Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[DaveC426913]

No, disbelief is a subset of lack of belief.

disbelief = lack of belief + assertion of the negative.

I do believe these two statements are contradictory.

If B is a subset of A, then how can B = A + C?

 

[JoeDawg]

No, disbelief is specifically a belief to the contrary: the "mental rejection of something as untrue".

Disbelief is simply an unwillingness or inability to believe something is true, that invariably occurs when someone is presented with a preposterous claim. Equivocating belief and disbelief is playing games with semantics. It is not rational to expect that one will believe every claim made by others, nor is it rational to expect an individual to address seriously every ridiculous claim one is presented with. Belief on the other hand requires a serious commitment of one sort or another. So they are not equivalent.

The weaker usage of atheism as a lack of belief is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new phenomenon, and one I find perplexing.

Atheism was originally used in the perjorative sense, by those who believe in god-things. The word however comes greek, the 'a' translates as 'without', so 'lack of belief' or more simply 'godless' is perfectly acceptable. A baby or a dog could be said to be atheistic. And even one who believes in a god, but not gods, could be said to be atheistic.

The recent phenomena you describe is that of non-believers insisting on defining themselves, instead of simply accepting the labelling and insults of others.

 

[Pupil]

I do believe these two statements are contradictory.

If B is a subset of A, then how can B = A + C?

That equality is not meant to be a set theory statement like the one before it, but

Another way to put it

If you still don't understand, or that equality confused you a bit, think of it like this: If you have a bubble called "lack of belief", and you look inside that bubble, you'll find another bubble called "Why Lack of Belief" and inside that bubble there will be "No Evidence to Confirm Belief" and "Disproof of Belief." You have to go into the bubble lack of belief plus a little further down into "Disproof of Belief." That "Disproof of Belief" area is another name for disbelief, and it's a subset of lack of belief bubble.

That's probably more confusing. It'd be easier to draw a graph, but I'm too lazy.

 

[vectorcube]

well, suppose one day, physicists are able to derivable all the laws of nature from a single ultimate equation. One can still ask why the equation is true. Why should there be a universe describable by this ultimate equation. There is always the alternative. There could be a world describable by Newtonian mechanics, or a world describable by some other mathematical structure. Suppose string theory is the correct theory that describes this universe. We can ask why this theory is true. Why should there be a world govern by the equations of string theory. No theory in physics exhaust all logical possibilities in theory space, because the laws of nature are not logically necessary.

 

[p764rds]

No theory in physics exhaust all logical possibilities in theory space, because the laws of nature are not logically necessary.

'The Laws of Nature' are referring to our space-time that we are living in. Gravity, speed of light etc etc.
If the universe is made from 'information' then all these laws are *design features* and
could have been designed differently.
Who or what can design? Its easy - intelligence can do that. (we could for example)
Where is this 'intelligence'? Easy - in information.
Where is information? Not in space or time because it creates space-time (& our entire physical universe). Space-time is entirely fabricated from information.

Who created information, logic and mathematics? Now we are asking different questions because they are not really 'objects' - there aren't any 'objects' behind space time.

 

[WaveJumper]

Who here is pushing that agenda?

Would i not be considered pushing a religious agenda if i came from an islamic background and claimed:

"The answer to the question is rather obvious - Yes, there a reason why the universe exists and it is Allah who raised the skies without support, then assumed His throne, and enthralled the sun and the moon so that each runs to a predetermined course. He disposes all affairs, distinctly explaining every sign that you may be certain of the meeting with your Allah."


I don't think this statement is either acceptable nor can it be defined as simple "lack of belief in atheism".

 

[vectorcube]

'The Laws of Nature' are referring to our space-time that we are living in. Gravity, speed of light etc etc.
If the universe is made from 'information' then all these laws are *design features* and
could have been designed differently.
Who or what can design? Its easy - intelligence can do that. (we could for example)
Where is this 'intelligence'? Easy - in information.
Where is information? Not in space or time because it creates space-time (& our entire physical universe). Space-time is entirely fabricated from information.

Who created information, logic and mathematics? Now we are asking different questions because they are not really 'objects' - there aren't any 'objects' behind space time.

Looking at you answer is the most confusing thing ever. I wonder if you are really being serious.

laws of nature don ` t refer to any particular point in space, or time.

