The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Page 5 of 8 [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

14 Apr 2014, 4:37 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
I had a dream about this last night. We are going on a ride centered around this theory. We started off in a cylinder tube and feel downward, steep, down fast, as if to the infinities, and it felt AMAZING.

My colleague was like how could I be so STUPID for not considering the cylinder! I was too focused on the rectangle as being the origin of all life!

It really didn't make any sense but it was quite a journey.


I have dreams like that sometimes. It can be my subconscious' / intuitive mind way of figuring something out and telling the conscious / intellectual mind something it has discovered. Sometimes my dreams are really bizarre and surreal and try to make sense of things thought about or encountered during the day - especially if they aren't related like a late night episode of Dexter being merged with planting some seeds in my garden. :lol: I've paid attention to such dreams ever since I was a student on placement with the British govt. doing some mathematical modelling / research. I'd hit a problem trying to work out the math to describe a huge array of some real world data points. The problem had been driving me nuts for over a week; then I had a dream where I saw the solution - it even woke me up I was so excited and scribbled some notes down. The following day I programmed the mathematical solution I'd dreamed into the Cray mainframe and it worked!


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Bodyles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 808
Location: Southern California

14 Apr 2014, 5:06 am

TallyMan wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
I did not meant the laws of the Universe, we can always conceptualize other universes with differents laws, like stronger gravitation or a different speed of light. What I meant is the structure on which are based those laws; mathematics and informations. Universes are (If they are many.) built on mathematic, but on what is built mathematic? Why the theorem of Pythagor and why pi is 3.14159... and so on? This remain a mystery beyond the realm of modern science, and possibly forever beyond, as it's beyond it's vocabulary.


In my opinion the fundamental basis of reality IS mathematics. Even if no universe existed, one could still argue the validity of mathematics and the validity of Pythagoras' theorem for right angled triangles on a flat plane. Mathematics itself is built on basic logical aphorisms such as 1 + 1 = 2. Mathematics is universal and non-changing. An alien in a distant galaxy would also deduce the same Pythagoras theorem except it may be called Zorg's theorem :lol: However you look at it, the roots and basis of the universe appear to be mathematical. Mathematics is outside of time (its rules don't change over time). It is outside of physical reality too and yet is the basis of physical reality. If there is such a thing as a prime mover it isn't a god, it is mathematics.


Ok, you can say that but then there's Godel's Theorem, which proves using math that any system of logic must be either incomplete or inconsistent.
So we know that mathematics, which is a system of logic, must be either incomplete or inconsistent, which is problem if the basis of reality is mathematics.

Got a way out of that nasty little catch-22?



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

14 Apr 2014, 6:07 am

Bodyles wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
I did not meant the laws of the Universe, we can always conceptualize other universes with differents laws, like stronger gravitation or a different speed of light. What I meant is the structure on which are based those laws; mathematics and informations. Universes are (If they are many.) built on mathematic, but on what is built mathematic? Why the theorem of Pythagor and why pi is 3.14159... and so on? This remain a mystery beyond the realm of modern science, and possibly forever beyond, as it's beyond it's vocabulary.


In my opinion the fundamental basis of reality IS mathematics. Even if no universe existed, one could still argue the validity of mathematics and the validity of Pythagoras' theorem for right angled triangles on a flat plane. Mathematics itself is built on basic logical aphorisms such as 1 + 1 = 2. Mathematics is universal and non-changing. An alien in a distant galaxy would also deduce the same Pythagoras theorem except it may be called Zorg's theorem :lol: However you look at it, the roots and basis of the universe appear to be mathematical. Mathematics is outside of time (its rules don't change over time). It is outside of physical reality too and yet is the basis of physical reality. If there is such a thing as a prime mover it isn't a god, it is mathematics.


Ok, you can say that but then there's Godel's Theorem, which proves using math that any system of logic must be either incomplete or inconsistent.
So we know that mathematics, which is a system of logic, must be either incomplete or inconsistent, which is problem if the basis of reality is mathematics.

Got a way out of that nasty little catch-22?


