Philosophy Question: Universe created from what?

[Red Striker]

I was just saying that with my philosophies, I prefer solid ground. I don't care how much evidence and such you can pile up; a theory is still very changeable as new research etc. is found (like you said earlier if I'm not mistaken). That said, it isn't exactly solid ground. Close, but no cigar. That's how it will be till that "suicide note" is found and proven to be the real note.

Btw, I was simply using the "video expression as an example; quite frankly, it could've been any other form of way to gain concrete proof.

And as I said in my last post: if you want to tango with me further on this, take it to PM, please. I care not to clutter this thread with a debate. That sort of situation usually never ends too well.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Look pal, I was just saying that with my philosophies, I prefer solid ground. I don't care how much evidence and such you can pile up; a theory is still very changeable as new research etc. is found (like you said earlier if I'm not mistaken). That said, it isn't exactly solid ground. Close, but no cigar. That's how it will be till that "suicide note" is found.

Btw, I was simply using the "video expression as an example; quite frankly, it could've been any other form of way to gain concrete proof.

And as I said in my last post: if you want to tango with me further on this, take it to PM, please. I care not to clutter this thread with a debate. That sort of situation usually never ends too well.

This is the exact reason this thread exists. Everything in science is changeable if new contradictory evidence comes along. That's called being intellectually honest. We're never going to be 100% certain of anything. If you're looking for 100% certainty, you're completely out of luck -- such a thing is not going to happen -- even for the more well-confirmed theories such as the Theory of Relativity. Bacon can definitely do a better job of explaining why, but the BBT is most certainly on solid ground.

Let's take the previous situation one more time. You said that we haven't found the proverbial suicide note for the BBT. In that situation, the suicide note is not 100% solid evidence -- it is entirely possible that it was forged or he planned to kill himself and got stabbed -- or whatever. It still doesn't lead us to being entirely sure of his suicide. It would, however, be enough to come to a fair conclusion that Winters killed himself, though. This is the same along with the BBT. As bacon said, we've got plenty of evidence supporting the BBT -- some of the most convincing evidence that we, as non-astrophysicists, can understand is in his post above.

Do not be confused by theories being changeable. It would take massive amounts of evidence for us to go from an existing theory to something completely different. When theories change, they are minor changes to account for new evidence. As in my example, my idea that Winters got stabbed changed, but the stabbing, arguably one of the more important points, remain constant. Given the incredibly strong evidence that Winters got stabbed, it would be very difficult to find enough evidence to prove a different cause of death. Similarly, the BBT will not become something completely different in good time. What we know about it is on very solid ground, and what we're shaky on is still being researched. The predictions made by the BBT, such as the universe expanding, have been confirmed time after time. That is fairly solid evidence that we're on the right track at the lest.

 

[Red Striker]

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.

That, sir, is my final address to the situation, and most likely this thread for a while to allow things to cool off. People posted what they thought. Those sentences right there sum up a few of my basings. Now please, let's take this elsewhere if this must go on.

 

[Elite Stride]

Actually, you should continue your discussion here. When you take this conversation to PM, you are in essence killing the discussional purpose of the entire thread. Debate is fine, and encouraged so long as you keep it respectful and civilized (like you guys have been doing for the most part). On that note, I want to remind you that even pseudo-offensive statements towards another member are not welcome here, and i'll be editing out some borderline material i'm seeing.

Don't get offended if somebody has an alternate view, just offer intelligent counter arguments. Keep it nice and keep it coming, there are some really amazing posts here.

 

[safariblade]

I think it's important to reiterate what bacon has said. This question means something. This question is everything. The question of the origin of the universe is one that challenges thinkers to decide what they believe. To shrug it off as minor is just plain dumb. Yes, there is a ton of speculation. Yes, these ideas are 'just theories', but that is what is so beautiful about these ideas. One might be correct. Or maybe none are, and the answer is still undiscovered. Regardless, good to stretch the mind with these topics.

Since we are talking about the Big Bang Theory, I'd like to point out that the theory has almost as many problems as proponents. Before I get into that though, let's understand what the Big Bang Theory actually states. In essence, The Big Bang states that an explosion of unimaginable proportions from a massively dense mass (often called a 'cosmic egg') was brought about by an unknown force. This huge explosion sent out all of the matter in our current universe in the form of massive hydrogen gas clouds. The clouds slowly condensed over billions of years through gravitational forces to form stars, the planets, and all that exists on them.

