How did the universe come into existence?

[Phil Deakins]

---

16 wrote:

the interesting thing in this argumentation is the speed of light. we can actual measure this and we use this quite often as a base when constructing proofs in our efforts to understand our universe. we consider our Time relative to this

something moving at the speed of light would, as you say, reference Time in a different way to us. consider a reference to Time from the photon's pov. does the photon die? if not then its infinitely eternal. if it does die then we, and the photon, would have a point in Time for the photon

---

From the photon's point of view, it is eternal, because it has no concept of time. It exists, and yet it has no time, so from its point of view, it is eternal. That's why I mentioned it - because, according to current science, anything travelling at the speed of light has no concept of time - there is no time - and particles do travel at the speed of light.

Of course the photon can't realise that because time is needed for the act of thinking/realisation

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

16 wrote:

the interesting thing in this argumentation is the speed of light. we can actual measure this and we use this quite often as a base when constructing proofs in our efforts to understand our universe. we consider our Time relative to this

something moving at the speed of light would, as you say, reference Time in a different way to us. consider a reference to Time from the photon's pov. does the photon die? if not then its infinitely eternal. if it does die then we, and the photon, would have a point in Time for the photon

---

From the photon's point of view, it is eternal, because it has no concept of time. It exists, and yet it has no time, so from its point of view, it is eternal. That's why I mentioned it - because, according to current science, anything travelling at the speed of light has no concept of time - there is no time - and particles do travel at the speed of light.

Of course the photon can't realise that because time is needed for the act of thinking/realisation

---

Doesn't it also need a brain?

[Porky Gorky]

I was talking to a friend on Skype last night, He is a Theoretical Physicist at UCL. We were discussing the origin or the universe and he made a good point that I shall mention here. 

Many scientists have trouble believing in intelligent design or a creator because of the lack of visible evidence to support such claims. However he believes that will change within the next few hundred years because human beings will have developed the ability to create our own physical universes, He believes we will be able to replicate the big bang and create replica universes on a much smaller scale. We will be able to demonstrate our control over the universes by manipulating time, gravity, expansion rates, matter dispersal etc etc. By creating our own universe we effectively scientifically prove that intelligent design is both possible and likely.

[Charolotte Caxton]

Sounds cool, but weren't we supposed to have flying cars by now, and will the little people we create in our tiny universes be content to know we created them, or will they wonder who created us? 

[Phil Deakins]

I also just used Google and came up with this:-

 

adjective

1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people

2. noting each one of a large number (usually followed by a or an): For many a day it rained.

 

noun

3. a large or considerable number of persons or things: A good many of the beggars were blind.

4. the many, the greater part of humankind.

 

pronoun



5. many persons or things: Many of the beggars were blind. Many were unable to attend.

 

 

The only reference to a majority is in 4 where the example is "the many", although 5 could be taken either way.

 

In "many, perhaps most, females", many is used as an adjective (1) and means "a large number; numerous, but does not mean only majority.

 

"Many" used on its own, whilst it doesn't definitely mean majority, it could easily be understood as either "majority" or a lot regardless of majority or minority. What can't be misunderstood, especially when it's been explained, is that the addition of "perhaps most" makes the word "many" mean less than most - less than the majority. That can't be misunderstood, especially after it's been explained.

 

"Some, perhaps most, people ..." is the same. But "some" can imply a lower number than "many", and I did mean a larger number than merely "some" "A lot of people" doesn't mean a majority either. I could be a majority or a minority. It's the same as "Many people". Neither of them mean a majority or a minority.

 

I'm sorry that "Putting the two together, in fact, makes it sound even more like the the majority or almost all" to you. The reality is that it does exactly the opposite. The second part ("perhaps most") indicates that it's possibly a majority, but only possibly. It also definitely shows that the first part ("many") did not mean the majority. That's the reason why "perhaps most" was added. That's the way it is, I'm afraid.