What do you mean by the universe is made of information? Give me some examples.
What is intellgence? What is fabricated from information mean?

 

[WaveJumper]

You still have yet to say who it is that states as fact: "that the universe sprang into existence with all of its right parameters without a cause."

If it has a cause, how can the emergence and existence of the universe be meaningless? If there is cause, there is a why. You are contradicting yourself.

Could it be that you are under a misconception about the current state of cosmological theory?

No, you fail to realize that humans understand cause-effect[/b] logic. A universe that was caused by an event, has a reason Why for its existence.

No competent man of science claims to know even if origin is the right word to use to describe what we have observed regarding the big bang event.

Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?

The whole point of language is so that we are able to map our concepts onto events outside our brains, or maybe vice versa.

This is oversimplification. It does not take into account the fact that language is a tool in which we can describe the universe in a meaningful way. Either way, it doesn't follow that there was no cause/why for the emergence of the universe the way it did.

Our current understanding of the evolution of life on earth, including us and our brains, immediately relegates emotion and abstraction to an arbitrary process in the three pound mass of jelly of a particular primate species.

Sure, that's one way to look at it if you are able to suppress 'uncomfortable' questions like:

What caused the universe?(which is what we perceive now as "anything and everything")
Why is the universe comprehensible?
Why are the laws of physics and physical constants the way they are, so that a universe like ours can emerge and unfold through its 14 billion years history?
What drove the emergence of consciousness?
Why is the universe predictable?
Etc.

 

[p764rds]

What do you mean by the universe is made of information? Give me some examples.
What is intellgence? What is fabricated from information mean?

I have written about this so many times -
http://BestManEver.Wordpress.com for a fuller version.

 

[Hurkyl]

Disbelief is simply an unwillingness or inability to believe something is true ...

I got my definition "mental rejection of something as untrue" straight from www.merriam-webster.com. Of course, this is all irrelevant, because I get to choose the meaning of the word I used -- and I used "disbelief" to mean what I stated above as its definition.

The word however comes greek, the 'a' translates as 'without', so 'lack of belief' or more simply 'godless' is perfectly acceptable.

I didn't make my claim blind -- I actually spent a few minutes searching the internet first. What I found suggested the Greeks used it as denial of the existence of the Gods. Also, that "theism" is a back-formation: it didn't appear until two millinea after "atheism" -- so it doesn't make sense to try and translate "atheism" as the synthesis of "a" and "theism".

 

[Hurkyl]

Would i not be considered pushing a religious agenda if i came from an islamic background and claimed:

Yes, you would. However, it doesn't answer my question.

 

[vectorcube]

I have written about this so many times -
http://BestManEver.Wordpress.com for a fuller version.

I am not trying to be offensive or anything, but why would you want to engage someone in this forum, and expect them to read all that?

 

[Hurkyl]

If there is cause, there is a why.

Please define "why".

 

[WaveJumper]

Please define "why".

We all understand cause and effect logic, don't we?

"Why is there a universe the way we see it?"

- An event we are currently unfamiliar with, caused it.

This statement worded like that does not suffer from the extreme explanatory powers of atheism and religions.

 

[vectorcube]

Please define "why".

I honest think you are being funny. In context, the "why" question amounts to why there is a universe at all. There is nothing logically necessary there need to be a universe, nor is it necessary that there need to be a universe describle by QM and general relativity.

 

[Hurkyl]

I honest think you are being funny.

It sounds funny, but I'm being deadly serious. People use "why" in all sorts of strange ways that often appear completely meaningless if not highly presumptuous.

I'll tell you what I think "why" means: it is a request to conclude 'something' as a logical consequence of 'other 'things', typically with some implicit restriction on what sorts of 'other things' are acceptable to use.

Unfortunately, that implicit restriction is often something like "it must be something I (think I) intuitively understand".

 

[vectorcube]

It sounds funny, but I'm being deadly serious. People use "why" in all sorts of strange ways that often appear completely meaningless if not highly presumptuous.

I'll tell you what I think "why" means: it is a request to conclude 'something' as a logical consequence of 'other 'things', typically with some implicit restriction on what sorts of 'other things' are acceptable to use.

Unfortunately, that implicit restriction is often something like "it must be something I (think I) intuitively understand".