You raise a good and interesting point. I'll have to ponder that. At first glance I wonder if this incompleteness or inconsistency is associated with uncertainty / random events at the quantum level?


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Apr 2014, 6:19 am

TallyMan wrote:
Bodyles wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
I did not meant the laws of the Universe, we can always conceptualize other universes with differents laws, like stronger gravitation or a different speed of light. What I meant is the structure on which are based those laws; mathematics and informations. Universes are (If they are many.) built on mathematic, but on what is built mathematic? Why the theorem of Pythagor and why pi is 3.14159... and so on? This remain a mystery beyond the realm of modern science, and possibly forever beyond, as it's beyond it's vocabulary.


In my opinion the fundamental basis of reality IS mathematics. Even if no universe existed, one could still argue the validity of mathematics and the validity of Pythagoras' theorem for right angled triangles on a flat plane. Mathematics itself is built on basic logical aphorisms such as 1 + 1 = 2. Mathematics is universal and non-changing. An alien in a distant galaxy would also deduce the same Pythagoras theorem except it may be called Zorg's theorem :lol: However you look at it, the roots and basis of the universe appear to be mathematical. Mathematics is outside of time (its rules don't change over time). It is outside of physical reality too and yet is the basis of physical reality. If there is such a thing as a prime mover it isn't a god, it is mathematics.


Ok, you can say that but then there's Godel's Theorem, which proves using math that any system of logic must be either incomplete or inconsistent.
So we know that mathematics, which is a system of logic, must be either incomplete or inconsistent, which is problem if the basis of reality is mathematics.

Got a way out of that nasty little catch-22?


You raise a good and interesting point. I'll have to ponder that. At first glance I wonder if this incompleteness or inconsistency is associated with uncertainty / random events at the quantum level?


I have a problem with irrational numbers. They are used to represent finite space in the real world, yet, they never end i.e., we can never know the *complete answer* to computing a finite space with the length of say the (square root of 2) , or Pi.



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

14 Apr 2014, 6:26 am

Bodyles wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
I did not meant the laws of the Universe, we can always conceptualize other universes with differents laws, like stronger gravitation or a different speed of light. What I meant is the structure on which are based those laws; mathematics and informations. Universes are (If they are many.) built on mathematic, but on what is built mathematic? Why the theorem of Pythagor and why pi is 3.14159... and so on? This remain a mystery beyond the realm of modern science, and possibly forever beyond, as it's beyond it's vocabulary.


In my opinion the fundamental basis of reality IS mathematics. Even if no universe existed, one could still argue the validity of mathematics and the validity of Pythagoras' theorem for right angled triangles on a flat plane. Mathematics itself is built on basic logical aphorisms such as 1 + 1 = 2. Mathematics is universal and non-changing. An alien in a distant galaxy would also deduce the same Pythagoras theorem except it may be called Zorg's theorem :lol: However you look at it, the roots and basis of the universe appear to be mathematical. Mathematics is outside of time (its rules don't change over time). It is outside of physical reality too and yet is the basis of physical reality. If there is such a thing as a prime mover it isn't a god, it is mathematics.


Ok, you can say that but then there's Godel's Theorem, which proves using math that any system of logic must be either incomplete or inconsistent.
So we know that mathematics, which is a system of logic, must be either incomplete or inconsistent, which is problem if the basis of reality is mathematics.

Got a way out of that nasty little catch-22?


I'm not sure it makes sense to say that mathematics is the basis of reality. I prefer to simply say that mathematical models are a convenient tools for describing what we perceive as reality and just generally getting by in everyday life.

When a ball is thrown in the air, it's useful to know that the ball will follow a parabolic arc. If we know the initial velocity, we can then determine when it will land. So math helps answer practical questions about reality. (I guess I'm stating the obvious). But why does it follow a parabolic arc? One could answer this question and if they were to go very very deep into it they could go on for pages and pages and it would never end. Even though it's pretty simple if you just want to know the basics.

I wonder if Godel's theorem could be extended to show that the existence of God can never be proven or disproven.