[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I also just used Google and came up with this:-

 

adjective

1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous:

many people

2. noting each on of a large number (usually followed by

a

or

an

):

For many a day it rained.



 

noun

3. a large or considerable number of persons or things:

A good many of the beggars were blind.

4.

the many

, the greater part of humankind.

 

pronoun



5. many persons or things:

Many of the beggars were blind. Many were unable to attend.

 

 

The only reference to a majority is in 4 where the example is "the many", although 5 could be taken either way.

 

In "many, perhaps most, females",

many

is used as an adjective (1) and means "a large number; numerous, but does not mean

only

majority.

 

"Many" used on its own, whilst it doesn't definitely mean

majority

, it could easily be understood as either "majority" or a lot regardless of majority or minority. What can't be misunderstood, especially when it's been explained, is that the addition of "perhaps most" makes the word "many" mean less than most - less than the majority. That can't be misunderstood, especially after it's been explained.

 

"Some, perhaps most, people ..." is the same. But "some" can imply a lower number than "many", and I did mean a larger number than merely "some"

"A lot of people" doesn't mean a majority either. I could be a majority or a minority. It's the same as "Many people". Neither of them

mean

a majority or a minority.

 

I'm sorry that "

Putting the two together, in fact, makes it sound even more like the the majority or almost all

" to you. The reality is that it does exactly the opposite. The second part ("perhaps most") indicates that it's possibly a majority, but only possibly. It also definitely showss that the first part ("many") did not mean the majority. That's the way it is, I'm afraid.



---

So you agree, I am right! Yay! :matte-motes-kiss:

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

So you agree, I am right! Yay! :matte-motes-kiss:

---

LOL. I don't know where you got that idea from but no, I don't agree. However, I will keep and treasure the kiss

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

16 wrote:

the interesting thing in this argumentation is the speed of light. we can actual measure this and we use this quite often as a base when constructing proofs in our efforts to understand our universe. we consider our Time relative to this

something moving at the speed of light would, as you say, reference Time in a different way to us. consider a reference to Time from the photon's pov. does the photon die? if not then its infinitely eternal. if it does die then we, and the photon, would have a point in Time for the photon

---

From the photon's point of view, it is eternal, because it has no concept of time. It exists, and yet it has no time, so from its point of view, it is eternal. That's why I mentioned it - because, according to current science, anything travelling at the speed of light has no concept of time - there is no time - and particles do travel at the speed of light.

Of course the photon can't realise that because time is needed for the act of thinking/realisation

---

Doesn't it also need a brain?

---

A brain would be useless to it because it would need time in which to make use of it

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

16 wrote:

the interesting thing in this argumentation is the speed of light. we can actual measure this and we use this quite often as a base when constructing proofs in our efforts to understand our universe. we consider our Time relative to this

something moving at the speed of light would, as you say, reference Time in a different way to us. consider a reference to Time from the photon's pov. does the photon die? if not then its infinitely eternal. if it does die then we, and the photon, would have a point in Time for the photon

---

From the photon's point of view, it is eternal, because it has no concept of time. It exists, and yet it has no time, so from its point of view, it is eternal. That's why I mentioned it - because, according to current science, anything travelling at the speed of light has no concept of time - there is no time - and particles do travel at the speed of light.

Of course the photon can't realise that because time is needed for the act of thinking/realisation

---

Doesn't it also need a brain?

---

A brain would be useless to it because it would need time in which to make use of it

---

You know what they say about photons and time, right? It's all relevant.

[Phil Deakins]

Don't you mean relative?

[Porky Gorky]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Sounds cool, but weren't we supposed to have flying cars by now, and will the little people we create in our tiny universes be content to know we created them, or will they wonder who created us? 

---

Yes It won't help much in identifying the intelligence that created our universe, but It will add validity to the question, "were we created by an intelligence?"

If we can create a universe then the chances are it's a common place occurance within the multi-verse.

