How did the universe come into existence?

[Rene Erlanger]

---

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

 

---

Life exists on Earth because of our perfect positioning within our Solar system relative to the Sun.... where it's not too hot for life forms, not too cold, less poisonous gasses, more solid matter (rock,earth).....allows for water, a climate and most important because of the Sun. The light and heat from the sun makes it possible for the life to be created and supported.(your Nature)

 

I'm guessing other life forms exists in other solar systems & galaxies ...where the climatic conditions are balanced.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Helium Loon wrote:

---

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......

---

i agree 

also i agree about  the driving myself psychotic as well..

thats what i have been doing the past couple of days..it's fun and addictive lol

 

[Feldspar Millgrove]

Tides come in, Tides go out; No miscommunication.

Well, unless the asset server is down, or there's a faulty network router.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Rene Erlanger wrote:

---

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

 

---

Life exists on Earth because of our perfect positioning within our Solar system relative to the Sun.... where it's not too hot for life forms, not too cold, less poisonous gasses, more solid matter (rock,earth).....allows for water, a climate and most important because of the Sun. The light and heat from the sun makes it possible for the life to be created and supported.(your Nature)

 

I'm guessing other life forms exists in other solar systems & galaxies ...where the climatic conditions are balanced.

---

our nature is not limited to this planet..because we can create the perfect conditions outside of it..

wanna know why?

this is what my nephew told me when i asked him why we went to the moon..

he said  to collect rocks..cause at one time there were not enough rocks..so we sent these guys to dah moon to get more rocks for us and now we have enough so they don't have to go anymore..

now they just fly up there  cause it's fun..

lol

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

Whoa whoa whoa, I think your nephew is sweet and all, but I thinks he has his facts confused

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa, I think your nephew is sweet and all, but I thinks he has his facts confused

---

he was pretty little when i asked him that..

he knows better now hehehehehe

 

Also speaking of nature and it's wrath..is anyone else surrounded by tornado conditions tonight?

we were lastnight and tonight we are again..my family just called from the ranch and they were all in the cellar out there..i gues a couple came through..

they have been all over the place since yesterday and don't look like they are letting up..

 

 

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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?

---

The point remains the same.  Either there was always something, or somethingness can and did come forth from nothingness. 

Why it would be the case that the universe or some precursor of it was always there, or why it would be the case that something would come from nothing is a different question. 

Why would a creator always have existed, or why would a creator have come forth from nothingness is no less pressing a question, and it's not answered by saying because otherwise something would always have existed or something would have come from nothing because even if we accept a creating something, we still have the exact same problem that the something, whatever it is, either always existed or come forth from nothing..  No matter whether we insert arbitary things called "creator" or not, we still have the same essential problem of something having always existed or something having come from nothing.  Simply calling the something "creator" rather than "universe" does nothing to resolve the problem.   

There is no more reason to expect a creator has always existed than to expect the germ of a universe always existed until the universe itself existed.  Nor is there anymore reason to suppose a creator would come from nothingness than there is to expect the same of a universe.

A creator did it is not only arbitary it still leaves you with the exact same problem you think it solves.  If you think a creator could not have come into existence from nothing how come it was *always* there?  How came it exists?  If you think a creator did not always exist but came to exist from nothing, then how come it came to exist from nothing?

Your solution is not a solution but merely an arbitary out of the blue assumption that suffers from exactly the problem you wish to use it to solve.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

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.

---

Yes, you are entirely right. 

We are definately part of nature and everything we do is natural, which is quite different to saying that everything we do is desirable, good, or sustainable over the long term. 

Extinction is natural too. 

We're absolutely part of nature and all our acts are natural. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

now they just fly up there  cause it's fun..

---

Is there a better reason?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa, I think your nephew is sweet and all, but I thinks he has his facts confused

---

he was pretty little when i asked him that..

he knows better now hehehehehe

 

Also speaking of nature and it's wrath..is anyone else surrounded by tornado conditions tonight?

we were lastnight and tonight we are again..my family just called from the ranch and they were all in the cellar out there..i gues a couple came through..

they have been all over the place since yesterday and don't look like they are letting up..

 

---

 

I'm enjoying thundersnow at the moment, but no tornadoes. I hope you and yours stay safe and sound, Ceka.

