The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Page 4 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

12 Apr 2014, 10:10 am

Ann2011 wrote:
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.


No. Science is humans' attempt to explain reality and it is succeeding remarkably well. Divinity or gods don't come into it. Evidence for the existence or actions of any gods has never been found. The mathematical proof is evidence that the universe came into existence via the big bang without the action of any gods.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Apr 2014, 10:17 am

TallyMan wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
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.


No. Science is humans' attempt to explain reality and it is succeeding remarkably well. Divinity or gods don't come into it. Evidence for the existence or actions of any gods has never been found. The mathematical proof is evidence that the universe came into existence via the big bang without the action of any gods.

But why the mutual exclusiveness? Why is reality necessarily lacking in the divine?


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


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,002
Location: temperate zone

12 Apr 2014, 10:18 am

zer0netgain wrote:
So what it's saying is that the whole of reality is just a "someone divided by zero" error? :lol:


I think the universe was just one of those spots in the carpet that you try to clean, and you just make it bigger, and bigger.


But that could be too. Someone tried to divide by zero by mistake, and thier device didnt have 'an illegile operation' function. So the device went ahead a tried to process it- spitting out the infinity we see around us.



Last edited by naturalplastic on 12 Apr 2014, 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Apr 2014, 10:21 am

Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
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.


No. Science is humans' attempt to explain reality and it is succeeding remarkably well. Divinity or gods don't come into it. Evidence for the existence or actions of any gods has never been found. The mathematical proof is evidence that the universe came into existence via the big bang without the action of any gods.

But why the mutual exclusiveness? Why is reality necessarily lacking in the divine?


Depends on how you define "the devine". To me the taste of chocolate ice cream is divine.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,127
Location: Aux Arcs

12 Apr 2014, 10:31 am

Here is Divine.
[img][800:500]http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u660/2lucky4snuffy/8cd309beaae15e0ec4fb308e7a1d2a07_zps4533dd47.jpg[/img]


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Apr 2014, 10:33 am

^ 8O :lol:

If that is divine, what is hell?


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Apr 2014, 10:34 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
leafplant wrote:
cannotthinkoff wrote:
salamandaqwerty wrote:
I think leafy is making a clever and funny joke, :lol: I could just about hear her eye rolling hurumph from here

meh. not that funny. annoying


lol yeah, I excel at annoying. How would you express that, mathematically, and where did the annoyance originate? Was it always there or did you create it? Was it the product of interaction between yourself and another consciousness? Does it even exist or are we just extrapolating it from observable data?

If mathematics is the language of the Universe and the Truth, then express my particular individual person in an equation, such that whichever mathematician reads it anywhere in the world, would be as if they have met me in person and got to know me that way.


The annoyance originates from cannotthinkoff's expectations for clear rationality.

We can discern:
1. You respond in unexpected ways.
2. The unexpected ways are unexpected because there is no clear rationality.
3. At least some of the time
4. You ponder abstract questions
5. You ask these abstract questions to make other people think, or pose them just to play "mind-bender" with people
6. You are apparently intelligent

To represent the above traits mathematically :

1. #3 is represented as a multi-function, probability distribution where we know your behavior at least some of the time.
2. #2 and #1 are represented as an irrational function (i.e., one that produces an irrational number) because your responses don't appear to have clear rationality
3. #4 and #5 are represented as an abstract function for "abstractness" ,
4. #5 #6 are represented as a "complex exponentiation" to represent the unknown if the apparent non-clear rationality has underlying meaning and also the ideas presented as so "mind-blowing". Think of expopentiating an irrational function and you lose your santity! :)
5. #5 and #6 further represented as depending on if we assume the non-clear rationality has underlying meaning, then the representative equation has a rational answer, if the effort is to play "mind-bender" with people, then the answer is irrational