Your answer is confusing, but i do think you are right that various people use the word "why" in very lose ways. Let me tell you how i use "why". When i say "why X". I am requesting for the necessary and sufficient reason for X. Suppose i ask why the apple fall. The necessary conditions would be to invoke some law of nature( such as general relativity), and the initial high of the ball from Earth etc. From the these two piece of information, i can conclude that apple would fall toward the gound. What i just describe is called the nomological deductive model of explanation. To be even more clean:


To ask why X is to given P1, P2 ...PN Such that the follow hold:


1. P1
2. P2
.
.

N PN
______

therefore X

where one of the Pi s contain at least one law of nature. The Pi s are partitioned into laws of nature, and initial conditions.


I hope such expanation is not too confusing. If you have problems, please do ask me. I am not trying to confusing anyone.

Here is a link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological_model

 

[p764rds]

If it has a cause, how can the emergence and existence of the universe be meaningless? If there is cause, there is a why. You are contradicting yourself.







No, you fail to realize that humans understand cause-effect[/b] logic. A universe that was caused by an event, has a reason Why for its existence.










Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?





This is oversimplification. It does not take into account the fact that language is a tool in which we can describe the universe in a meaningful way. Either way, it doesn't follow that there was no cause/why for the emergence of the universe the way it did.






Sure, that's one way to look at it if you are able to suppress 'uncomfortable' questions like:

What caused the universe?(which is what we perceive now as "anything and everything")
Why is the universe comprehensible?
Why are the laws of physics and physical constants the way they are, so that a universe like ours can emerge and unfold through its 14 billion years history?
What drove the emergence of consciousness?
Etc.

What caused the universe?
I assume you mean the physical space-time universe? One logical suggestion is:
The physical universe steps in an evolutionary way. Starting out as compressed
particles and through 3D movement (entropy) it steps to a horrible spread out ending.
Now, assume that intelligent entities (like us) existed - made of information - and that
at the end of the universe space-time, these entities would be destroyed. They cannot
escape from information, because they are made from information. So, on the demise
of information, they are finished.
If they are intelligent (very very intelligent) and want to survive, then they would devise
a way back from death wouldn't they? How? A team of clever engineers sits round a table
and works out a particle structure, a 3D structure, speed of information (light, gravity) and sets up consistent laws of physics.
Once the program is written, they only need to 'seed' it. Such beings would have a means
of starting this program off (sthg like a quantum computer maybe) and could initiate the program to create a Universe that would eventually create themselves again. It would be *designed* that way. Again, fundamentally its intelligence doing it.
This is just one method it could have happened - see Nick Bostrom's work for others. There
are many possibilities.

Why is the universe comprehensible? Its designed that way - or the model would fail.
Mathematics and logic is comprehensible and that's what fabricated the physical Universe,
so of course its comprehensible.

What drove the emergence of consciousness?
Its all based on intelligence anyway (for example, one electron repelling another
is a logic process based on proximity. If Distance < X Then do Y )
This is a logical decision process, a primitive type of intelligence isn't it?
Intelligence underlies everything in the physical universe so its not surprising
that is able to emerge. Although I believe, personally, that it is in the *design*
to emerge. Newton said (The Universe is straining towards intelligence)

Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?
Again, its a type of intelligence that would want a Universe that would cause it. We are
near that aren't we. I mean we could get a team together and say - hey, let's design
something interesting here.
There are an almost infinite number of types of intelligence, and its only logical that
a type that wants to exist would try to do just that. The overall principles are quite simple,
and logical, but there is almost infinite complexity mixed in.

 

[robertm]

If it has a cause, how can the emergence and existence of the universe be meaningless?

In exactly the same way that high tides, clouds, moon dust, and bubbles are meaningless.

If there is cause, there is a why. You are contradicting yourself.

So, in your usage here, 'cause' is equivalent to 'why'? Nothing wrong with that, just trying to understand you better...

In what way have I contradicted myself? The quote of mine to which you responded in the above quote, was a question posed to you in order to clarify my understanding of your own position...

No, you fail to realize that humans understand cause-effect[/b] logic. A universe that was caused by an event, has a reason Why for its existence.

Here again, an equivalence between 'cause' and 'why'. Semantics really get me down.

I do not believe that I have claimed that determinism seems to be somehow broken in the big bang event, though that may be the case.

