The Ultimate Question: What Created the Universe?

[unscientific]

How can we be created out of nothing, let's say our parents created us, our grandparents created my parents so on and so forth.

Some say the universe is created by the big bang. Then what created the big bang? What created what? (<---i know this seems but think about it; it makes sense)

Any opinion would be greatly appreciated.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How can we be created out of nothing, let's say our parents created us, our grandparents created my parents so on and so forth.

Some say the universe is created by the big bang. Then what created the big bang? What created what? (<---i know this seems but think about it; it makes sense)

Any opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Some of the greatest minds of history have brooded over this topic.

Aristotle found the idea of an infinite regression of causes, as you have suggested unwelcome. Whether because he was a Classical Greek and as Spengler would say, the secret of their thought was completed form, or just personally, he was offended by it and so proposed an Unmoved Mover. An example of such in modern Cosmology woud be a Big Bang with everything else because of it, but it not itself because of anything.

Kant found BOTH the infinite regress and Aristotle's unmoved mover ridiculous (technical term: incoherent). He had no answer, but just noted this as an example of dialectic (two sides of an argument, you pays your money and takes your choice).

With one exception modern science has no answer for "what was before the big bang". The one exception is quantum gravity, a theory which is far from complete yet, but which two of its practicioners have used to propose "before the big bang" scenarios.

Martin Bojowald using a simplified "cosmological" version of LQG, one of the proposed quantum gravity theories, finds that it predicts a "mirror world", like the negative numbers going backward from zero, this world goes backward in time from the big bang.

And Lee Smolin proposes an evolutionary scenario which he claims is open to observational falsification. He conjectures that new universes are born in supernova collapses to black holes, and that selection would have favored universes that were rich in such actions, hence rich in stars, hence favorable to the evolution of life.

 

[unscientific]

i don't understand.

 

[Mickey]

i don't understand.

That probably means you understood.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Nothing does not exist. There has been and always will be existence. Accept and behold the answers of the universe.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nothing does not exist. There has been and always will be existence. Accept and behold the answers of the universe.

And your evidence for this large statement? Suppose someone were to behold and not see what you do?

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

My evidence, oxymoronically, is in the lack thereof. Nothing is non-existent. To behold is to see the answers, when there is nothing to see, that is when I will give in. Fortunately, nothing cannot be seen(EVER, in any way).

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

So because nothing cannot be measured in any shape or form it is therefore non-existant? That is a logical fallacy.

 

[Rade]

So because nothing cannot be measured in any shape or form it is therefore non-existent? That is a logical fallacy.

Either a "thing" exists or it does not exist. One can only measure the attributes of that which exists--e.g. a thing. Thus it is a logical fallacy to claim the ability to measure nothing.

 

[Castlegate]

Originally Posted by Gelsamel Epsilon
So because nothing cannot be measured in any shape or form it is therefore non-existent? That is a logical fallacy.

Either a "thing" exists or it does not exist. One can only measure the attributes of that which exists--e.g. a thing. Thus it is a logical fallacy to claim the ability to measure nothing.

My reply is to the both of you. (Nothing exist) by conceptual means only, and it is measured by the shape of it's conceptual form. All of reality is conceptual in nature. Thusly you and everything else can be regarded as the Reality Of Non-Existence.
In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of, and one represents the conceptual form of nothing.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Don't go fooling yourself through means of assiduous egocentric opinion. You'll never see any truth that way. Let's stick to the answers. Nothing does not exist. That IS the concept of nothing. ONE cannot make something of nothing. Just as nothing cannot be made of something. Enjoy your day, Sir.

There is no reality of non-existence. Perhaps it is time I revised the English language as well? Words and concepts so loosely thrown around that no one will ever understand any bit of truth.

We are discussing a means of existence here, not that of reality and illusion... the two are a subset of the former.

What we are seeing here is not only a logical fallacy, yet a conceptual fallacy.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Either a "thing" exists or it does not exist. One can only measure the attributes of that which exists--e.g. a thing. Thus it is a logical fallacy to claim the ability to measure nothing.

I didn't claim that you could measure nothing. I said you couldn't.


And Outlandish_Existance I think we may have a different concept/definition of nothingness and existence.

"Nothing" is the description of the absense of existence. But for the word nothing to be aplicable, and the concept of nothing to be valid, "Nothing" would have to exist, even if it describes the absense of existence. If "Nothing" didn't exist then it wouldn't be coherent.

To elaborate; Imagine if you will, a place "outside" the universe, outside the universe which is expanding. Outside the universe there is nothing, not a thing at all. The word nothing is used to describe the fact that there is only the absense of existence there. But that doesn't mean that "nothing" doesn't exist? The existence of the possibility of the absense of existence shouldn't be to hard to comprehend.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

No, see, your fallacy once again is that you are allowing nothing to exist. It doesn't exist. One cannot imagine an existence of non-existence. There is NO "outside the universe". The universe and existence are eternal.