Also, I don't think this article intends to make that connection. The short and long of it is, God has absolutely nothing to do with either math or logic. I'm not saying that be condescending to anyone. It's just that they are different realms. God is in fluffy fluffy bubble land and math anchors itself in reality. It's down and dirty like a cold hard autopsy bench. I'm just using a metaphor that doesn't make much sense.

Some people praise math like they praise God. I think math is beautiful but it's not God-like IMO.

None of this diminishes the importance of the work that was done by these physicists mentioned in the article. We're always learning more.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

14 Apr 2014, 6:38 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
I have a problem with irrational numbers. They are used to represent finite space in the real world, yet, they never end i.e., we can never know the *complete answer* to computing a finite space with the length of say the (square root of 2) , or Pi.


I wonder if nature is actually based on irrational numbers or just extremely tiny integers? i.e. plank length, plank time as the smallest units of length and time. Such a regime would result in a digital universe rather than an analogue one.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

14 Apr 2014, 7:21 am

This is probably my second to last post. I think finishing on 2222 would be quite neat. Logical or illogical?


Anyway, Universe

how about it is an endless sea of awareness without beginning or end within which everything conceivable and inconceivable can and does exist in whatever way, form, shape, state etc. etc. possible and also impossible and improbable and other ..

So our perceivable Universe is like a pimple in this big matrix and it has it's own Rules and stuff, because ..well, have you ever played with toys? You immediately start laying down rules of existence as soon as you set to create any type of Universe, and it seems probable that the laws of the Universe will be reflected in everything in it, so, we extrapolate upwards, as it were. So maybe the Universe is expanding and contracting at the same time. Why not? Just because we would find it difficult to get our minds around that concept, it doesn't mean that it can't exist. Why? Because.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,732

14 Apr 2014, 9:06 am

WELL..

there's a revolution orange going on 'write'
now for those who do not rely on ONLY symbols
to know..
WHAT IS..

FOR THOSE
who expand their being
beyond limited forms..
like letters..numbers..WORDS..
and math equations..
and the houses and clothing
they live in (!metaphor alert!)

that only provide a skeleton
and structure for communication
of ALLITIS..

That again..
IS much more for those who see..hear..
and speak..
without eyes..ears..or tongue...

The world is a much bigger place
than
a math book...

OH GOD..
THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE..
AT THE CORE LEVEL
OF
COMMON SENSE...

THERE ARE TOO MANY
WTF'S HERE...

THEY MAKE MY HEAD WANT TO EXPLODE..;)

but not my brain...:)
and haha..that's just a metaphor2..
i am at complete bliss and peace STILL...:)

BUT SOMETIMES IT'S LIKE BANGING ONE'S HEAD
ON A BRICK WALL..
TO ATTEMPT TO BREAK THROUGH
'A' WALL...;)

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2014/04/14 ... ion-orange

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U[/youtube]


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Bodyles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 808
Location: Southern California

14 Apr 2014, 6:26 pm

TallyMan wrote:
Bodyles wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
I did not meant the laws of the Universe, we can always conceptualize other universes with differents laws, like stronger gravitation or a different speed of light. What I meant is the structure on which are based those laws; mathematics and informations. Universes are (If they are many.) built on mathematic, but on what is built mathematic? Why the theorem of Pythagor and why pi is 3.14159... and so on? This remain a mystery beyond the realm of modern science, and possibly forever beyond, as it's beyond it's vocabulary.


In my opinion the fundamental basis of reality IS mathematics. Even if no universe existed, one could still argue the validity of mathematics and the validity of Pythagoras' theorem for right angled triangles on a flat plane. Mathematics itself is built on basic logical aphorisms such as 1 + 1 = 2. Mathematics is universal and non-changing. An alien in a distant galaxy would also deduce the same Pythagoras theorem except it may be called Zorg's theorem :lol: However you look at it, the roots and basis of the universe appear to be mathematical. Mathematics is outside of time (its rules don't change over time). It is outside of physical reality too and yet is the basis of physical reality. If there is such a thing as a prime mover it isn't a god, it is mathematics.


Ok, you can say that but then there's Godel's Theorem, which proves using math that any system of logic must be either incomplete or inconsistent.
So we know that mathematics, which is a system of logic, must be either incomplete or inconsistent, which is problem if the basis of reality is mathematics.