Agreed, but it follows from this that there is no reason/cause for the appearance of the universe?

No, what follows is only that we have much hard work ahead of us.

This is oversimplification.

Of course, and probably incorrect on more than one level, however, one could devote many lifetimes to the study of the development of the communication skills of Homo sapiens; so, you must forgive me for being brief.

It does not take into account the fact that language is a tool in which we can describe the universe in a meaningful way.

This is, actually, what I was saying. You simply must be careful about what precisely it is that you mean when you say, 'meaningful'. Maybe we don't disagree as much as it may seem, perhaps a thorough treatment of your intended usage would be in order.

Either way, it doesn't follow that there was no cause/why for the emergence of the universe the way it did.

No, certainly not. Just an example of an accident of evolutionary history.

What caused the universe?(which is what we perceive now as "anything and everything")

First and foremost, the grammar of the question must be applicable to the situation we find ourselves in. Is this question, so to speak, "Not even wrong."?

Hand in hand, we may find ourselves evaluating the question and answering it (or another more appropriate); yet we can not stray far from the data in our attempts and remain serious. We are in for the long haul on this query.

Why is the universe comprehensible?

Again, is this even a good question? Seeing as humans are biochemical machines built to manipulate and propagate in our unique ways from the very same 'stuff' that makes everything else up; I think that it is simply a consequence of the evolutionary development of our brains.

Why are the laws of physics and physical constants the way they are, so that a universe like ours can emerge and unfold through its 14 billion years history?

Now this, I think, is indeed a good question that is being worked on the world over by a large number of professional physicists and cosmologists. I await with bated breath.

What drove the emergence of consciousness? Etc

Another good question, though maybe worded a bit funny. This is an excellent time to be following the fields of evolutionary biology and neuroscience, as these areas of study (among many others) are beginning to converge with great results. This, I think, of all your questions is the most likely to be answered within the next half century.

Seeing as consciousness is a quality of brains, and brains are organs like any other, we can already begin to grope for understanding as the fields of evolutionary development and genetics explode into the new millennium.

V.S. Ramachandran's work stands out as high quality and accessible insight into the mysteries of our minds.

 

[JoeDawg]

I got my definition "mental rejection of something as untrue" straight from www.merriam-webster.com. Of course, this is all irrelevant, because I get to choose the meaning of the word I used -- and I used "disbelief" to mean what I stated above as its definition.

I have no problem with your definition. But equating disbelief with belief is erroneous. Its like saying no-apple is a type of apple. When you believe something you are making a commitment, an affirmation, to that thing, disbelief, or lack of belief is not the same.

I didn't make my claim blind -- I actually spent a few minutes searching the internet first. What I found suggested the Greeks used it as denial of the existence of the Gods. Also, that "theism" is a back-formation: it didn't appear until two millinea after "atheism" -- so it doesn't make sense to try and translate "atheism" as the synthesis of "a" and "theism".

As I noted, originally, the was simply an insult.
So if you are using it in its original sense, then you are being insulting.
The word is embraced by atheists because the direct translation is descriptive, and the word has a history of slander, so taking that label is similar to what homosexuals did with the word 'queer'. It takes the power away from those who use it to insult and oppress.

Believers often use word games like this to equivocate. Its the same thing as saying scientists have 'faith in science', because scientists 'believe' in scientific method, even though religion and science have completely different standards.

 

[WaveJumper]

In exactly the same way that high tides, clouds, moon dust, and bubbles are meaningless.

There is a reason Why any of those exist in the way they do. "Meaning" is a subjective word that cannot be applied without mentioning what it's supposed to denote. We should shake off as much human "baggage" as possible when dealing with the beginning of the universe. Tides could be meaningful to someone writing a poem/song, clouds as well, etc. Essentially, 'meaning' is subjective, whereas reason/cause is not.

 

[octelcogopod]

A problem I can see with "why" is that it's infinitely regressive.
You can ask why forever and you can't hit a first why, because by definition that would have a previous why.

To talk about the origins of the universe and anything else that's out there (other higher dimensions for instance) is only fruitful if we have some tangible evidence to support it.
I believe talking about how or what the why means or works without this is like talking about a new color or something. We can't see it, can't understand it, no way to visualize it nor measure it.

