Philosophy Question: Universe created from what?

Blah

Blah

DBT
Member
Regardless of what you believe, most people agree that the world was created in some way, weather it be created by a God or some other supernatural being or created by an series of events including the Big Bang.

But now think about this. Where did the materials to make the Earth and the rest of the universe come from in the first place? If the Big Bang began with the compression of tons of particles, where did those particles come from? Does this prove religion is correct? Or does this prove that something really can be made from nothing? Maybe there's an alternate universe where these things can happen.

Now that your brain hurts, DISCUSS.
 
Let's say we have theory X and theory Y. They are opposing theories about the same concept. If theory X is proved false, that does not mean that theory Y is true. Think about that. Second, PB has a pretty strict no-religion policy. People are too illogical and attached to their own beliefs to be open to debate when it comes to religion. No intelligent discussion can come from it... only bickering and whining.

I'd highly recommend you ask this on a science based forum... anywhere else you ask this question will give you answers that are uninformed to the cutting-edge scientific studies. This isn't a philosophy question at all. Philosophy deals more with rational arguments to prove that a belief is true. Typically, philosophical debates are on a moral grey area where there is no clear right or wrong answer. This is a scientific issue that has a right answer, we are just fairly unsure as to what that answer is. Once again, if you are truly interested, go to a science forum. Perhaps read A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking. I'd also recommend you watch Cosmos with Carl Sagan. There is a slew of great information on this topic if you care to read about it. Pokebeach is not the place to go looking for this type of information.

*clicky*

Ridiculous lock reason on a topic w/ much potential. Reopened for discussion. ~ES
 
Hey, I don't have tons of information on this, but maybe matter is really "born" out of nothingness, with of course, anti-matter. Although, I have heard somewhere (forgot the source) that there are less anti-matter than matter in the whole universe.

As for me, I do not like to adventure myself into these topics, since there s no way one could demonstrate what is beyond the universe for now, when no one can clearly explain the universe itself. It s like looking at a top of a tree, with all the branches, and say that the whole is a gathering of vertical stick, while we all know that these branches are supported by a trunk.

Therefore, as zero suggested, hawking s best selling book should give u a brief explanation of human knowledge of the universe's story.

And meh, imho, not much can be debated over here lol.
 
Well this was revived, but I'll leave it open. (EDIT: I think ES opened it. :])
Discuss!
 
I don't know.
To be honest I don't care.
If you tell me to explain matter, I'll tell you to explain God. So we don't know. It cannot prove anything, and it is just one of those things we have no hope of knowing and should just glaze over.
Thank you for listening.
 
"As for me, I do not like to adventure myself into these topics, since there s no way one could demonstrate what is beyond the universe for now, when no one can clearly explain the universe itself."

"I don't know.
To be honest I don't care."

Forgive me, but I'm a little dumbfounded by these responses.

This is the big bang. This is the single most important event that has ever happened throughout the entire history of the Universe.

Why the hell aren't you curious about that?

Let's get a couple of things straight about Life, the Universe, and Everything. There is no reason to suspect that the origins of the Universe cannot be divined. I'm not really sure where you pulled that one out from, but please stop waving it around and put it back. At the very least we can assume either

a) The Universe had a cause, in which case the properties of the cause will link to properties of the effect. Hence, the cause can be divined.

or

b) The Universe is a self contained entity that through some process managed to create itself (we'll skip peculiarities such as "before time?" for now), in which case the blueprints for that self creation are stored within the Universe's physical laws.

I'm not gonna get into leading scientific theories like M-theory or interesting philosophical interpretations like Monistic Idealism, because it's really beside the point. The logic that the big bang is very important, very mysterious, but possible to understand is all there for you already. It's clearly an event which is deserves far more respect than "dunno, don't care", right?

You are a consciousness. You are fortunate enough to be a member of the most intelligent species of animal on the entire planet. Each of the 10 trillion cells in your body can store enough data to encode 30 copies of Encyclopedia Britanica. Your brain houses more synaptic connections than there are stars in the galaxy, of which there are over 100 billion of.

All of this, and much more, is the result of physical laws encoded into the Universe. Aren't you even a teensy bit curious about how all of that began?

I mean shit guys.

EDIT: We can get more into the origin of matter at a later point. For now let's just assume you should care an awful lot about this!
 
