How did the universe come into existence?

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Wouldn't it also be possible that this creator was, in a sense, incompetent? By that I mean able to concoct a set of rules by which everything could could evolve, but unable to comprehend the complexity of the result? If we're gonna make up theories, I like that one as I could at least identify with the poor thing.

---

 

Are we talking real world or Second Life? Cause if SL, you pretty much got it right.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

And what if there is no universe, no space, matter or time and I am just a concious entity alone, but capable of imagining all those things and all that exists around me and able to imagine the physical and emotional sensations they might possess and/or express and all of you are just constructs of my conscience?

I look forward to hearing back from myself shortly.

Je pense, donc je suis

---

Then I must shift the blame from Morgan to you.

I blame you!

[Sy Beck]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Wouldn't it also be possible that this creator was, in a sense, incompetent? By that I mean able to concoct a set of rules by which everything could could evolve, but unable to comprehend the complexity of the result? If we're gonna make up theories, I like that one as I could at least identify with the poor thing.

---

Pretty much a metaphor for parenthood there Maddy.  

[Sy Beck]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Sy Beck wrote:

And what if there is no universe, no space, matter or time and I am just a concious entity alone, but capable of imagining all those things and all that exists around me and able to imagine the physical and emotional sensations they might possess and/or express and all of you are just constructs of my conscience?

I look forward to hearing back from myself shortly.

Je pense, donc je suis

---

Then I must shift the blame from Morgan to you.

I blame you!

---

I accept my blame and forgive me, me.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I don't see how the only conclusion can be that something must have created it. It can be one conclusion, but not the only one.

---

Consider nothing at all - no 'anywhere' and no 'when' - no space, no matter, and no time for anything to exist in - absolute nothingness. Then something exists. How come? How did something come into existance? I can see no other conclusion but that existance itself, as we understand it (space, time, matter), was created by something/one.

I can see that there might be, or have been, some other form of existance that we don't know about, that brought about the universe we do know about, but, to us, existance itself (the universe) is matter, space for the matter to be in, and time for the matter and space to exist in. That's the universe, which is all we know about, and that *had* to come about by something happening; i.e. something or some entity doing something that brought it about when there was absolutely no existance/universe at all. Something had to have happened, and something (or someone), in some form of existance, had to have caused it.

---

Why would I assume there was ever a time when nothing existed?.   It makes no more sense than assuming there was always something somewhere.

 It's either the case there always was something, or that something came into existence from nothing.  No matter how many creators you imagine in between then and now, the fact remains there was either always something, or at some point somethingness arose from nothingness.  No amount of arbitary insertion of creators changes the basic problem you are trying to deploy creators as a solution to. 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Not the show, or rather, not specifically the show, but what you mentioned about the show, specifically, that there is no chaos in nature.

"basically it shows that there really is no chaos in nature..only finer detailed patterns in nature that we were looking right at but never really did see until fractal geometry showed us.."

My take is that while there may be a pattern in what we are able to observe now, it may very well be the result of chaos and the reason the ordered amazing patterns exist as opposed to random useless non patterns is because the patterns work and therefore are why we even exist to be able to view them.

I agree though that it is cool. There are patterns in everything, from flocks of birds, to schools of fish, our basic dna and all that other jazz. 

---

i see order pretty much in everything but humans and what we do that can create chaos hehehe

where we look at all other things..even other animals as nature..our minds kind of try to separate us from nature..but really we are not..so i think we create chaos in our world and our own minds..where really there is an order to all things..there is even an order to us..we fight against it every day..that we are  more than just another animal or part of nature..so much that we destroy it..or think we have..when really we do the damage to ourselves..

we are an arrogant life form for sure hehehe

i mean we can go messing with nature..but it will mess back and we will  lose every time at some point hehehe..and that's because there is order that takes it all back leaving a little punishment for us in return lol..

order is not saying there is no negative..because there is always a positive and negative ..or action and reaction..

 

let me try something that i think is kind of neat and maybe it will explain more of what i am getting at with  how i am using fractals..because it's greatest discoveries are not what we can observer..but what it tells us is there by repeating the same patterns..

 

this is just for fun but it's way cool also  and also one of the biggest patterns so far..

i won't go into really great details because that will get boring fast..just gonna do a fast version..