 

[WaveJumper]

A problem I can see with "why" is that it's infinitely regressive.
You can ask why forever and you can't hit a first why, because by definition that would have a previous why.

With regards to our seamless development through the several million years history, one can guess that when and if we reach civilisation stage type 3 level(Kardashev scale), we may have acquired the technology and knowledge to re-create a big bang that would result in a universe with laws of physics(properties of particles) hospitable to the emergence of life.
Would our creations be looking up to the sky at night saying prayers to us, their God?

That was, however, a limited classical perspective on the universe. If we were to abandon the human "baggage" and apply quantum theory and relativity, a very serious question arises - what is it that we are trying to describe? We essentially don't know AT ALL neither what space is, nor Time outside of what we subjectively experience. This is more confusing than explanatory, but we don't know if those 2 concepts exist at all apart from our perception. And if they exist, how do they exist and why do they have those mind-bending properties we've uncovered in the last 100 years? Applying a Why to those 2 pillars of modern physics requires that we first come to an understanding of what the universe really is, outside of our very limited perspective. It's already surfacing in articles by physicists working on the future TOE that such a theory would entail something very radical that would have profound implications for the nature of reality and literally turn your world upside down. And it's not just those working on the TOE, most physicists are already aware that such a phase transition on how we view reality is inevitable and will likely bring about, or contribute to, a shift in our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the rest of the universe. It's likely that then we'll have better understanding of the why's/reasons and causes for what we are perceiving as a rock solid structure that exists and is evolving in time under the name "Universe".

 

[Anticitizen]

"I'm an agnostic."
"Are you a theist?"
"No..."
"So you're an atheist..."
"Err... um.. ah..."

I think some people just don't want to be called an atheist. If you don't know if there's a god or not, you're godless.

A problem I can see with "why" is that it's infinitely regressive.
You can ask why forever and you can't hit a first why, because by definition that would have a previous why.

That's true IF time, causality, etc worked the same way pre-big bang as post big bang. Some assert that the concept of 'time' before the big bang is meaningless. Causality as we view it relies on our conception of time, an antecedent preceding a consequent, etc.

 

[kldickson]

To suggest that the universe has some sort of purpose is to impose a nearly anthropomorphic - or even 'living' - quality on it, which is disingenuous to do.

The universe just is.

 

[octelcogopod]

With regards to our seamless development through the several million years history, one can guess that when and if we reach civilisation stage type 3 level(Kardashev scale), we may have acquired the technology and knowledge to re-create a big bang that would result in a universe with laws of physics(properties of particles) hospitable to the emergence of life.
Would our creations be looking up to the sky at night saying prayers to us, their God?

That was, however, a limited classical perspective on the universe. If we were to abandon the human "baggage" and apply quantum theory and relativity, a very serious question arises - what is it that we are trying to describe? We essentially don't know AT ALL neither what space is, nor Time outside of what we subjectively experience. This is more confusing than explanatory, but we don't know if those 2 concepts exist at all apart from our perception. And if they exist, how do they exist and why do they have those mind-bending properties we've uncovered in the last 100 years? Applying a Why to those 2 pillars of modern physics requires that we first come to an understanding of what the universe really is, outside of our very limited perspective. It's already surfacing in articles by physicists working on the future TOE that such a theory would entail something very radical that would have profound implications for the nature of reality and literally turn your world upside down. And it's not just those working on the TOE, most physicists are already aware that such a phase transition on how we view reality is inevitable and will likely bring about, or contribute to, a shift in our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the rest of the universe. It's likely that then we'll have better understanding of the why's/reasons and causes for what we are perceiving as a rock solid structure that exists and is evolving in time under the name "Universe".

I agree.. I think basically that right now we are incapable of thinking in "terms of the universe" things like infinite regress, the beginning of the universe etc are all things that may require a completely different approach.
It's hard to think about what the universe is, and why it's there, even with science, so maybe we need a transition..

That's true IF time, causality, etc worked the same way pre-big bang as post big bang. Some assert that the concept of 'time' before the big bang is meaningless. Causality as we view it relies on our conception of time, an antecedent preceding a consequent, etc.

But if you say time didn't mean anything before the big bang, how could the big bang have happened? If time can be defined as moving things, then something must have had time before the big bang. Or the big bang just evolved out of nothingness.
Our concept and the way we view time may be wrong, but there has to be some kind of "thing" before and before and before..