Represented with symbols:
1. F(x) = P(X) + P(Y) - Probability of X behavior and Y behavior
2. F(x) = P(X) + P( IRR(Y) ) - Probability of X behavior and apparent non-rational Y behavior
3. F(x) = P(X) + P(IRR( f(z)) ) ) - Probability of X behavior and apparent non-rational Y behavior such behavior is abstract (represented as the abstract function 'f(z)')
4. F(x) = P(X) + P( e^IRR( f(z)) ) ) - Probability of X behavior and apparent non-rational Y behavior such behavior is abstract & complex (represented as a complex exp. 'e')
5. F(x) = P(X) + P( RAT(e^IRR( f(z)) )) ) - Assuming rational solution, then P(RAT( e^IRR( f(z)) )) ) = rational i.e. plug the irrational result into a RAT rational function to make it rational
6. F(x) = P(X) + P( e^IRR( f(z)) ) ) - Assuming irrational solution, then P( e^IRR( f(z)) ) ) = irrational

So, I conclude you are represented as a multi-function probability distribution such that your apparent non-clear rationality is represented abstractly, and further the abstractness is wrapped in a "complex exponentiation" because we cannot tell if said abstract, apparent non-clear rationality has a rational meaning , or not If rationality, then the entire function thus far has a rationalizing function applied, if not then it does not, and stays irrational. :D


Aww that was so romantic. But does the above formula now allow you to predict my behaviour (for given variable set of circumstances?) Or could you have said it "it could go either way" and it would be pretty accurate ? :D

---

Paradoxical flying dinosaur http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/flight.html



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Apr 2014, 9:50 pm

TallyMan wrote:
That's how its likely to be. If there was a single universe with a single set of constants for speed of light, gravitational and other forces etc, then it is extremely unlikely we'd exist as the universe would be too unstable. Evidence points to the laws of physics being the same across our particular universe. The obvious solution is that there are many, perhaps an unlimited number of universes, each totally independent of the other and each having their own time and laws of physics and their own reality. The vast majority would be unstable and not produce the environment necessary for life to evolve. The fact that we are here discussing this issue means that we are within one of the stable universes.


"The Obvious solution " statement made me chuckle. :D

I would wonder what if you would elaborate on the basis for your believe in the many universes. Is the "wave function collapse" the basis for such a belief, or do does your reasoning originate from something else?

Further, how do you see "universes created" ? Some QM theories think human consciousness causes the creation of the universe while others think of it terms of probabilistic states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Quoted:

The existence of the wave function collapse is required in
the Copenhagen interpretation
the objective collapse interpretations
the transactional interpretation
the von Neumann interpretation in which consciousness causes collapse.

On the other hand, the collapse is considered a redundant or optional approximation in
the Consistent histories approach, self-dubbed "Copenhagen done right"
the Bohm interpretation
the Many-worlds interpretation
the Ensemble Interpretation



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

12 Apr 2014, 10:17 pm

I don't know what is obvious but both Alan Guth and Andrei Linde, two of the primary authors of inflation theory, say that it's difficult to have an inflationary model that doesn't also have a multiverse.

Here's Linde's website where he talks about some of the arguments and implications.
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/



cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

12 Apr 2014, 10:21 pm

wave-function collapse is just one argument/interpretation and probably not the best/the most relevant/advanced at the moment

having a multiverse is an obvious solution for the following problem (which I have elaborated on in one of my prev posts): 1) current laws of physics seem arbitrary in some sense 2) current constants of nature seem arbitrary in some sense 3) there are problems in maths

now this can be solved by 1) admitting our own ignorance and waiting for something to come along, like creationism 2) posing rational theories which can simply explain all that's not been explained so far

obviously we go for an obvious scientific way and introduce the most obvious explanation for this problem which obviously can be not obvious and there is a lot of room for other obviousness.

there are many other reasons for multiverse to be a credible theory and there are many people (i mean actual scientists) who regard this controversial

multiverse explains stuff and there are neat mechanisms to create it (for instance.. idk.. the ARTICLE) which in turn explain other stuff. it's actually comes up as a biproduct of many theories

NO qm theory thinks that human consciousness creates universes :D not in that new age/last century sense anyway

there are a few multiverse "levels" look it up nicely explained. basically, why is electron mass the way it is? why all of our constants and laws of physics tuned so well? being quite arbitrary? naturally we introduce a possibility that any universe is possible and we live in such which is stable and OK for life to exist



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 107
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,406
Location: Dystopia Planetia

13 Apr 2014, 6:03 pm

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.