Yes, we have a different understanding of nothingness, mine doesn't exist and yours does. Yours is not truly nothingness, rather it is somethingness. Accept the concept of nothing and all things will become lucid.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

No, see, your fallacy once again is that you are allowing nothing to exist. It doesn't exist. One cannot imagine an existence of non-existence. There is NO "outside the universe". The universe and existence are eternal.

You havn't proven anything so far. All you've said is "Nothing doesn't exist" with no logical structure or following to show how you've come to that conclusion.

You claim that non-existance cannot exist? So everything exists then? Even purple monkeys with pink poker-dots. Nope, they don't exist. So they are non-existant. Wow, I just labeled something non-existant and the label was correct, so non-existance does exist!

Again the claim that there is no outside of the universe, and that the universe are eternal are so far not backed up at all.

While I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you cannot take your proofless stance without considering my proofless stance as possibily being true as well. Thats the thing with stuff that can't be falsified.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

They exist in your imagination. If it exists in your imagination then it can be manifested into fruition. All one has to do is believe. Existence is of the imagination. Non-existence cannot be imagined, therefore it cannot and will not exist.

Stop trying to win, and start understanding truth. I'm not here to battle, I'm here to share.

There is no logical proof requiring presentation. The proof is you and I, now must come acceptance. I will wait no longer for humanity to wisen up.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

"Stop trying to win"? I don't understand the logicity behind this statement. Do you think this is a game, or compitition?

I have to ask you more questions because I won't understand your stance until you explain it to me, and as you seem unwilling to just spill it all out I'll ask you questions to see how your came to your position.

What do you mean by "All one has to do is believe" that sounds very ambiguous and psuedo-scientific.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Accept... believe... nothing is NOTHING. I cannot and will not explain it any further. Acceptance is in the "heart" of the beholder, when one wishes to understand, one will.

The philosophy of philosophy is not in winning a position or upholding a prejudiced belief, rather it lies in finding truth. Two must work together.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

There is a difference between "Nothing is Nothing" which is a tautology, and "Nothing does not exist". The concept of Nothing is not autonomous!

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Nothing is nothing and nothing does not exist are one and the same my friend. First you must accept nothing for what it is to see the unison between the two statements. Large flashy words are pretty to look at, but that's about it when it comes to defending a fallacy.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Obviously we have different interpretations of the phrases.

So to say "Nothing is Nothing" is to say that Something that has no existence, has no existence. Which again is tautology.

To say "Nothing does not exist" is to say Nothing itself (the concept) is non-existant. If the Nothing truly does not exist then it is silly to argue over something that isn't real and doesn't exist. Why are you arguing about it?

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

No, you do not understand what nothing is. I cannot converse with a mind that submits to existential mediocrity. You are arguing my friend, I'm asking you to stop, and to accept. The entire world is arguing over it. Stop and accept that we are already here. I must take a break now while you try to think about nothing. Perhaps then you'll comprehend it's true value.

To say nothing is nothing is to say that red is red... it is that it is, or in this case, it is not so that it is not.

Yes, the concept IS non-existent, and it should be erased from the face of the Earth.

 

[unscientific]

However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have come to believe that most adults, take the world just as it is. They never dare to explore beyond the limits, the study of how " everything " began. They just sit in their sofa, be a couch potato, and take everything as it seems!

 

[Castlegate]

How can we be created out of nothing, let's say our parents created us, our grandparents created my parents so on and so forth.

Some say the universe is created by the big bang. Then what created the big bang? What created what? (<---i know this seems but think about it; it makes sense)

Any opinion would be greatly appreciated.

I thought that I'd take a stab it this since you asked the question. You make an assumption that if you accept the Big Bang, one must accept that the universe was created. This would be a correct assumption from my vantage point. You then further postulate that the universe was created out of nothing. I would concur here also. If this is all correct, them we are forced to assume that the universe is made of nothing.

Further examination of this leads to - The universe is not a physical entity. This leaves you with conceptual creation, and what is that you might ask? To get to the crux of this I would ask you to think of a fundamental entity (the simplest form of existence). What are the characteristics of this form? We must conclude that within this simplest of forms is nothing indeed for there are no parts to fundamentality. This is in concurence with the initial postulate that the universe is made of nothing. What does pass for Existence is the form. It has no physical characteristics other than the concept of it's phisicallity, and this form acts in accordance with what are called physical laws. I would prefer to call these conceptual laws, but most everyone is still in the mindset that the universe is a physical entity.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Ah, yes! And the fact that they are conceptual laws lends them flexibility. :) All things are possible. Speed of light barrier? More like, human ignorance and vanity barrier.