To suggest that the universe has some sort of purpose is to impose a nearly anthropomorphic - or even 'living' - quality on it, which is disingenuous to do.

The universe just is.

Which again explains nothing. In this thread we are not talking about living quality or anthropomorphic reasons, but rather a scientific and even philosophical why. A why that can be measured or even duplicated. Something that will explain it in a logical manner.

 

[kldickson]

Well, I'm not totally sure what you mean; if you're saying 'what made the universe come about', you've got the Big Bang, which is supported by such things as measurement of cosmic microwave background radiation. So we've got an event, which is being more clearly explained with each new piece of information about it. I'm not sure how detailed of a description you want.

You mention 'time'; how do you imagine 'time'? Time itself is distortable and highly tied to space, and there is more than one thread of inquiry which seems to suggest that there is no such thing as 'time before the Big Bang', which would make the phrase 'time before the Big Bang' a contradictory one, or that time before the Big Bang is meaningless in the sense that nothing before then has any sort of impact on events now and is inaccessible so we can only make broad and probably impossible speculations about it.

Philosophically, I think it's a bit absurd to philosophize about things that remain more firmly in the realm of science. I have, for what it's worth, fairly low regard of most philosophers, and the only ones I really have any modicum of respect for are the ones who let science guide their philosophizing.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, I'm not totally sure what you mean; if you're saying 'what made the universe come about', you've got the Big Bang, which is supported by such things as measurement of cosmic microwave background radiation. So we've got an event, which is being more clearly explained with each new piece of information about it. I'm not sure how detailed of a description you want.

The big bang only explains what happens right at the beginning and during the big bang, it doesn't explain why the big bang happened to begin with or where all the energy came from.

You mention 'time'; how do you imagine 'time'? Time itself is distortable and highly tied to space, and there is more than one thread of inquiry which seems to suggest that there is no such thing as 'time before the Big Bang', which would make the phrase 'time before the Big Bang' a contradictory one, or that time before the Big Bang is meaningless in the sense that nothing before then has any sort of impact on events now and is inaccessible so we can only make broad and probably impossible speculations about it.

Like I said above, if you are suggesting that the big bang simply erupted out of nothingness, then yes you are right, time is irrelevant. But if you think about it more closely, you realize that the big bang probably didn't erupt out of nothingness, but that rather it was there all along, either in another form, or a higher dimension or similar. And that's why 'time before big bang' makes sense.

Philosophically, I think it's a bit absurd to philosophize about things that remain more firmly in the realm of science. I have, for what it's worth, fairly low regard of most philosophers, and the only ones I really have any modicum of respect for are the ones who let science guide their philosophizing.

I agree.

 

[Pupil]

Well, I'm not totally sure what you mean; if you're saying 'what made the universe come about', you've got the Big Bang, which is supported by such things as measurement of cosmic microwave background radiation. So we've got an event, which is being more clearly explained with each new piece of information about it. I'm not sure how detailed of a description you want.

The Big Bang says nothing of whether the universe was created or not; it is a theory describing the evolution of the universe over time since it's hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago.

You mention 'time'; how do you imagine 'time'? Time itself is distortable and highly tied to space, and there is more than one thread of inquiry which seems to suggest that there is no such thing as 'time before the Big Bang', which would make the phrase 'time before the Big Bang' a contradictory one, or that time before the Big Bang is meaningless in the sense that nothing before then has any sort of impact on events now and is inaccessible so we can only make broad and probably impossible speculations about it.

Precisely. Speaking of time before the concept arose after the Big Bang is meaningless. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?"

 

[octelcogopod]

Precisely. Speaking of time before the concept arose after the Big Bang is meaningless. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?"

Not exactly. We can't say for sure that time was not a concept before the big bang.
If the big bang erupted out of something else, like a higher dimension, then it's fair to at least be open to the possibility that 'time' is not unique to our universe.
For me right now time is almost equivalent to motion anyway.

 

[kldickson]

Whether the universe was 'created'? 'Higher dimensions'?

Methinks you are attempting to drag religious discussion into this. I will warn you quite strongly against it. Not the least of which reasons being that I am an atheist and will happily debate you into the ground about it, if you attempt to justify it with some sort of religious ballyhoo.