Got a way out of that nasty little catch-22?


You raise a good and interesting point. I'll have to ponder that. At first glance I wonder if this incompleteness or inconsistency is associated with uncertainty / random events at the quantum level?


Well no, it has to do with the fact that in every system of logic you can say the equivalent of 'This sentence is a lie.' and it will parse logically but it's an infinite loop.
Actually, it was an unfair question and I apologize for the ambush.
I just thought you were overreaching a bit with your statement about mathematics being the basis of reality and so I thought I'd throw a little irrationality your way to keep you on your toes.

There's actually a simple way out of it:
Since we have access to many different systems of logic we can generally cover all contingencies, just not within a single system.

@LoveNotHate:
Irrational numbers can be represented concretely as ratios of rational numbers and in relation to each other.
After all, e^(pi*i) = -1.
There's a direct relationship between the two main irrational mathematical constants and the square root of -1, an imaginary number.

When I was young, I used to think that if I learned enough, dug deep enough, that I'd eventually find some deeper meaning of or at least explanation for the world.
I looked in math.
I looked in physics.
I looked in philosophy.

However, it wasn't until I combined them that I came to any decent understanding of why the world is the way it is, how it exists as it does, and generally what to expect from it.
Unfortunately, it's not really an insight I've been able to successfully share with anyone who hadn't already gotten there themselves because it involves strange, counter-intuitive mathematical theories applied to modern physics & ancient philosophy in a particular way to obtain what I can only describe as a deep understanding of reality, one which I spent years in pursuit of and at times thought I'd never find.

I'm not saying I'm special or that this insight has any immediately practical applications, or even that it's mine alone, but it does give me a great sense of comfort to be able to look at the world and have it make sense from the bottom up.
Interestingly, if a mathematician/physicist with a few decades to spare took the time to do the necessary math, I'm pretty sure it points the way to the keys to the kingdom, so to speak, the ultimate levels on reality, it's machine language if you will.
Of course, such knowledge, especially if applied while still incomplete, could be horribly dangerous, so I'm glad that for now it's just me and a few other eccentrics who have stumbled upon it.
We're just not mature enough as a species for that stuff yet, imho.

One day, though, if our species lasts that long, it'll still be waiting.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,732

14 Apr 2014, 6:39 pm

Well..i'll have to say i agree with most of what you are saying here..

But the difference IS

I know the KEYS..

I apply them to my life..

and OH MY GOD YES..!

THERE ARE PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS..

AND YES THERE IS PROOF..!

IT IS THE PUDDING THAT IS ME..!

THAT I CREATE..THROUGH THIS HIGHER POWER..!

And nah..
i ain't self obsessed..

i am selfless..
one creating
with ONE
in the KINGDOM
NOW
ruling it with
FREE WILL..!
IT'S REAL.. IT EXISTS..!
BUT GOD YES..!
HARD TO OBTAIN...!
AND FINALLY FOR ME
GETTING THERE
@53..
WITH A 'REASONABLY' IMPOSSIBLE
NUMBER AND QUALITY OF OBSTACLES...
IN DIFFICULTY..

By the way..ABSOLUTELY LOVE YOUR
AVATAR..IN SURREAL BALANCE...;)

OF YIN
AND
YANG..
AS ABOVE
SO
BELOW
IN
BALANCE
2

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2014/04/14 ... e-4elohim/


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Bodyles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 808
Location: Southern California

14 Apr 2014, 7:05 pm

You seem to be referring to a spiritual/philosophical concept about balance.
I wasn't talking about anything of the sort.

I'm referring to understanding how systems work, mathematically speaking, and applying that to everything.
Interestingly, they work by being in a state of perpetual imbalance, though a meta-stable imbalace that tends towards homeostasis rather than equilibrium as the law of entropy would have you believe.

I wish you well though, as you seem to have found your peace with the world, which is arguably better than merely understanding it.



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

14 Apr 2014, 7:28 pm

leafplant wrote:
This is probably my secvariable and fluctast post. I think finishing on 2222 would be quite neat. Logical or illogical?