The theory states that star formation was the result of gravitational forces. Gravity however, is a relatively weak force. (ex. compare it to the force of electromagnetism.) If the Big Bang happened, the expansive pressure of hydrogen gases would've been 10 times stronger than the gravitational pressure of compression that is said to have formed the stars. You may say that through the billions of years, there was enough time to equal the pressure and let gravity take over, but our universe today is only known to have 1% of the necessary mass required for gravitational forces to have formed anything. In other words, gravity did not form together the masses of stars and planets. It's not strong enough. But let's say for a moment that it were. IF it were strong enough to form planets, then logically, the heaviest elements should be in the largest planets. Research actually shows the opposite somehow... The heaviest elements appear more in smaller planets. (ex. Jupiter is HUGE but mainly gases.)

If the theory is true, then the planets in a solar system should rotate in the same direction, which they do not. For example, in our solar system, both Uranus & Venus rotate in the opposite direction of the other planets. In the same way, moons should rotate in the same direction of their mother planets. This is also not true. Additionally, if the theory is true, then both the planets of a local solar system and their moons should be comprised of similar materials. From what we can see, all of the planets and all of their moons are incredibly different. Sir Harold Jeffreys (evolutionary geophysicist) writes: "As suggested, all accounts of the origin of the solar system are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist."

Then there is redshift light. The redshift light from distant stars is commonly stated to prove that the universe is expanding. First of all, redshift does not prove that the universe is expanding. (And if the universe IS expanding, that doesn't actually prove the Big Bang theory by itself) Redshift has many explanations: One is that the universe is rotating, not expanding. Einstein predicted redshift due to gravitational forces. There are even theories that say redshift is the result in the decay of the speed of light. Redshift is a good example of how theories are often used to try to 'prove' theories. This isn't always a bad thing, but I just wanted to point out that redshift is not the most solid evidence for the Big Bang. Also note that when redshift is being discussed to prove an expanding universe, blueshift light is often left out. Yes, we see redshift light, but we also see blueshift light, often from the SAME objects. So that object is moving away from us... and towards us? I'm not so sure.

If the Big Bang happened, it would've produced evenly distributed matter and galaxies throughout the universe, which isn't the case. Many theorists have turned to CDM (Cold, dark matter) as an answer to this fault. CDM is essentially undetected matter that takes up space in order to prove this flaw in The Big Bang.

I think most of the skepticism surrounding the Big Bang theory comes from this. It essentially states that there was nothing, then it became something, and then exploded into everything. I doubt there is anyone who can wrap their brain around this concept. It's pretty amazing. I often wonder if it takes more faith to believe in a creator or to believe in a universe that created itself from nothing.

I think the most intriguing thing about the Big Bang is just how much it would've accomplished. Just think about it. This enormous bang has theoretically produced order, complexity, & intelligence. If the Big Bang is true (whether God initiated it or not) then I am amazed by its outcome. It has done what no other explosion can do. Explosions create disorder, chaos, and randomness. The second law of thermodynamics demands that any system left to itself will go downhill into randomness and disorder. But this one didn't. Some say that it's a lucky chance that we get to sit here and ponder this together. Some say it was the hand of God that orchestrated this perfect explosion. While I personally believe in God, I don't believe that this is the way it went down, but I do admire past thinkers for coming up with this crazy theory. I'd love to to talk more, especially about creation theories if anyone is interested in hearing me ramble some more.

I love this thread. <3

 

[bacon]

There is one misconception that I'd like to address: all of the mass we see in the Universe today was not "squished" into a singularity at the moment of creation. You might actually be surprised to know that the total energy of the entire Universe is hypothesised to be.... Zero. Positive energy in the form of matter, while negative energy manifests itself in the form of gravitational potential. There is no absolute that the Universe depends on when it comes to energy. When we ask "Where did all the matter come from?", it's ultimately tied to expansion.