 

[unscientific]

A greek philosopher who lived more than 2 thousand years ago believed that philosophy had its origin in man's sense of wonder. Man thought it was so astonishingto be alive that philosophical questions like this arose of their own accord. It is like watching a magic tric. We cannot understand how it is done. So we ask: how can the magician change a couple of white silk scarves into a live rabbit? In the case of the rabbit, we know the magician has tricked us. What we would like to know is just how he did it. But when it comes to the world it's somewhat different. We know that the world is not all sleight of hand and deception because here we are in it, we are part of it. ( This is part of topos theory ) Actually, we are the white rabbit being pulled out of the hat. The only difference is that the rabbit does not realize itself to be taking part in a magic trick. We, who live here are microscopic insects existing deep down in the rabbit's fur. But philosophers are always trying to climb up the fine hairs of the fur in order to stare right into the magician's eyes...Life is a huge mystery and so to solve it, we need to explore it. With a problem and a spark of curiosity, awaits us is a mystical event. The world itself becomes a habit in no time at all. It seems as if in the process of growing up we lose the ability to wonder about the world. Questions that used to stumble inquisitive kids like " Where does the world come from? " " Why can birds fly but not pigs? " Therefore, we need to question! we need to challenge ourselves! What is the purpose of living? For me, it is to explain the mysteries in life and have a better understanding of live.
P.S. Sorry for the long post, i hope this post is meaningful, especially towards Outlandish_Existence. I recommend u the book " Sophie's World ", by Jostein Gaarder.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Thank you very much, thank you also for the recommendation! The majority of us lose our inquisitive capabilties because mediocrities tell us to stop questioning... to the extent that all answers are already known and in place. This is hardly true, the human race knows little about existence. I'm here trying to vastly elucidate on a few minor misconceptions before I commence on a larger enterprise. It seems as if this magician has slipped me a pink 2X2 sticky note with some of the answers on it, but he's yet to reveal his face and identity to me. I think it is the way that he prefers it. He'll show you his hands of creation, but will always keep his face masked. :)

 

[Castlegate]

Ah, yes! And the fact that they are conceptual laws lends them flexibility. :) All things are possible. Speed of light barrier? More like, human ignorance and ego barrier.

Light happens to be the fundamental entity, and it has a speed limit. I could explain this further but to you. Your condescending attitude makes it difficult at best.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

I didn't say limit! I stated barrier. Thank you for the kind insult. Save your energy of assumption, I am familiar with physics. I could explain this further to you, but your condescending attitude makes it difficult at best.

 

[Mickey]

They exist in your imagination. If it exists in your imagination then it can be manifested into fruition. All one has to do is believe. Existence is of the imagination. Non-existence cannot be imagined, therefore it cannot and will not exist.

Stop trying to win, and start understanding truth. I'm not here to battle, I'm here to share.

There is no logical proof requiring presentation. The proof is you and I, now must come acceptance. I will wait no longer for humanity to wisen up.

I'm imagining that you don't exist. Oh yes, it's quite nice.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

That's quite an elusive imagination, sorry to stump the non-existence of me.

 

[saltydog]

Any opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Our Universe is massively non-linear. Some non-linear systems have "critical points" which qualitatively change the behavior of the system when it's pushed pass this critical point. Look up "Catastrophe Theory" on the web. Think of water changing to ice at zero C. Know the talk about Global Warming and the "tipping point"? Tons more all around us. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suppose the Universe itself was created by such a "nudge" of some "pre-existance" pass it's critical point: The Universe, from such a perspective, then precipitates out of a critical point transition of a pre-existance.

 

[unscientific]

A question that requires thinking. What is the " original temperature " of an object? Most people would reply with a vague answer stating the current room temperature. Have u ever wondered what is the " original " temperature of an object? And does water turn to ice at 0 degrees or melt at 0 degrees?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

The original temperature is what ever you want it to be. Just like in special rel. you set the frame you want to be looking from. And with gravitational potential energy you choose the most logical 0-point.

 

[cornernote]

Sorry to come to the conversation so late. I was bored and googled for philosophy and found this cool site.

What created the big bang? I have been reading a lot on string theory and found a great site with no reading required to get started:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

(I like videos)

Ok - so let's say string theory is real and strings in the 10th dimension caused the 4 dimensions we know of to come into existence. It still doesn't really answer the essence of the question. Where did the strings come from?

The question will just get deeper and deeper, but its the same question. What created the first thing?

Even the God answer doesn't solve it... Ok - let's say God created the first thing. Then God becomes the first thing, so what created God?

Its a great question and one that I don't think we will ever be able to answer unless we can accept that something has always been there.

 

[Castlegate]

What created the first thing?