Although the theory is that something can't be made of nothing, scientists at CERN have managed to create anti-matter, and research of the scientific community is trying to prove the existence of the Higgs bosone, the 'Particle of God'. So who knows? Anything is possible.
Actually, of the many theories, I like this one: the only way to create matter from nothing is to use an insane amount of energy. In other words, the origin of creation, whether you call it God, Allah, Luck or anything is just energy.
Just a theory. But an iinteresting one.
 
The materials are easily explained of how did they formed later:

We first have Hydrogen which is the 97% of the matter in the Universe. Stars use Hydrogen and "fuse" and there are lots of energy released. It converts into Helium and that happens with the light elements. Once the star becomes a Super Nova, lots of heavier elements are released. That is how the elements that are on Earth came to be.

Why did the Big Bang happened? That is got to be a hard one. It may have been too much energy and matter being stored in a tiny that it made it explode. It may have been some divine power, be it God or some people say that super intelligent aliens from another Universe created this one.
 
ChillBill said:
Although the theory is that something can't be made of nothing, scientists at CERN have managed to create anti-matter, and research of the scientific community is trying to prove the existence of the Higgs bosone, the 'Particle of God'. So who knows? Anything is possible.
Actually, of the many theories, I like this one: the only way to create matter from nothing is to use an insane amount of energy. In other words, the origin of creation, whether you call it God, Allah, Luck or anything is just energy.
Just a theory. But an iinteresting one.
Click to expand...

The name 'The God Particle' was given by the media, it wasn't the idea of the scientists who theorized it, and even the media did not mean to refer to any religious beliefs whatsoever, they just didn't know what they were talking about.

A universe from nothing is possible; 0 = -1 + 1. It is really that simple. However, whether it was governed by some universal law, and thus must've happened anyway, or was a product of pure chance, is a far more interesting question.
 
The term "God Particle" is not used only by the media. And of course, it has nothing to do with religion. The Higgs bosone has that nickname because it's an ideal particle whose form and composition can explain the universe. If it really exists, then its discovery may unlock the secrets of the universe.
 
The first thread I had ever made was reopened.

Not sure if I should be happy or be ashamed at how n00by I was back then x___x.


I think I agree with the point that it's currently extremely difficult to prove where the matter actually came from in the first place.
 
Arceus created the universe.

To me, it doesn't really matter. We're here and that's all that matters. Plus, the more we know, the more dangerous we as humans become.
 
For a while, I had followed the principles of "God" when I was younger - around the age range from seven to maybe even ten or eleven. Philosophical belief is something in which you must discover for yourself in order to really, truly hold dear to. I once hopped from wagon to wagon, taking in any belief that came to me - most in which being "God" related - but eventually, after gradual thinking for about a year (it wasn't something I heavily thought about), I came to my own philosophies to which remain independent of any ruling "being" or even science for that matter.

In my honest opinion, I find that there are somethings, perhaps, that mankind was never meant to know. The creation of all this - the universe, our world, life itself - is probably just one of those things. I prefer factual evidence, hence why in my philosophies, both The Big Bang Theory and and form of a godly figure is ruled out. There is simply no way to back them up with evidence that can be further backed up with more physical, concrete evidence; the Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory. If it could be proven, it wouldn't be a theory to begin with. A great figure of warship on the other hand typically relies on faith, which is simply belief. As we evolve, the human nature to want to discover curiosities grows. For the longest of times, all we have been doing is creating theories to no avail (no offense to anyone, but I also kinda see religion as a form of theory). But this is alright, as so long as that craving is held off with a simple "solution" (a theory in this case, whether big or small), then we are satisfied, and in the meantime, will find more to edge off our cravings.



To those who might seem offended by this post: my apologies. I know religion and such is a touchy subject, but just realize that these are only my own aspects on this kind of topic.
 
The Big Bang happened because there was a Big Crush. It's the opposite of the Big Bang, where all of the particles in the universe come together into a finite point, and then explodes in a rush of Hydrogen and the other elements. Eventually, the universe will come together again into another Big Crush, when there will be another Big Bang. It's a cycle, and it will continue for eternity.