@ Safari, paragraph 3: Early star formation is indeed a mystery to us. Star formation in general is an awfully complex, subtle and (very) vague field, as it's nigh on impossible for us to observe and study baby stars (protostars) when they are cocooned in their motherly molecular clouds. There are many different processes at work rather than just gravitational contraction when building protostar models. We must also consider electromagnetic effects on ionised (charged/static) material, how molecular/atomic hydrogen releases/absorbs radiation, how the turbulence of massive gas fields behave, how angular momentum (spin in a sense) is disapated... There's an awful lot of stuff going on. Star formation is too complex to capture in simple equations and thus we have to resort to computational models of immense sophistication, but alas these are still.in their infancy.

In short, if there is a problem with star formation (and there is), I'm willing to chalk it up to a lack of knowledge on our part than a problem with the BB specifically!

Now, planets. Gas planets are the most massive, yet contain the lighter elements. This isn't an issue in truth because there's a hell of a lot of gas out there.

When the solar system was forming, all of the planets, asteroids, and comets were nothing more than grains of dust orbiting in a massive disk around the baby Sol. Most of this was Hydrogen, then Helium, then Carbon and Oxygen, then a pinch of everyyhing else, all mixed together. As Sol shone light onto the disk, and as the disk rotated through time, the elements in the disk are thought to have been shuffled into an order of sorts. Lighter elements such as Hydrogen were pushed away due to Sol's radiation, while heavier elements weren't shunted about so easily. When the dust coallesced into planets, this order remained (heavier elements closer to the Sun, lighter further away). This is more or less the picture, albeit terribly simplified.

Our solar system is an anomaly in this way though, many other solar systems have ridiculous layouts such as Jupiter sized objects orbiting their parent stars even closer than Mercury is to ours. We figure planets can migrate too/away from their stars during the evolution of their orbits, but there's not enough data to say why just yet.

Paragraph 4: Most, however, do. The anomalies in rotation are simply (and awesomely) explained by massive asteroid impacts in the early solar system. Impacts so stupidly big so as to knock them spinning the other way. Damn.

I'll respond to more later, still on the damn phone and it's a lengthy process haha

 

[Pokequaza]

I think it's ••• ramble some more.

I love this thread. <3

I shortened your post for convenience.

First, I would like to point out that the Big Bang theory was not an 'explosion', it was an expansion. A lot of people make this mistake, ah well, its name is a little bit misleading, I admit that..

My problem with your argument is that you are presenting a straw man, the Big Bang theory does not tell us how planets and solar systems form, for that you should address to the nebular hypothesis. I am not trying to be a party pooper, but I would like to see some numbers, or at least a few articles saying that gravity could not have made molecular clouds collapse. Gravity alone is not able to clump molecules to form bigger particles, I agree with you on that, but the three other fundamental forces also participate in this show, gravity was a mere shepherd driving the particles together, the other forces took over from there. Also, in solar formation, it is logical that the heavier particles come together near the center of te planetary disk. The lighter elements, which would have been in greater abundance to begin with, would emigrate towards the rim of the planetary disk, thus forming small heavy planets near the star itself, surrounded by bigger lighter planets. How the planets move today is a result gravitational pulling and pushing and impacts of various objects, such as asteroids and other space debris.

Nothing can result in particle of matter, and an anti-matter particle. A universe filled with particles of matter and anti-matter. However this is not the case today. A violation in the Charge conjugation Parity symmetry accounts for this, weak interactions work different if being mirrored, this eventually led to the conquest of matter of anti-matter. Why does this happen? We have no idea, but we know this happens.

 

[Elite Stride]

I think most of the skepticism surrounding the Big Bang theory comes from this. It essentially states that there was nothing, then it became something, and then exploded into everything. I doubt there is anyone who can wrap their brain around this concept. It's pretty amazing. I often wonder if it takes more faith to believe in a creator or to believe in a universe that created itself from nothing.

Such a beautiful post, but this is one of my favorite paragraphs in the whole thread. I was going to mention myself exactly what you seem to have alluded to at the end of your writing. We often think that Evolutionism and Creationism counteract each other, but I'n many ways, you could say that they compliment each other. Why couldn't a divine being clap the universe into existence (aka, a 'Big Bang'); or at least partially? If we are looking at it from a non-secular standpoint, some Christian texts regarding creation are vague enough to invite this possibility.