From my deep look into this - The answer would be nothing.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I have come to believe that most adults, take the world just as it is. They never dare to explore beyond the limits, the study of how " everything " began. They just sit in their sofa, be a couch potato, and take everything as it seems!

I agree with the feeling you convey. I believe everybody comprehends this topic though, and they also agree with you and think that most people don't think about it.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

the way I look at it is this: There must be some sort of notion of something existing forever, something that had no beginning. Ya, sounds odd, but I think it is necessary. If the universe was created by two colliding branes, then how did the branes get there but from previous brane collisions ad infinitum? If LQG concludes that the universe existed in a "negative" form leading up to the big bang, don't negative numbers also go off to infinity? If there is a finite timespan of the universe in both directions in time, then the universe oscillates back and forth forever. If the universe had a definate beginning out of nothing at all, then you can say that God created it out of nothing because he has the power to do so by definition, and also by definition, God had no biginning either. So whether you believe in God or not, the way I see it, you must believe that something (God or the universe<--not what happened from the BB, but pre BB theories) had no beginning.

Although I have my own theory. The universe has existed forever, but God put it there. The big bang is continuously occurring, and it is the only "white hole"--meaning the opposite of a black hole--in the universe. The singularity of the BB is multiply connected to all other singularities in the universe (which are black holes), and all particles are singularities with even horizons. General relativity is a statistical distribution theory which averages out all the singularities in a given frame. Black holes as we know them today are thought of as copiously massive things, but I think it's all relative when you change your frame to look at a single particle on a small scale, it would look pretty much the same. The Einstein-Rosen bridge was an attempt to apply GR to an electron, and the solution was a multiply connected singularity, my only change is that all particles are multiply connected to the same thing, the BB. Therefore space-time flows into all particles and flows out of the BB. You may notice that I say it "flows", well that's becuase I've given space-time the same property as the Higgs field, and that means we deal with vector fields rather than scalar fields, so we can speak of gravity as an accelerating flow of space-time toward a singularity. We are in a part of the universe that has been coasting away from the BB for some time now, but we're traveling along in our local space-time frame that was emmitted from the BB, so it seems as though the BB happened a long time and distance ago, but it is still occurring, and we are closer to the BB than we think, in fact, we are made of particles, so we are "touching" it. of course, at the event horizon, light could orbit forever, and on the quantum scale, that's how I see things. An electron is a space-time singularity, and there is a single stable configuration for an electric field to orbit, and due to Maxwell's induced current, a balled up electric field is essentially a stationary charge, and since it is "orbiting" it has a magnetic moment in the form of spin. So, there are stable field configurations which don't get sucked into the singularities and give the properties of all the elementary particles, and that's why we aren't sucked into the BB. Somehow, mass is quantized too... and the strong and weak forces, well ahh... I still got to think about that one.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Sorry to come to the conversation so late. I was bored and googled for philosophy and found this cool site.

What created the big bang? I have been reading a lot on string theory and found a great site with no reading required to get started:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

(I like videos)

Ok - so let's say string theory is real and strings in the 10th dimension caused the 4 dimensions we know of to come into existence. It still doesn't really answer the essence of the question. Where did the strings come from?

The question will just get deeper and deeper, but its the same question. What created the first thing?

Even the God answer doesn't solve it... Ok - let's say God created the first thing. Then God becomes the first thing, so what created God?

Its a great question and one that I don't think we will ever be able to answer unless we can accept that something has always been there.

After asking the question "what created whatever" over and over you would evetually come to something which is eternal, is and forever will be. Strings themselfs could be eternal.

 

[selfAdjoint]

After asking the question "what created whatever" over and over you would evetually come to something which is eternal, is and forever will be. Strings themselfs could be eternal.

This is self contradictory. Why can't we ask "what created.." questions about strings (physicists do, but don't get any accepted answers), and then reach, by your unsupported assertion, an unstrung stringer?

Generally reason fails us in these questions. We can't rule out either the first cause or the infinite regress.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Generally reason fails us in these questions. We can't rule out either the first cause or the infinite regress.

yes, well put.

1. God has existed forever
2. The universe has existed forever
3. both 1 and 2 combined

those three are the only possible answers.

 

[unscientific]

Nope there is one more possibility. Greek philosophers thought that there must be a basic, a funfamental substance in all things.

 

[nannoh]

What universe?

 

[Castlegate]

We can't rule out either the first cause or the infinite regress.

This is quite true at this time. Many will choose and just run with it, and see where it takes them. I for one picked first cause and came up with nothing literally. Yep ... Nothing is the first cause. Don't make any sense? Of course not. That's because the universe is a contradiction.

 

[moving finger]

yes, well put.

1. God has existed forever
2. The universe has existed forever
3. both 1 and 2 combined

those three are the only possible answers.

There is at least one other :

4. Time is finite but unbounded

Best Regards