Back on topic: If you mean 'what set the Big Bang off' when you say 'why the Big Bang happened to begin with', I suspect it is some physical aspect of the universe; I don't know whether this is totally true, but my first guess would be the natural entropy of the universe, and this explosive expansion would definitely increase the entropy of the universe. Someone with a more extensive physics background than me needs to help me explain this one.

Where all the energy came from? The best I can say is that it just is. Remember that energy and matter are interchangeable and that you can't make something out of nothing.

 

[octelcogopod]

Haha excuse me/ Religious discussion. Oh boy.

I'm mostly talking about the string theory aspects.
But even if string theory didn't exist, it's still quite odd that so much energy would suddenly burst into existence from nothingness.
As for your explanation that 'it just is' explains just about nothing, and can only be interpreted as some argument for an infinite universe.

When I talk about 'what set the big bang off' I do not mean the physics inside the universe. Like I said you can't just create so much energy out of nothingness.
In string theory at least the theory is that there are branes floating in the higher dimension and that these branes collided and set off a big bang.
This seems a lot more likely.. But of course I can't argue for or against its reality..

 

[kldickson]

octelcogopod, perhaps we don't quite have much of a good explanation for it yet.

At present, we don't have the technology to measure much of the things you're talking about; 'it just is' is the best explanation I can produce, given what information is available and logically sound. (And it is entirely possible for some concepts to be outside the purview of human perception, given our perception of time and space.)

I have reservations about embracing strings and branes as fact until there's more than just speculation about it, and indeed, about 'higher dimensions'.

 

[octelcogopod]

I wasn't about to embrace those things as facts either.
I was merely pointing out that time before big bang and the idea that things occurred before the big bang are indeed things to take into account.

 

[kldickson]

I think the notion that time existed before the Big Bang is largely one influenced by our perception of time.

 

[Anticitizen]

Precisely. Speaking of time before the concept arose after the Big Bang is meaningless. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?"

It may be meaningless in the sense of being an undefinable or nonexistent property, but the implications are far from meaningless. It introduces the possibility of alternatives to classical causality.

In the most common model of the Big Bang, one micro-instant (10^-43 seconds) after the Big Bang, the universe was thought to be the Planck Length, (10^-35 meters). At that time, it would have had a temperature of 10^32 kelvins, which is the upper limit for conventional physics. From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html"

The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 10^32 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today.​

Thing is, the moment before that instant, things should have been hotter. If the rules change for energy and matter at that point, it's not too big a stretch to consider that it does so for time as well.

So, it may be 'meaningless' to consider whatever happened before that point 'time' as we know it, but the implications shouldn't be ignored.

 

[octelcogopod]

That's true, but on a merely speculative level.. If the big bang didn't BANG from nothingness, then it MIGHT be possible that the things that make up our universe existed before the big bang. It's merely on a logical level.

Either the universe came from nothing
or
it came from something, and that something may be (and should be) created by at least some of the things in our universe.. And thus it is not unreal to think that time maybe existed before. This may be all false and we may have no idea but I'm just saying.

 

[kldickson]

Actually, if you want a value for the Planck time, it's 5.24x10^-44 seconds.

 

[Anticitizen]

The article was describing how long after the big bang event Planck temperature was reached, not the value of Planck time itself.

 

[kldickson]

My judgments about the 'elegance' of the theory aside ('elegance' is the last thing you should care about when discussing FACT!), they've already 'fused' the electromagnetic and weak forces into the electroweak force and are doing work to fuse the strong force into the electromagnetic and weak forces. The only problem that remains is fusing gravity with those forces.

 

[kldickson]

I'm not totally sure how discussion of Planck units ties into this.

 

[Anticitizen]

Because the Planck units represent the 'upper limit' of classical physics, which is breached by conditions concerning the Big Bang. The point was that since the laws of nature as we know them don't operate according to currently known models at that point, it should be considered that our models of time/causality may not, as well.

That's not to say there is necessarily no causality, or that the question of 'what happened before the big bang?' is meaningless, it just may mean that what we call 'before' (the antecedent) has a different relationship with what happens 'after' (the consequent) than what we traditionally mean when we say that 'X caused Y'.