Furthermore, one might say that there is no factual evidence to support such a claim (which, the case for the Big Bang can hardly be considered solid fact either), but are we really going to sit here and pretend like anything less than an all powerful entity could create something out of nothing? Is the possibility of such an entity any less far-fetched than thinking that simple strands of unsustained nucleic acids could progress into something as complex as the human body? I mean really folks, if you've studied the body in enough depth and toss in basic logic, can you really completely rule out the possibility of something greater at work? Just some things to ponder on.

 

[bacon]

Atrributing the complexity of the Universe to an even more complex and unknowable being is just shifting the question.

It's basically like saying "Well, I can't solve this equation for X, but I can invent a new variable Y and therefore proclaim X=Y! Now I know X!"

It's bad reasoning. If there is a God, then by logical principles He can be deducted. But to say that He is the cause without any proof is a meaningless statement.

As it happens I see no reason to include a God into a Universal model. The fundemental nature if the Universe is to operate without external, absolute references.

 

[safariblade]

Atrributing the complexity of the Universe to an even more complex and unknowable being is just shifting the question.

It's basically like saying "Well, I can't solve this equation for X, but I can invent a new variable Y and therefore proclaim X=Y! Now I know X!"

It's bad reasoning. If there is a God, then by logical principles He can be deducted. But to say that He is the cause without any proof is a meaningless statement.

As it happens I see no reason to include a God into a Universal model. The fundemental nature if the Universe is to operate without external, absolute references.

If I say that God is behind the creation of the universe, I'm not claiming to understand how the universe was created. I'm also not claiming to understand God or how He came about. The only thing claimed is that I believe God is the reason for the universe. I agree that saying He is the cause without proof is meaningless though. I'll get to my reasoning later. I don't understand how you cannot see reason to include God as a possible option though. Essentially, He is just another theory.

Kudos to you for posting everything on your phone btw. That may just be more impressive than our universe. :]

 

[bacon]

It's nice to be having this discussion! A phone's not gonna hold me back from it.

That said, my response to why I see no reason for God's inclusion into a theory-of-everything (which is a totally valid question that I'd love to answer) might have to wait until I can find a proper screen and keyboard. It'll probably be a lengthy one. But no totally obscure physics, promise.

 

[Elite Stride]

Atrributing the complexity of the Universe to an even more complex and unknowable being is just shifting the question.

It's basically like saying "Well, I can't solve this equation for X, but I can invent a new variable Y and therefore proclaim X=Y! Now I know X!"

It's bad reasoning. If there is a God, then by logical principles He can be deducted. But to say that He is the cause without any proof is a meaningless statement.

As it happens I see no reason to include a God into a Universal model. The fundemental nature if the Universe is to operate without external, absolute references

Science would generally suggest that there are things that are simply beyond the current human capacity. While it's a debatable topic, It is said that we only use but a small portion of the brain, that there is a significantly large facet of our intelligence that is never fully discovered. Some scientists, for example, would say that even the laws of physics themselves are just a mere result of the limitations of our capacity (and of course, considering the nature of such propositions, we can never really disprove this). So is shifting the focus to a God really bad reasoning? Have we considered that maybe a God of such magnitude cannot be deducted by our level of logic? Can we really say that nothing in this universe can go beyond our logic, when there are so many things still unknown to us? Certainly not.

Is it really reasonable to include the Evolutionary theories in the Universal model either? We are talking about events that took place (according to theory) over 10 billion years ago. How can anyone in today's world sit there and try to justify a completely complex and diversified process exactly as it happened when we can hardly get straight what was happening before recorded history on Earth? You might say that we observe what happens in the modern Universe and equate it to phenomena that happened oh so many years ago, but if the Universe is constantly changing and expanding, then how can this be equated?

I agree that saying He is the cause without proof is meaningless though.

^ This. If anything is meaningless, it would be tossing out the possibility of divinity.

 

[Pokequaza]

It is said that we only use but a small portion of the brain, that there is a significantly large facet of our intelligence that is never fully discovered.

