How did the universe come into existence?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Don't move on, Madelaine! I've gained a lot because you've been in the thread.

You seem to accept the extra dimensions and I certainly don't, but that's just something we don't agree on, that's all. It's no cause for anyone to move on.

---

It's not that I accept extra dimensions or not. I'm not informed enough to be more than ambivalent. I'm content to watch the debate and think the anti string-theorists have made some interesting arguments about the politics of academia. I mentioned that before. The anti string theorists also haven't got a better (read more popular) theory... yet.

I can't continue the conversation about n-dimensionality because I'm out of ways to explain it. If you are conceptually stuck in three dimensions (your use of "inside" indicates so) then the discussion stops at 3D.

[Phil Deakins]

Fair enough (about the extra dimensions). As long as that's all the impasse there is, it's cool. But don't quit the thread.

Incidentally, I did understand what you described about the 2D universes, and I did understand that 2D wasn't literally meant, but was used to make the understanding of the concept simpler. It didn't need to be made any clearer. It's just that the way that I've seen physicists describe the extra dimensions, they really are within our universe.

I'm not conceptually stuck in 3 spacial dimensions, but I find the extra dimensions to be so contrived as to be wholly ignorable (by me).

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

A tiny universe within our own universe must be subject to the constraints of our universe. One of those is what is believed to be the shortest length possible. I think that's the Planck length. So, since or own planet is subject to those constraints, and yet is hardly even a speck in the universe, a tiny universe wouldn't be possible. A tiny something might become possible, but not a tiny universe with stars, planets, things on the planets, atoms and molecules making up the things, etc.

Creating a universe has to mean that it is not within our own.

ETA: If we ever came to the point of creating a universe that is not within our own, we wouldn't even know that we'd done it. We may be unintentionally doing it quite often. We don't know whether or not the collisions of particles in the colliders cause new universes to come into existance. There's infinite 'room' for them in Null.

---

Your use of the term "within" doesn't fully comprehend the concept of dimensions. If we are able to create universes by somehow manipulating these unseen extra dimensions that string theory posits, they would not be "within" or "inside" ours, and we would not be within or inside theirs. All universes, including the ones we create, would perceive whatever dimensions they could within the N-dimensional space that comprises the super-universe that contains everything. So maybe it's helpful to consider a super-universe that encompasses all the dimensions ( from 10 to 26, depending on who you ask). This N-dimensional super-universe would contain countless sub-universes.

I'm no expert on such things, to be sure, but I think "sub-universe" creation could depend on the ability of any other sub-universe to move "information" along one of its potentially (or currently or practically) invisible dimensions, perhaps from another sub-universe. If that can happen, then one sub-universe could create another, but potentially be unable to probe it, or perhaps even know it had been created.

---

This tangentially hits upon what I mentioned eons back in this thread about how a single consciousness can create/observe a universe and therefore all things are possible within it, including any number of dimensions.

 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159-167

 

 

---

I think there's a leap of faith in that video that does not comport with the thinking of at least David Bohm. That video infers that Bohm supports the thesis that until consciously observed, a thing isn't realized. In fact, Bohm proposed an interpretation of quantum theory (De Broglie-Bohm Theory) that collapsed the wave function to an unambiguous result without observations at all. The observed Heisenberg uncertainty is in the measurement, not the thing measured.

If I wanted to mislead people, I'd have picked a more sympathetic physicist. Perhaps they picked Bohm because they didn't understand his physics, but liked his thoughts on thinking.

Dean Radin is "Senior Scientist" at a non-profit organization (IONS) that believes that "consciousness matters". Radin appears to be from the Von Neumann school of "consciousness causes collapse". This is, I think, a minority view in the physics community, but Heisenberg has prolly ensured as much uncertainty in the theories as in the observations ;-)

Lynn McTaggart is a non-scientist author of books that have been characterized as pseudoscience. If you'd like to get a sense for her veracity, watch this...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcm6df_the-clean-water-experiment-at-lake_webcam

Thankfully, her followers needn't purchase tin-foil hats, they can simply think them into existence.

(I edited my comments about Radin to reduce my stridency ;-)

ETA: A bit of wandering about the IONS website raises a few hairs on the back of my neck, like "peer reviewed" publications reviewed by peers with the same beliefs. That looks like ideological incest to me. I get the same general feeling from IONS that I get when reading about Scientology.

[JeanneAnne]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

We have active threads on Politics and Child Avatars in GD so lets go for the trifecta and cover religion vs science.

Based on your research, experience, religion/faith or paranoid delusions, how do you think the universe came to be?

---

I've not been paying attention to the fora lately & i haven't read thru all the posts on this thread.

Our universe came to be when an infinitely hot, infinitely dense dimensionless point in space time called the singularity, exploded. This happened about 14 billion years ago. Why did the singularity exist? What made it explode? What was 'before' the singularity exploded? Dunno, & neither does anyone else.