I agree with you in the strongest terms.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 107
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,406
Location: Dystopia Planetia

13 Apr 2014, 7:03 pm

Misslizard wrote:
14 unanswered questions
1.Are the self and the universe eternal?
2.Are the self and universe transient?
3.Are the self and universe both transient and eternal?
4.Are the self and the universe neither eternal or transient?
5.Do the self and the universe have a beginning?
6.Do the self and the universe have no beginning?
7.Do the self and the universe have both beginning and no beginning?
8.Do the self and the universe have neither beginning nor no beginning?
9.Does the blessed one exist after death?
10.Does the blessed one not exist after death?
11.Does the blessed one both exist and not exist after death?
12.Does the blessed one neither exist nor not exist after death?
13.Is the mind the same as the body?
14.Are the mind and the body two separate entities?


please define 'blessed one'



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 107
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,406
Location: Dystopia Planetia

13 Apr 2014, 7:12 pm

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



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,002
Location: temperate zone

13 Apr 2014, 8:21 pm

TallyMan wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
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.


No. Science is humans' attempt to explain reality and it is succeeding remarkably well. Divinity or gods don't come into it. Evidence for the existence or actions of any gods has never been found. The mathematical proof is evidence that the universe came into existence via the big bang without the action of any gods.

But why the mutual exclusiveness? Why is reality necessarily lacking in the divine?


Depends on how you define "the devine". To me the taste of chocolate ice cream is divine.


And how do you divine how to define the divine?

And do it without beginning the beguine?



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,936

13 Apr 2014, 11:28 pm

Well..the problem is..

There is no problem here...

So what ...
something comes from nothing...

That is close enough to the account of 'that'
3500 year old biblical document..

Talking about light coming from darkness....

So science finally catches up..
3500 years later...

That's cool...
and certainly not the first time
science catches up with common sense..
per human instinct...


But the real deal is...

What we are NOW..

And what we can be...


Limit it to mathematics..

and ya are an equation..


Know no limits...

And there are none..

As we DO HAVE THE ABILITY
TO CREATE WHO WE ARE...
with FREE WILL..

But again..not everyone experiences free will...


It's not complicated at all..

But sadly..

people make it that way..


The form may be nothing or something...

But the human spirit..
FULLY FREE IN FREE WILL..

FOR THE FEW WHO ENJOY IT..

IS

SOMETHING
ELSE..

NEITHER SOMETHING..
OR
NOTHING....

There is no math equation elegant enough...

To provide an understanding of the higher POTENTIAL power of human..BEING..


Science can not even figure out 50 percent of how the mind..

FULLY WORKS...

IT'S LIKE KICKING A COMPUTER..

TO SEE WHAT CAN FIX IT..
IN the state of science as it stands now..
per human cognition and emotions..
and the drugs used..that are slightly more effective..
than placebo...

But with FREE WILL..

Those WHO enjoy the divine..

Are the divine...in metaphor of course..as the word
divine is a loosely nit metaphor..
to describe a non-verbal nuanced experience that
ONLY some of human-kind.....enjoy.....

And nah..whatever did or did not come first...

Is neither here or there..

We ARE in the now...

It does not matter how it begins...

All that matters IS

NOW...

And how one creates it..as one with ALLITIS..
that is..those individuals with free will...
And a TOTALLY OPEN HEART AND MIND....

Again..sadly not everyone experiences the same level of consciousness..

Or A FULLER POTENTIAL OF EXPERIENCING MORE OF REALITY....

BUT FOLKS DO WHAT THEY CAN TO SURVIVE...

NO BIG SURPRISE TO ME..

ANY OF THIS...JUST MY OPINION...PLEASE...UNDERSTAND....that part at
least...

But even John Nash admitted his game theory was limited
as he lacked cognitive empathy....

The structure is that ..structure...
It is far far away...

from essence..

But again..some folks DO NOT EXPERIENCE THE ESSENCE...

SO YAH..THAT OLD METAPHOR OF GOD..AIN'T FAIR..IN THAT
WAY...
BUT THERE IS

NO ESCAPE...MAYBE NOT EVEN DEATH...

who knows..
NOT science..Science knows nothing..

And that's a metaphor...science doesn't understand them..

by the way...metaphors that is....it's kinda like being trapped in a machine....

or a math equation..ask John Nash..he understands now...if ya like...or WILL...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Apr 2014, 12:26 am

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.