This. Is a myth. As you might not be aware of this, for the past decades we have machines to look inside a person's head. We certainly do not know what all the parts in our brain can be accounted for, but we know it all matters. All the neurons do something. We cannot just take out the majority of our brain and still be fine. It takes a very small accident to cause a huge impact on a person's brain, and with 90% sitting around doing nothing this does not seem likely.

It is something that I never have understood, some people tend to think we are meaningless (well we are), but as in religion, like puppets bound to a string, yet others, or even the same people, tend to think as well that humanity is the greatest achievement of the universe, with brains of unlimited capacity.

To quote CGPGrey: ''If you think that someone can scoop out 90% of your brain, and still be just fine, then perhaps you really only do use 10% of it.''

 

[Chaos Jackal]

When people say we use 10% of our brain, they don't mean that 90% of our neurons do nothing. 10% of the brain can be used for intelligent discussing, while the remaining 90% acts as data storage, control of insticts, dreams, control of the body etc. At least that's how I see it. Using 10% of the brain means that this percentage is responsible for all the actions you are conscious of. For example, the part of the brain that is responsible for reminding you to breath or keep your heart beating steadily isn't really part of the brain that helps you think logically.

 

[Elite Stride]

First of all, you seem to have a largely skewed view on the meaning of religion, but that is another topic entirely. Not to mention you should reconsider including quotes in your posts that attempt to indirectly attack the intelligence of another, it doesn't promote to a healthy discussion, especially when the quote doesn't accurately address what was actually being said.

ChillBill has so perfectly stated what I haven't had time to write out (until now at least. I'm the one on my phone this time). Nobody here is implying that 90% of the brain is essentially non functioning or that it doesn't "matter" as you've stated . But as I mentioned here....

While it's a debatable topic, It is said that we only use but a small portion of the brain, that there is a significantly large facet of our intelligence that is never fully discovered.... (and of course, considering the nature of such propositions, we can never really disprove this).

If we are imperfect beings who acknowledge the fact that we are not all- knowing (which anyone in tune with reality can agree on), then how can we rule out such a possible scenario as stated above?

 

[Pokequaza]

First of all, you seem to have a largely skewed view on the meaning of religion, but that is another topic entirely. Not to mention you should reconsider including quotes in your posts that attempt to indirectly attack the intelligence of another, it doesn't promote to a healthy discussion, especially when the quote doesn't accurately address what was actually being said.

ChillBill has so perfectly stated what I haven't had time to write out (until now at least. I'm the one on my phone this time). Nobody here is implying that 90% of the brain is essentially non functioning or that it doesn't "matter" as you've stated . But as I mentioned here....

While it's a debatable topic, It is said that we only use but a small portion of the brain, that there is a significantly large facet of our intelligence that is never fully discovered.... (and of course, considering the nature of such propositions, we can never really disprove this).

If we are imperfect beings who acknowledge the fact that we are not all- knowing (which anyone in tune with reality can agree on), then how can we rule out such a possible scenario as stated above?

It is a common internet myth that a human does only use 10% of their brain, but I see you weren't familiar with that.

As I said before, we can actually see what your brain does by, for example, using a CT-scan. And we can see that it is not just a tiny bit being active, but your whole brain working together. From an evolutionary perspective this would be rather counter-intuitive as well.

However, since this isn't the topic of discussion. I would like to quit this particular discussion, unless you want to continue this in another thread or by PM.

 

[bacon]

Elite Stride, before I respond, I would appreciate it if a) You define what "beyond logic" actually means and b) Supply references to credible scientists/philosophers who believe in observables "beyond the human capacity".

I want to be honest, so I will be. Your response to me is not coherent in my eyes.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not going to debate this here. If anyone is sincerely interested then by all means we can chat about it via PM.

 

[safariblade]

That said, my response to why I see no reason for God's inclusion into a theory-of-everything (which is a totally valid question that I'd love to answer) might have to wait...

I'm not sure why you are suddenly choosing to not discuss things here, but even so, I'd like a PM when you get the chance.

 

[Dork Void]

Creating theories that cannot be proved or disproved and have no evidence supporting or acting against them is pointless. "We could be able to defy the laws of physics if our minds weren't holding us back" is about as useful to say as "3000 feet of solid rock under my house is Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory." It might be true, but there is 0 evidence supporting it and it cannot impact us in the slightest until it is proved, which it will not be, so what is the point?