Imagine a Sine wave and a Cosine wave. They intersect, branch off from each other, then they come back in and intersect again. The idea is very similar to that. This is what I believe in, and it makes sense. The Big Bang happened because it always happened, and it always will happen. Of course, this could then lead into discussions about when it first started, but then it's the same question as "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
 
Red Striker said:
In my honest opinion, I find that there are somethings, perhaps, that mankind was never meant to know. The creation of all this - the universe, our world, life itself - is probably just one of those things. I prefer factual evidence, hence why in my philosophies, both The Big Bang Theory and and form of a godly figure is ruled out. There is simply no way to back them up with evidence that can be further backed up with more physical, concrete evidence; the Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory. If it could be proven, it wouldn't be a theory to begin with. A great figure of warship on the other hand typically relies on faith, which is simply belief. As we evolve, the human nature to want to discover curiosities grows. For the longest of times, all we have been doing is creating theories to no avail (no offense to anyone, but I also kinda see religion as a form of theory). But this is alright, as so long as that craving is held off with a simple "solution" (a theory in this case, whether big or small), then we are satisfied, and in the meantime, will find more to edge off our cravings.



To those who might seem offended by this post: my apologies. I know religion and such is a touchy subject, but just realize that these are only my own aspects on this kind of topic.
Click to expand...
This "just a theory" thing has to go. A theory is one of the highest points in science. Theories are well-confirmed explanations of natural occurances that, in general, have some form of predictive power that can be supported or falsified. Theories are based on mountains of evidence and are changed when new evidence comes along. Theories can certainly be falsified, but up until this point, the theories we have stand on mountains of evidence in favor of them. Your post demonstrates the type of intellectual laziness that is plaguing the scientific literacy of our country. You have confused the word "theory" in "Big Bang Theory" with a hypothesis, which it is certainly not. The BBT is not a guess or a conclusion that we started with and use evidence to support. It is a conclusion that we made after making countless observations. The BBT is very far from a hypothesis.

Now that we're done with that, I looked up Captain Pidgey's Big Crunch (Crush also came up) idea. This seems to smell very much of pseudo-science all around. There has been very little written about it and the majority of articles written by actual scientists that I've found have said that it is an attractive hypothesis, but would require far more research to support. As far as your analogy to sinusoidal waves, the issue with that is that sin waves expand to a maximum amplitude and then retract back to their initial value. Our universe is constantly expanding, but, as far as I know, we don't have any reason to assume that the universe can or will retract. Pidgey, would you care to link what research or article lead you to accept this idea? Maybe it'd be more useful for us.

I'll post more later... this topic certainly has a lot of potential. As bacon said, the origin of our universe is probably one of the most important things... ever... It'd be fantastic if we could get a viewpoint of an actual scientist working in the field. Most of us are either students or working somewhere that isn't theoretical physics, so I'd doubt most of us know a ton about the existing theories and research surrounding the field. That's it for me now :)

EDIT: quick side note. If you're going to discuss this topic, please don't be intellectually lazy. Explain your points and if you can, back up your arguments. "god did it" or "I dunno" are not good arguments.
 
I actually have a master's degree in Astrophysics if that's any help haha

My internet access is limited to what I can type on my smart phone for now, which isn't super for typing long posts, but I'll do my best

Regarding the Big Bang, there are three lovely pieces of evidence supporting it:

a) The Universe is observed to be expanding in all directions, which we know by measuring the velocity of observable galaxies, all (aside from Andromeda) are receding away from us. If you're not savvy with this, simply Google "galactic redshift"

b) As alluded to earlier in the thread, the Big Bang model accounts for the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the present Universe. The temperature profile predicted by the Big Bang model accounts for this wonderfully (I could even demonstrate the equation if I find a better computer...). As an aside, it also predicts the current temperature of the cosmic background radiation (2.7 Kelvin iirc) with astonishing accuracy.

c) The Universe is not evenly distributed. Rather, matter has clumped together to formgalaxies and galactic clusters. Matter behaves chaotically, but only on a small.scale (quantum theory, we can chat about that too if anyone is interested).

(phone is awful at this, part two of post)

...so in order for those small random effects to influence the Universe on a large scale, the Universe must have originally been rather tiny. In truth point c is way more sophisticated than what I've been able to address, so please read more about "cosmic microwave background" on Wiki or something!

Regarding bouncy oscillating Universe model:

Yeah, it's a cute theory, and it recieved some recognition in the past, although it's so much a theory as "dude, wouldn't it be cool if....?" speculation. It's not treated seriously now. The current paradigm is a Universe with an /accelerating/ expansion, with no room to go back and contract. So if anything, we're ending on a rip, not a crunch!

More to come later maybe, I'd love to elaborate more
 
ChillBill said:
The term "God Particle" is not used only by the media. And of course, it has nothing to do with religion. The Higgs bosone has that nickname because it's an ideal particle whose form and composition can explain the universe. If it really exists, then its discovery may unlock the secrets of the universe.
Click to expand...