Jeanne

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

We have active threads on Politics and Child Avatars in GD so lets go for the trifecta and cover religion vs science.

Based on your research, experience, religion/faith or paranoid delusions, how do you think the universe came to be?

---

I've not been paying attention to the fora lately & i haven't read thru all the posts on this thread.

Our universe came to be when an infinitely hot, infinitely dense dimensionless point in space time called the singularity, exploded. This happened about 14 billion years ago. Why did the singularity exist? What made it explode? What was 'before' the singularity exploded? Dunno, & neither does anyone else.

Jeanne

---

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ann Otoole wrote:

The universe came into existence when the sun god ra pulled forth mankind from the triangular shaped stone of man which i own and wear daily since discovering it at a location later made into an archeological dig said to be the oldest evidence of man in the north american continent.

so there.

---

Ann, are you sure that's not just a mud caked Dorito left on the ground by a camper? If so, don't fret, there's a long history of people finding religious significance in bits of junk food.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk." - Tom Waits

---

This particular theory will be very hard to disprove.

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

 

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It' s apparantly a non-issue to her and undebatable nor to be speculated about, I suppose.

Shame.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

This is what makes science so exciting!!!

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact?

---

Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose).

1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact?

---

Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose).

1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics.

---

Does merging two drops of water to form one drop of water disprove that fact?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact?

---

Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose).

1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics.

---

This reminds me of a joke I learned in engineering school, which I'll re-gender.

An engineer and a mathematician (both female) are placed across a room from a handsome man. They are both given the following instructions...

You may approach the man (we presume the desire to do so), but you may take no step that is greater than half the distance to him.

The mathematician immediately throws up her arms, exclaiming "I will never get there!"

The engineer calmly steps forward, wryly noting that "In just a few steps I'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact?

---

Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose).

1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics.

---

Does merging two drops of water to form one drop of water disprove that fact?

---

Absolutely not. Water is outside the scope of that equation. However, your proposition does prove to me (not that proof was necessary) that you are a smartass.

;-)

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact?

---

Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose).

1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics.

---

Does merging two drops of water to form one drop of water disprove that fact?

---

Absolutely not. Water is outside the scope of that equation. However, your proposition does prove to me (not that proof was necessary) that you are a smartass.

;-)

---

!

I was being absolutely serious, not that it makes your proof any less valid

Are you saying that because drop is a measurement then we can say that two drops of water are equal to two drops of water no mater how they are combined, like if we put two cups of milk in a pint we still have two cups of milk?

Yes, that makes sense.

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

[Maelstrom Janus]

I have a new theory - I think back in the mists of time the Gods started a thread on a forum about how they came into being...eventually the thread became so long and tedious it collapsed under its own density and triggered the big bang..............

 

 

 

 

 

BAZINGA !!!!

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

This reminds me of a joke I learned in engineering school, which I'll re-gender.

An engineer and a mathematician (both female) are placed across a room from a handsome man. They are both given the following instructions...

You may approach the man (we presume the desire to do so), but you may take no step that is greater than half the distance to him.

The mathematician immediately throws up her arms, exclaiming "I will never get there!"

The engineer calmly steps forward, wryly noting that "In just a few steps I'll be close enough for all practical purposes." 

 

---

If they can take no step that is greater than half the distance to him, can't they just take a bunch of steps that are each less than half the distance to him, reaching him that way? 

Also, wouldn't it just be easier to have him come to them?

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

I have a new theory - I think back in the mists of time the Gods started a thread on a forum about how they came into being...eventually the thread became so long and tedious it collapsed under its own density and triggered the big bang..............

 

 

 

 

 

BAZINGA !!!!

---

That might explain why Mr Gorky wears a bag over his head, we are not able to look upon the face of God.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Is that a proven fact, or a theory?

---

It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time.

---

If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact?

---

Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose).

1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics.

---

Does merging two drops of water to form one drop of water disprove that fact?

---

Absolutely not. Water is outside the scope of that equation. However, your proposition does prove to me (not that proof was necessary) that you are a smartass.

;-)

---

!

I was being absolutely serious, not that it makes your proof any less valid

Are you saying that because drop is a measurement then we can say that two drops of water are equal to two drops of water no mater how they are combined, like if we put two cups of milk in a pint we still have two cups of milk?

Yes, that makes sense.

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation?

You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation?

You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory.

---

Aha. So can anything be proven to be true?

Or is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

---

 

Yes.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

---

 

Yes.

---

Can you prove that?

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

---

 

Yes.

---

Can you prove that?

---

 

 Can you prove me wrong?

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

---

 

Yes.

---

Can you prove that?

---

 

 Can you prove me wrong?

---

I can't prove you right.