However, I agree with what you said, the lack of flying cars doesn't give me much hope that we'll be creating our own universes anytime soon. :smileysad:

[161488303349]

jejejejeje (:

[161488303349]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

I was talking to a friend on Skype last night, He is a Theoretical Physicist at UCL. We were discussing the origin or the universe and he made a good point that I shall mention here. 

Many scientists have trouble believing in intelligent design or a creator because of the lack of visible evidence to support such claims. However he believes that will change within the next few hundred years because human beings will have developed the ability to create our own physical universes, He believes we will be able to replicate the big bang and create replica universes on a much smaller scale. We will be able to demonstrate our control over the universes by manipulating time, gravity, expansion rates, matter dispersal etc etc. By creating our own universe we effectively scientifically prove that intelligent design is both possible and likely.

---

 

that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either

if i could upload myself into it then i be quite happy to call him God or whatever title he wants. even a plug in the back of my head will do. just hope that when it happens i don't have to have a hyphen in my name and that i dont walk like a duck (:

[Phil Deakins]

---

16 wrote:

that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either

---

Actually, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of this universe, or about multiple universes, except that it could have been created that way, and there could be other universes.

As for it actually happening - I'll believe it when I see it

[161488303349]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

16 wrote:

that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either

---

Actually, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of this universe, or about multiple universes, except that it

could

have been created that way, and there could be other universes.

As for it actually happening - I'll believe it when I see it

---

 

yes true. as the created universe would be inside this/our one. so does this mean that it could be considered a model of a universe?

+

I won't have to believe it if/when it happens. same way that i don't believe in the sun  ;p

[Ceka Cianci]

---

16 wrote:

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

I was talking to a friend on Skype last night, He is a Theoretical Physicist at UCL. We were discussing the origin or the universe and he made a good point that I shall mention here. 

Many scientists have trouble believing in intelligent design or a creator because of the lack of visible evidence to support such claims. However he believes that will change within the next few hundred years because human beings will have developed the ability to create our own physical universes, He believes we will be able to replicate the big bang and create replica universes on a much smaller scale. We will be able to demonstrate our control over the universes by manipulating time, gravity, expansion rates, matter dispersal etc etc. By creating our own universe we effectively scientifically prove that intelligent design is both possible and likely.

---

 

that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either

if i could upload myself into it then i be quite happy to call him God or whatever title he wants. even a plug in the back of my head will do. just hope that when it happens i don't have to have a hyphen in my name and that i dont walk like a duck (:

---

that's actually what fermi lab had been trying to do for some time..and now they have this bigger ring out in france or some other country ..

colliding sub atomic particles to try to create matter..

a lot of doors are gonna open up if they ever can do that..

 

[Phil Deakins]

It's called the Large Hadron Collider and is at Cerne in Switzerland, although I think the ring crosses the border of another country - maybe France.

They're not trying to create matter. They are colliding particles to cause other particles to shoot off. They're specifically looking for the Higgs boson particle to be shot off - to try to discover if it exists at all. If it does exist, it could be the answer to some big questions.

It's thought that they could create tiny black holes, but the power of a black hole is in the gravity of its mass, and any they create will be so tiny that they won't be a problem. And they reckon they'll be extremely short-lived, anyway.

[Porky Gorky]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Actually, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of this universe, or about multiple universes, except that it

could

have been created that way, and there could be other universes.

---

Exactly. It would be scientific proof that a universe could be created by intelligent design. I think an achievement like this would really blur the lines between science and religion.

Imagine what would happen if we had scientific proof that a universe really could be created through intelligent design? Would there be any need or place for faith? Religions would have scientific proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist. I hope if this ever happened that religions around the world could stop relying on faith and start relying on facts. Religion could embrace science and together they could set of on a voyage of discovery. Head off into space, the final frontier, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

[Maelstrom Janus]

I think Do**or Who was responsible for the creation of the universe and his name is now so revered in some of the nine quarters of the universe you cant even type it in full on this forum anymore !!!!