 

[WaveJumper]

Without an understanding of what space and time really are from all fields of physics(not just classical mechanics), all attempts to convince the skeptics that atheism have got everything right or that Allah or Christ poofed the universe into existence are just hilarious empty talk. This thread is done as far as i am concerned, the monger in me wants to sit back and watch the 'explanations' flow in(based on the old outdated, somewhat atheist-friendly Newtonean worldview of the universe)

 

[octelcogopod]

Without an understanding of what space and time really are from all fields of physics(not just classical mechanics), all attempts to convince the skeptics that atheism have got everything right or that Allah or Christ poofed the universe into existence are just hilarious empty talk. This thread is done as far as i am concerned, the monger in me wants to sit back and watch the 'explanations' flow in.

What is this talk about atheism and how does it fit in here?
And who here has tried to explain anything? If you are referring to any of my posts I was simply airing some of my thoughts. Not to be taken as 'explanations.'

 

[WaveJumper]

What is this talk about atheism and how does it fit in here?
And who here has tried to explain anything? If you are referring to any of my posts I was simply airing some of my thoughts. Not to be taken as 'explanations.'

No, no, i wasn't referring to any of your posts, sorry, i think your posts are balanced and making sense. I was referring to this gem:

"The question of 'why' anything exists implies purposed creation, reason, and logic in the subject of the why. This tends to fly in the face of science but walks right through the door of the church"Also this:

"The OP has a simple question with a simple answer: no."And this insight:

"How many children does the number 5 have? What color is Newton's second law? How long is a square circle? Why does the universe exist? They're all meaningless questions. Just because a question looks syntactically proper doesn't keep it from being a stupid question."

 

[octelcogopod]

Don't apologize, I'm relieved.

 

[baywax]

We all understand cause and effect logic, don't we?

"Why is there a universe the way we see it?"

- An event we are currently unfamiliar with, caused it.

This statement worded like that does not suffer from the extreme explanatory powers of atheism and religions.

No, this statement "Why is there a universe the way we see it?" is answerable via complex neuroscience equations and even a bit of psychiatry. But for the most part, the answer resides in genetics and the natural selection of traits that work toward the survival of our species.

The reason (answer to the "why") we see the universe the way we do is because our senses have evolved to see it that way. And, apparently, they continue to adapt to the barrage of information we continue to implode upon ourselves. All part of the karma that comes with knocking off universe sized mosquitos.

 

[baywax]

"Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?"

I don't think the question is meaningless.

For example, a child might ask..."why is the sky blue?" Immediately you search for the refractory and prismatic reasons behind the blue sky. You do not assume the child is asking for a purpose explaining the blueness of the sky such as "so the leaves look more orange against the sky". Or "because its the blue part of Paul Newman's eyes... looking down on you".

Similarly, understanding why the universe exists means understanding how it came to be... without a doubt. Big bang... something from nothing... how ever it was formed... will we ever understand why this universe exists?

 

[vectorcube]

A scientific theory S is a deductive system in which postulates of such a theory is taken as primitive. The model M of S is what makes every statement of S a true statement in S. The model of S in the actual world. All logically possible words Mi with theory( deductive system) Si. Surely, there is nothing logically necessary about the existence of this world for any 2-tuple ( Mi, Si ) is possible. Why should there be a universe with such and such mathematical structure govern by such and such theory, when there all so many choices to choice from in the set of all logically possible worlds? Why did god pick a such and such particular mathematical structure, and built a universe around it? Could it possibly be that all logically possible worlds exist?

 

[getitright]

I don't think it's any more possible for us to understand why the universe exists than it would be for bacteria to understand why the petri dish exists. The fact of the matter is that our perception is so limited by so many different things that what's "really" there will never be known to anyone species.

Animals without eyes can't comprehend sight, but we can... I don't see why there wouldn't be billions of different things happening that we're missing out on and always will.

tchitt got the spirit of the argument better than I did. I used the word 'faith' to be at peace with those things we don't understand. I put no limits on what we could learn but privately hold the belief that we will blow ourselves up before that could ever happen.

It matters not if you have extreme religion or total science. This sword is sharp on both edges and much harm has been done in the name of both extremes. My point is to search for truth in nature, math, science, AND faith. And Athiesm is a faith - it is just the acknowledgment of no 'diety' other that nature itsself. BTW I'm a Baptist - and it doesn't matter one iota in the discussion.