Aaanyways hehehehe

sub atomic particles called quarks that are inside of an atoms protons and neutrons..those can only be created by a high energy collision..this is what fermi lab and other places are using to try to create mater..

kind of like a little big bang that spit out everything in the universe..

we can't see them but they are there because we can observe the reactions of things around them..kind of like black holes..we can't see them but we know they are there because we can see the stuff they are pulling in and shooting out..

i'm not going to get into all the different quarks..but there are twelve kinds of quarks..

anyways neutrons have negative quarks and protons have positive quarks..

panning out from the neutrons there are the electrons..which orbit the neutrons and protons ..then pan out from that orbit and you have the atom..which there are 92 different types of atoms ..depending on the amount of electrons it has..these make up and are a part of everything that exists on the planet and are everywhere in the universe..then you have molecules and all the stuff on earth..

here is a cool image i found that gives a bit of a visual that i thought was cool..and it gives a good example of how fractals work and how they can show us deep into something and far away without ever having to actually go there or experience it..

now pan back from the planet

then see if you get the feeling of things getting a bit more dense and moving  to another bigger solid picture that may eventually have the same  results in the patterns next steps outward..it's been consistent so far..up to this point..all we have to do is keep panning back..if the pattern stays consistent this far..it's looking pretty good that it will just keep going and repeating to even bigger things =)

if you right click the image and choose view image..itwill give you a bigger image..it shows up kind of small on here..

 

 

i just want to say..i'm not challenging you about chaos and disorder..

i'm actually on this cool ride and want you to hop on with me to see if we are experiencing the same thing..

and also..i would love to hear some chaos or disorder examples..so we can take a look and see if maybe it's possible to use this and find some order..i'm not saying we will.but it will be fun trying i think..right now i am just having a hard time thinking of any because i am so focused on how cool this is..

i really want to test this out  on something..this universe thing i think is not so new..

and myself i think somewhere out there two quarks that are so big or whatever they are called at that size that work the same ..they had a collision and our universe was created..or whatever high energy that collided together..maybe there are a bunch more out there doing the same thing outside our universe..just making all kinds of quarks that are making all kinds of places that store matter..like it was a 50% off sale  at the market place on boots hehehehe

also i don't think matter gets created everytime and i don't think whatever the universe is gets created everytime..

like life..i think it is precious and amazing and everything must be perfect for it to happen..just like everything that is created..conditions have to be just right..not one bit off..=)

 

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I don't see how the only conclusion can be that something must have created it. It can be one conclusion, but not the only one.

---

Consider nothing at all - no 'anywhere' and no 'when' - no space, no matter, and no time for anything to exist in - absolute nothingness. Then something exists. How come? How did something come into existance? I can see no other conclusion but that existance itself, as we understand it (space, time, matter), was created by something/one.

I can see that there might be, or have been, some other form of existance that we don't know about, that brought about the universe we do know about, but, to us, existance itself (the universe) is matter, space for the matter to be in, and time for the matter and space to exist in. That's the universe, which is all we know about, and that *had* to come about by something happening; i.e. something or some entity doing something that brought it about when there was absolutely no existance/universe at all. Something had to have happened, and something (or someone), in some form of existance, had to have caused it.

---

Why would I assume there was ever a time when nothing existed?.   It makes no more sense than assuming there was always something somewhere.

 It's either the case there always was something, or that something came into existence from nothing.  No matter how many creators you imagine in between then and now, the fact remains there was either always something, or at some point somethingness arose from nothingness.  No amount of arbitary insertion of creators changes the basic problem you are trying to deploy creators as a solution to. 

---

That's really deep and a very good point.

Before I was, did I exist? If I did, then I always was. If I did not exist before I was, then I was created from nothing.

Unless I am merely a part of both of the creatures that contributed to my being. Then that would make me a part of them and all them that came before them. 

And the first one of us, how did they come to be?

The answer to how the universe was created is the answer to how I was created. And by I, I mean we, but mostly I. 

[Charolotte Caxton]

That is cool, and I am not disagreeing with you or anyone else for that matter, I know this is a debate that has existed probably since we could think, I think it is cool to get many different takes on what ultimately, at this point in reality, is unanswerable by us.

When you say we fight against nature, I think that is false, because we are part of nature. What we are doing to our world, our planet, our environment, is what the world is doing to itself, because we are a part of the world, and not separate from it. We are to our world like what our cells are to us, mostly ok, but after a while, their deterioration becomes the death of us.

[Charolotte Caxton]

That last statement of mine is flawed, because our world could exist without us. I still think we are part of nature though. Maybe.

[Valen Serpente]

Thinking about it, it's probable there was never a time where there was nothingness. You might have space with nothing in it (which is an empty something) but without time there is no measure of existence.

