew, McGrew, and Vestrup.
http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/110/440/1027.short
"Probabilities and the Fine‐Tuning Argument: a Sceptical View"

Being theists, they would really like for this argument not to fail. But they argue that it does, because the so-called "probabilities" are non-normalizable, and hence not really probabilities at all.

By the way, if you continue posting in this thread, I'd appreciate some proofreading and editing before you post. Sentences like
Thedirtpoet said:
Gravity can in fact be measured in a numerical number, since gravity doesn't show signs of terminal value than could it be said that gravity alone is infinite?
are nearly incomprehensible, for instance. Another example:
Thedirtpoet said:
more scientist or leaning towards the "Intelligent Designer" theory
rather than "more scientists are leaning," takes the reader too long to decipher.
 
Thanks for the reply! It was an interesting read.

I was never intending to argue over the issue, I'm just a 16 year old with science on his mind and too much time. I am well aware I'm not too qualified to debate i was simply asking for another point of view, which you have provided, thank you and regarding the poor grammar, sorry careless mistakes with English have always been my Achilles heel. I'll be more careful next time.
 
Thedirtpoet said:
Your comment seems entirely opinion based with no scientific backing at all. Regardless, whether its rational or not is entirely up to the person. The last statement you made is in all reality the exact opposite, more scientist or leaning towards the "Intelligent Designer" theory, simply due to the complexity of life and the universe.

Of course my comment has no scientific backing. You are asking about the possibility of an itelligent designer. It would be ludicrous to even consider that current scientific method could be applied to such a philisophical question. And I don't know who you've been talking to, but it sounds like you've been mistaking new-age, philosophical hippies for scientists. Intelligent Design is not a mainstream belief among the scientific community.
 
Never said it was mainstream, just more are leaning. Of coarse like I said I'm just a teenager who started thinking, I'm probably wrong for the most part but thanks for helping figure out the key flaws.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How we are in a matter dominated universe (without antimatter annihilation)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Graduate Questions: Gott-Li Can a Universe Create Itself?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School The infinite and the infinitesimal
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad 3 questions about a paper on density fluctuations in the Universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
High School The Sleeping Beauty Problem: What is the Scientific Definition of Credence?
  • · Replies 126 ·
5
Replies
126
Views
9K
Graduate Question about the age of the universe
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Questions regarding to the Accelerating universe from Novice
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad What Are the Odds that Two Random Events Occur at the Same Time?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Graduate Why must singularities create an entire universe?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Question about dark matter gravity and the expanding universe.
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
10K