No, again, that is popularized by the media as well, the Higgs boson doesn't explain the universe, nor will it unlock any secrets. Its existence confirms the Higgs field, which explains why some fundamental particles have mass. There is still a lot more that is waiting to be discovered. The Higgs particle gained more popularity due to the fact that it was quite difficult to detect, rather than being so extremely important; Not that it is not important, but the media exaggerates things, as usual..
 
This "just a theory" thing has to go. Please go take a science class before discussing this type of thing. A theory is one of the highest points in science. Theories are well-confirmed explanations of natural occurances that, in general, have some form of predictive power that can be supported or falsified. Theories are based on mountains of evidence and are changed when new evidence comes along. Theories can certainly be falsified, but up until this point, the theories we have stand on mountains of evidence in favor of them. Your post demonstrates the type of intellectual laziness that is plaguing the scientific literacy of our country. You have confused the word "theory" in "Big Bang Theory" with a hypothesis, which it is certainly not. The BBT is not a guess or a conclusion that we started with and use evidence to support. It is a conclusion that we made after making countless observations. The BBT is very far from a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can formulate what might've happened, but I want to know what actually happened. Tell me; can you prove to me that it really did happen? Sure, there's the evidence and precise calculations etc., but it doesn't really tell me the full details of an occurance, like a video tape when busing a criminal. If you'd like to prove to me that we can physically prove the BBT really did happen, say, right this very moment, my PMing inbox is feeling lonely.

You can try to confirm things as much as you like if you haven't witnessed something for yourself; that doesn't mean you'll end up with a concrete answer all the time.
 
Red Striker said:
This "just a theory" thing has to go. Please go take a science class before discussing this type of thing. A theory is one of the highest points in science. Theories are well-confirmed explanations of natural occurances that, in general, have some form of predictive power that can be supported or falsified. Theories are based on mountains of evidence and are changed when new evidence comes along. Theories can certainly be falsified, but up until this point, the theories we have stand on mountains of evidence in favor of them. Your post demonstrates the type of intellectual laziness that is plaguing the scientific literacy of our country. You have confused the word "theory" in "Big Bang Theory" with a hypothesis, which it is certainly not. The BBT is not a guess or a conclusion that we started with and use evidence to support. It is a conclusion that we made after making countless observations. The BBT is very far from a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can formulate what might've happened, but I want to know what actually happened. Tell me; can you prove to me that it really did happen? Sure, there's the evidence and precise calculations etc., but it doesn't really tell me the full details of an occurance, like a video tape when busing a criminal. If you'd like to prove to me that we can physically prove the BBT really did happen, say, right this very moment, my PMing inbox is feeling lonely.

You can try to confirm things as much as you like if you haven't witnessed something for yourself; that doesn't mean you'll end up with a concrete answer all the time.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Let's pretend we're two detectives for a second. Old Man Winters died and we have to find out who murdered him and how. I made the observation that he has open cuts in his chest, so I postulate that he got stabbed. My position is based on all available data and knowledge that stab wounds come from stabbings. This position is not on amazingly solid grounds, so it is very open to change. You agree that there are open cuts, but are skeptical of the hypothesized cause of death. Later on, we find a knife with the man's blood on it. This pretty clearly supports my case. Eventually, though, we are able to, with our great detective skills, find a suicide letter left by Old Man Winters. I admit that I was close but incorrect, and change my theory from him getting stabbed to him stabbing himself in the chest -- no one else did it.

This is where we are now in this conversation. You're taking the point that unless we can procure video evidence of him stabbing himself, you are going to fail to take a side. All of the evidence that we have leads to suicide. My original hypothesis was slightly off, so we had to change it to match the evidence. Now if we found... let's say lethal drugs in his system, our case would be totally different so the idea that he committed suicide is certainly falsifiable... but everything we've collected supports the suicide theory.


That being said, like in all fields of research, there is a lot of uncertainty in scientific research. We try to use our limited knowledge to create models and whatnot that best fit the data that we have collected. They are not perfect and we obviously don't know everything about everything, but to throw everything out because we cannot map out the entirety of an event is ridiculous. Thus far, the best leading explanation of the origin of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. Can it be falsified? Definitely. Has it been? Not yet. Even so, you'd be better off rephrasing the BBT as "what might have happened" to "the best available explanation of a natural event that we have with our limited knowledge". We can be here all day coming up with what might have happened but no other explanations have the support and backing up that the BBT has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top