 

[Porky Gorky]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

that's actually what fermi lab had been trying to do for some time..and now they have this bigger ring out in france or some other country ..

colliding sub atomic particles to try to create matter..

a lot of doors are gonna open up if they ever can do that..

 

---

Yep,  I think the LHC can be seen as a significant stepping stone towards the creation of an artificial universe. We need to understand all the elements that were present immediately after the big bang happened. This will allow us to better understand our own universe and to backwards engineer an artificial big bang of our own.

As Phil said the Higgs Bosson particle is extremely important. It's discovery will validly our current understanding of the universe. Higgs is believed to be an exchange particle and responsible for giving stuff mass. WIthout understanding it, it will be impossible for us to create our artificial universe based on our current understanding of physics.

There are also big repercussions for not finding the Higgs particle Without the Higgs particle, the universe cannot exist, but if the Higgs particle isn't discovered by the LHC, it means our understanding of how the universe works is wrong. The non-discovery of the Higgs would be as profound as its discovery, potentially revolutionizing physics.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

Exactly. It would be scientific proof that a universe could be created by intelligent design. I think an achievement like this would really blur the lines between science and religion.

Imagine what would happen if we had scientific proof that a universe

really

could be created through intelligent design? Would there be any need or place for faith? Religions would have scientific proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist. I hope if this ever happened that religions around the world could stop relying on faith and start relying on facts.

Religion could embrace science and together they could set of on a voyage of discovery. Head off into space, the final frontier, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

---

They'd be too late. Jim Kirk already went there.

Apart from a few sidetracks, this has been a very interesting thread (so far). We've been updated about the search for the Higgs boson particle. We've considered the timelessness of particles moving at the speed of light, so we've touched the 'always there' possibility. We've been introduced to the idea that the universe may not be expanding at all, but that time may be slowing down instead. All-in-all it's been very interesting so far, and I hope there may be more interesting stuff still to come.

But I still very much lean towards the idea that this universe was created when there was what we've called Null, and not 'always there' because, even though light speed causes timelessness, the 'always there' idea requires something to exist, albeit not necessarily in time, and I just can't dodge the "how come?" question.

When I thought about it a couple of months ago, I concluded that the universe was created from Null - not necessarily by an intelligence, but it's a strong possibility to my way of thinking. (To whom it may concern: that conclusion doesn't mean that I assume it. It just means that it looks the most likely to me.)

[Porky Gorky]

---

16 wrote:

yes true. as the created universe would be inside this/our one. so does this mean that it could be considered a model of a universe?

---

I don't think it would be a very good idea to create a universe inside our own universe. I think it will need to be attached to ours in some way but it would need to exist within it's own dimension and not within ours. I don't know what my opinion is based on but seems the logical thing to do, When I think about the multi-verse, I see the universes existing independently of each other, but attached in some ways through strings or black holes or whatever. I've never really thought about universes within other universe. That could go on forever like an infinite Russian Doll. I'll have to think about that concept more, it's interesting.

[Porky Gorky]

You are right, it's been a cool thread Phil. I think only a couple of people are following it now though looking at our Reply / View ratio.

I guess I was hoping for more traditional religious contributors to debate against when I started the thread, but they seem to be hiding which is fair enough and understandable.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Don't you mean relative?

---

No, we aren't even of the same species, much less ancestry.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

You are right, it's been a cool thread Phil. I think only a couple of people are following it now though looking at our Reply / View ratio.

I guess I was hoping for more traditional religious contributors to debate against when I started the thread, but they seem to be hiding which is fair enough and understandable.

---

I have learned a lot from all this and I am so very glad for everyone taking the time to explain things in a way that is understandable and easy to follow.

I can't speak for them, but my feeling is that for some of the religious persons the question has already been answered so there is nothing to discuss.