Also if you look at how the universe is actually expanding, you could theorize that the big bang occurred from the expanding of a nano universe and eventually our known universe will reach a point that "big bangs" into an even more complex and larger universe where in time other life may be theorizing our "nonexistence" hehe.

And on a side note, there is always order, even in chaos.

[Cali Souther]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Agreed, given an infinite number of possibilities (which the multiverse theory posits) it's not hard to imagine that complete randomness could create what appears to be exquisite planning. I think it is, and may always be, premature to say that, if we can't explain it, it must be a grander plan. For me, it's sufficient to say "we can't explain it" and get back to work.

---

I always agree with Maddy! 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

In your scenario, absolute nothingness then something exists, how can the only conclusion be that someone created existence?

---

I've never said that "someone" caused it to happen. I've said that "something/one", "something or someone", and other phrases to the same effect, but I've never said that it was "someone" and left it at that. You jumped on the word, "intelligent", but I refered to Porky's use of that word. I quoted what I wrote for you. In the sentence where i refered to Porky's use of it, I actually wrote "something" without adding "or someone". Read it again.

So, to say it again, someone, or something, or some entity, or some event (which is "something") in an existance with which we are not familiar, must have caused it to happen. There's no other conclusion to be drawn, because something did happen to bring our universe's existance into being. It can't have been there forever because of the question, how come?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Why would I assume there was ever a time when nothing existed?.   It makes no more sense than assuming there was always something somewhere.

---

I didn't suggest that there was a time when nothing existed, because time didn't exist either. Absolute nothingness, in the way that I wrote, means no space, no matter, and no time. We can't actually imagine it because we need the concept of space and time to imagine such a state. But do away with space and time and consider absolute nothingness.

 

---

It's either the case there always was something, or that something came into existence from nothing

.  No matter how many creators you imagine in between then and now, the fact remains there was either always something, or at some point somethingness arose from nothingness.  No amount of arbitary insertion of creators changes the basic problem you are trying to deploy creators as a solution to. 

---

That's right, except for one thing - the universe can't always have been there. If you think it could have been, how come it was *always* there? How come it exists?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Valen Serpente wrote:

Thinking about it,

it's probable there was never a time where there was nothingness

. You might have space with nothing in it (which is an empty something) but without time there is no measure of existence.

---

I agree, but not for the reason you would think. Absolute nothingness means no time - time doesn't exist either. We can't imagine it, because to do so we need to frame it in at least time and probably space too. We simply can't imagine a state where there is no time and no space. Even the phrase "absolute nothingness" is meaningless, because it implies somewhere, and even some time, for nothingness to exist. But it's the best I could do to describe total and absolute non-existance of anything.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

In your scenario, absolute nothingness then something exists, how can the only conclusion be that someone created existence?

---

I've never said that "someone" caused it to happen. I've said that "something/one", "something or someone", and other phrases to the same effect, but I've never said that it was "someone" and left it at that. You jumped on the word, "intelligent", but I refered to Porky's use of that word. I quoted what I wrote for you. In the sentence where i refered to Porky's use of it, I actually wrote "something" without adding "or someone". Read it again.

So, to say it again, someone, or something, or some entity, or some event (which is "something") in an existance with which we are not familiar, must have caused it to happen. There's no other conclusion to be drawn, because something did happen to bring our universe's existance into being. It can't have been there forever because of the question, how come?

---

Oh good, as long as we don't limit ourselves to believing that the only way all of this could be was by someone or something causing it to happen, we have the chance for serious speculation. Once we put restrictions on it, such as something or someone had to have created it or caused it to happen, we limit our chances of discovering the truth.

As to how come, is that the same as why? Why did the universe happen? Why do we exist? Why and how may or may not be interrelated, I have no clue.

One why could be that something or someone wanted to create it. Then we start to wonder why did they want to do such a thing and how can I prove I am the most important of its creations.

Another why could be there is no why, as in, why did I stub my toe? Fate? Chance? I subconsciously wanted to remind myself to buy new shoes (my fave).

There are probably an infinite whys available as to why the universe was brought into existence. The why may or may not help understand the how. Then again, we may need to know how to begin speculating as to the whys.

[Lucinda Bulloch]

Seems most would like to know, but if one is a product of time what is the point, there was once a guy that deserted his wife and children but as its was India he lived he was still regarded a god, he had a lucky hit, he worked out it was all about choice.

 

proof that even the lowest of the low can have an idea.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh good, as long as we don't limit ourselves to believing that the only way all of this could be was by someone or something causing it to happen, we have the chance for serious speculation. Once we put restrictions on it, such as something or someone had to have created it or caused it to happen, we limit our chances of discovering the truth.