Anyway, Universe

how about it is an endless sea of awareness without beginning or end within which everything conceivable and inconceivable can and does exist in whatever way, form, shape, state etc. etc. possible and also impossible and improbable and other ..

So our perceivable Universe is like a pimple in this big matrix and it has it's own Rules and stuff, because ..well, have you ever played with toys? You immediately start laying down rules of existence as soon as you set to create any type of Universe, and it seems probable that the laws of the Universe will be reflected in everything in it, so, we extrapolate upwards, as it were. So maybe the Universe is expanding and contracting at the same time. Why not? Just because we would find it difficult to get our minds around that concept, it doesn't mean that it can't exist. Why? Because.


:oops: oh, you just made me all weak at the knees :lol:

I think mathematics needs a new number, a variable and fluctuating absolute 0


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,732

14 Apr 2014, 9:30 pm

Bodyles wrote:
You seem to be referring to a spiritual/philosophical concept about balance.
I wasn't talking about anything of the sort.

I'm referring to understanding how systems work, mathematically speaking, and applying that to everything.
Interestingly, they work by being in a state of perpetual imbalance, though a meta-stable imbalace that tends towards homeostasis rather than equilibrium as the law of entropy would have you believe.

I wish you well though, as you seem to have found your peace with the world, which is arguably better than merely understanding it.


i realize that...

i already have your half...

long ago..as an academic..
with 3 degrees and all of that...

smiles...and grins..

is part of the other...
half...
and a small part of a very large half....:);)

And thank you for the kinds words..
after having understanding for years..

i realize now..
It truly is worthless

without practical
application..

IN REAL LIFE
NOW.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

15 Apr 2014, 9:09 am

slave wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times. :)

Why is it significant that spontaneous formation does not require the presence of the divine? I don't understand the opposition. Isn't science human's attempt to explain the divine? I'm sure God doesn't mind us finding out some of his secrets. He's got lots more.


circular effing nonsense.....ridiculous
drives me insane
and yet you will never see it


So why does our mathematical system exclude the existence of the divine? We have developed a mathematical language to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean there isn't a greater power that we don't and can't understand.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

15 Apr 2014, 10:12 am

Ann2011 wrote:
slave wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times. :)

Why is it significant that spontaneous formation does not require the presence of the divine? I don't understand the opposition. Isn't science human's attempt to explain the divine? I'm sure God doesn't mind us finding out some of his secrets. He's got lots more.


circular effing nonsense.....ridiculous
drives me insane
and yet you will never see it


So why does our mathematical system exclude the existence of the divine? We have developed a mathematical language to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean there isn't a greater power that we don't and can't understand.


I am pretty certain that it does not and I would go farther as to say it probably never will.

Kurt Godel, the famous mathematician mentioned earlier in this thread, was a theist himself who strangely enough suggested an ontological proof of God's existence. I always find it strange when people try to connect math and rationality with God, I think that it is where a lot of the confusion and anger comes in on both sides. Why does God have to be rational?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

15 Apr 2014, 11:09 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
slave wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times. :)

Why is it significant that spontaneous formation does not require the presence of the divine? I don't understand the opposition. Isn't science human's attempt to explain the divine? I'm sure God doesn't mind us finding out some of his secrets. He's got lots more.


circular effing nonsense.....ridiculous
drives me insane
and yet you will never see it


So why does our mathematical system exclude the existence of the divine? We have developed a mathematical language to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean there isn't a greater power that we don't and can't understand.


I am pretty certain that it does not and I would go farther as to say it probably never will.

Kurt Godel, the famous mathematician mentioned earlier in this thread, was a theist himself who strangely enough suggested an ontological proof of God's existence. I always find it strange when people try to connect math and rationality with God, I think that it is where a lot of the confusion and anger comes in on both sides. Why does God have to be rational?


The myth goes that Pythagoras threw Hippassus off the boat they were on for proving irrational numbers exist. Pythagoras felt such imperfection disgusted the GODs. Mathematicians like rationality and perfection.

I wonder if Pythagoras was an Aspie perfectionist :)