Back to the op, a belief, hypothesis, idea, whatever you want to call it, that I've mulled over for some time is that as the universe and beings on it become more advanced they will eventually trigger the destruction of this universe and the resulting creation of another universe (or perhaps the beginning of the same one) which will lead to its eventual destruction and the creation of another universe, etc., etc. until our own universe is created again. To put it simply, we are living in a time paradox created by our own actions. Now, you cannot strictly disprove this. However, you can't really prove it as opposed to any other theories either. I can say that as time wears on, eventually an action that ends it must happen and turn this universe into a new one-but that's not strictly true. Instead, an action can be taken that causes the repeat of time over and over to infinity (think two chess players reaching the same position over and over with no variation). So, my belief/hypothesis/idea/whatever can not be proven or disproven. But because of this, we might as well just disregard it and refocus our energies to determining whether or not something that might possibly be proven is true or not.

 

[Elite Stride]

Sure, if either of you would like to discuss it more, we can take any further debate on this sub-topic to PM, but I will offer my final thoughts since you guys so graciously took the time to respond. :]

It is a common internet myth that a human does only use 10% of their brain, but I see you weren't familiar with that.

As I said before, we can actually see what your brain does by, for example, using a CT-scan. And we can see that it is not just a tiny bit being active, but your whole brain working together. From an evolutionary perspective this would be rather counter-intuitive as well.

However, since this isn't the topic of discussion. I would like to quit this particular discussion, unless you want to continue this in another thread or by PM.

I actually wouldn't really be able to respond to this any further in a PM. Your post tells me that you didn't really read the previous response by myself or ChillBill that directly addresses your points. You haven't considered the "They say" on your side, which is key to providing any meritable counter argument. So again, there isn't much to add when you make the same post twice.

Elite Stride, before I respond, I would appreciate it if a) You define what "beyond logic" actually means and b) Supply references to credible scientists/philosophers who believe in observables "beyond the human capacity".

I want to be honest, so I will be. Your response to me is not coherent in my eyes.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not going to debate this here. If anyone is sincerely interested then by all means we can chat about it via PM.

To answer the question regarding the meaning behind "beyond logic", I would try not to look into that phrase too deeply. It means exactly what it means within the sentence I used it. Basically the point there is that If we can admit that human reasoning isn't at perfection, then we must consequently accept that there is perfection (or at the least, something more beyond our capacity). To use a simple analogy, It's like walking into a room and making the observation that the room is half-full of people. How can we make this quantification (1/2 full) unless we have already accepted that the room has the potential to be completely full? Similarly, unless we can say that humans are essentially mentally perfect, we have to recognize, AT LEAST, the potential that there are things we can't deduce on our level of mental capability. (The unfathomable)

Since this little sub-topic is coming to a close, finding specific scientists references can be your own prerogative. A simple google search will provide you an array of opinions on the topic, but whether they be from scientists or not it wouldn't matter because again: given the nature of this whole proposition, nobody would really be able to disprove it. If it cannot be disproved, then we can't entirely rule out the possibility. None of my posts here have been intended to support any of these ideas as solid fact. My purpose was to play devil's advocate and defend the idea as a perfectly sound possibility.

Creating theories that cannot be proved or disproved and have no evidence supporting or acting against them is pointless. "We could be able to defy the laws of physics if our minds weren't holding us back" is about as useful to say as "3000 feet of solid rock under my house is Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory." It might be true, but there is 0 evidence supporting it and it cannot impact us in the slightest until it is proved, which it will not be, so what is the point?

Why is a theory that can't be disproved pointless? If there is nothing to falsify the proposition, then the theory in question should still be considered a legitimate possibility. Regarding your last sentence, The Big Bang isn't a solid proven fact either, so what is the point?

--------------------------------------------------------
Alright, that's as far off topic as I'll be going now. I'll be happy to reply to PM's. I apologize for the off-topic post, but I mean to clarify what was being said. At the same time, it's almost acceptable because overall, we are still discussing a facet of the main issue. We can't all simply state what the universe was created from and just leave it at that, the topic invites further discussions.