---

But I do limit it to someone or saomething (an event is a something). You've adjusted what I wrote too far the other way

---

As to how come, is that the same as why? Why did the universe happen? Why do we exist? Why and how may or may not be interrelated, I have no clue.

---

No, I don't mean "how come?" in the sense of "why (what is the purpose)?" I mean it the sense of, "how come it got to exist at all?" It's the same question for both the Big Bang theory and the 'always there' idea.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh good, as long as we don't limit ourselves to believing that the only way all of this could be was by someone or something causing it to happen, we have the chance for serious speculation. Once we put restrictions on it, such as something or someone had to have created it or caused it to happen, we limit our chances of discovering the truth.

---

But I do limit it to someone or saomething (an event is a something). You've adjusted what I wrote too far the other way

---

As to how come, is that the same as why? Why did the universe happen? Why do we exist? Why and how may or may not be interrelated, I have no clue.

---

No, I don't mean "how come?" in the sense of "why (what is the purpose)?" I mean it the sense of, "how come it got to exist at all?" It's the same question for both the Big Bang theory and the 'always there' idea.

---

Oh, well by limiting it you close yourself off to possibilities that may not fit within your limits, don't you?

How come it got to exist at all? Like why was it allowed?

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

That last statement of mine is flawed, because our world could exist without us. I still think we are part of nature though. Maybe.

---

i'm not saying we are not part of nature..i am saying we just think we are better than nature on this planet..

the only way that could be possible is with intelligence like ours..we know there is a nature..nothing else on the planet does..

and also because humans are well known for their egos hehehehe

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Cali Souther wrote:

I

always

agree with Maddy! 

---

That makes one of us!

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

That last statement of mine is flawed, because our world could exist without us. I still think we are part of nature though. Maybe.

---

i'm not saying we are not part of nature..i am saying we just think we are better than nature on this planet..

the only way that could be possible is with intelligence like ours..we know there is a nature..nothing else on the planet does..

and also because humans are well known for their egos hehehehe

 

---

lol, agreed

[Lucinda Bulloch]

Humans do think that, well they are told to think like that, you have the memory of your race, you know that one day people came and destroyed that way of life, well that was not by accident, it was done with intent, people that see themselves as gods were only organizing this planet, DNA is universal and you will find humans round every yellow sun.

[Helium Loon]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

But I do limit it to someone or saomething (an event is a something). You've adjusted what I wrote too far the other way

---

 

This is where the problem is.  Once you assume true non-existence of the universe/multiverse, you've stepped outside of natural laws.  Things such as casuality and linear time (which has already be shown not to be) both cease to be applicable.

 

In other words, once you step outside of any given 'universe,' cause no longer has to preceed effect.  And thus 'nothingness'  can spontaneously create 'something' with no outside cause.  It can simply happen.  This was a part of my earlier statements on all possible realities existing, though I didn't go into this particular detail enough.......without our basic rules of reality (which are, inherent to a given universe, and can vary) universes pop into and out of existence constantly.  There is no need for ANYTHING to 'cause' it to happen, since causality itself is a function of uni-directional time (which is not necessarily consistent from universe to universe, or even applicable.)

 

In other words, we can say "There might be a God", but we can't use our universe/reality as proof of it, since while it is required that our universe exist for there to be 'our God' existing, it isn't sufficient to prove his existence.

 

 (edit for typo/clarification)

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

Humans do think that, well they are told to think like that, you have the memory of your race, you know that one day people came and destroyed that way of life, well that was not by accident, it was done with intent, people that see themselves as gods were only organizing this planet, DNA is universal and you will find humans round every yellow sun.

---

not every yellow son..

only when conditions are perfect and the things are there will it happen again..

we don't know how rare or how common it really is..

thats why i am excited by fractal mathematics..it's not discovered yet but some way using them we will hopefully one day find out..

they are the reason we can carry tons more information in an ipod that is as thin as smashed bread in one pocket nowdays that you could never fit into a huge computer that took up a huge room back when computers were younger..

 

[Helium Loon]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

not every yellow son..

only when conditions are perfect and the things are there will it happen again..

we don't know how rare or how common it really is..

---

In a truly infinite (aleph-null or greater infinity here) universe/multiverse, there would be an infinite number of such yellow suns with sufficient conditions to support the development of complex life.

If we are only referring to our universe, which is questionably finite, then that number would rapidly decrease to near zero.

Trans-finite mathematics are such fun.  Almost as much fun as non-euclidean geometry......

Time to work out some trans-finite non-euclidean equations and drive myself psychotic......