[Ceka Cianci]

they just gave our town a warning and  said it is just outside of town...

ya i think i'm gonna head to the cellar..hope to see you all when it passes..take care

 

ETA: Well that was exciting hehehehe

i guess it was still developing as it went over our town..it just dropped  lots and lots of hail hehehehe.

they have this really cool side view of the cell that shows a tail hanging out of the back of the cell..

i hope it dies out ..it's really strange how the purple part is going right over the towns in it's line..it's heading east but that part is lining up with the towns as it does..like connecting the dots..

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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?

---

 

Why can't the Universe always have been there? Why can't it have sprung from nothing?

When you say "how come it exists" when facing something that always existed, I'm not sure you can expect an answer.

"Why" questions are hard enough already. That particular "why" question usually seems (to me) to be an attempt to bring intent into the conversation.

This is a bit of a wander, but Feynman here starts to expose the difficulty of "why" questions, even when intent isn't part of the mix...

[161488303349]

---

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.

---

is interesting concept - nothingness

our measurements show that what we can observe has a begining and an end. from this we reason that the universe did have a beginning. when we conjecture that before the beginning there was Null - the state of absolute nothingness - then we create a paradox. the Null state is unprovable by any known method of measurement. so we treat it as an axiom. as a btw, in a semantic debate it can be shown that the state of nothingness itself cannot exist as when we assign a property value then it becomes something

which opens up: if we say that it cannot be Null, as Null is unprovable then: a) what was it before the beginning? or b) was there even a beginning as we normally understand the concept? if we say that it was Null, even if we can't prove it, then we are being axiomatic

as a starting premise i am more inclined to b). what we do know is that things evolve. from this we can postulate that the universe in its current form evolved from a previous form and will one day evolve into another form. ad infinitum. if only because of the Null argumentation

[Phil Deakins]

---

Helium Loon wrote:

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.

---

I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense, so it's pointless discussing anything about it. It's the same as saying that everything we can imagine, and everything we can't imagine, actually exists, and that ends all discussions on the topic, because whatever is suggested is true, however far fetched and unrealistic it is. All you have to do is imagine something, and you're right - somewhere, in some universe, which, of course, definitely affects this universe, and how it came into being, simply because it's a possible reality. It's just nonsense.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

The point remains the same.  Either there was always something, or somethingness can and did come forth from nothingness. 

Why it would be the case that the universe or some precursor of it was always there, or why it would be the case that something would come from nothing is a different question. 

Why would a creator always have existed, or why would a creator have come forth from nothingness is no less pressing a question, and it's not answered by saying because otherwise something would always have existed or something would have come from nothing because even if we accept a creating something, we still have the exact same problem that the something, whatever it is, either always existed or come forth from nothing..  No matter whether we insert arbitary things called "creator" or not, we still have the same essential problem of something having always existed or something having come from nothing.  Simply calling the something "creator" rather than "universe" does nothing to resolve the problem.   

There is no more reason to expect a creator has always existed than to expect the germ of a universe always existed until the universe itself existed.  Nor is there anymore reason to suppose a creator would come from nothingness than there is to expect the same of a universe.

A creator did it is not only arbitary it still leaves you with the exact same problem you think it solves.  If you think a creator could not have come into existence from nothing how come it was *always* there?  How came it exists?  If you think a creator did not always exist but came to exist from nothing, then how come it came to exist from nothing?

Your solution is not a solution but merely an arbitary out of the blue assumption that suffers from exactly the problem you wish to use it to solve.

---

I never said or implied a "creator" in the sense of a person. You wrote as though I did. I'm not saying it wasn't a 'person', but I didn't suggest or imply that it was.

Apart from that, what you wrote is right. Since the only conclusion for the existance of the universe is that it was created, and not always there, the questions that you asked are rightly raised - who or what caused it to be come into existance as we know it, and was that "who or what" created or always there? That "who or what" must necessarily have been outside the universe at the time of creation, and, therefore, that external reality is inaccessible to our comprehension. It's beyond us, and we are left with what is accessible to us - the universe that we see - which, fortunately, is the topic of this thread

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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?

---

Why can't the Universe always have been there? Why can't it have sprung from nothing?

---

If it "sprung from nothing", it wasn't always there. Before it, there was nothing.

I find it totally inconceivable that the universe was always there - to infinity in the past. When thinking that it might have been, the question "how come?" is just too loud.

[Crackers Horngold]

Thru the Rabbit Hole?

[Charolotte Caxton]

If numbers are infinite, why can't a universe be infinite? 

What does how come mean, or rather, what are you intending it to mean?

:heart:

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

16 wrote:

is interesting concept - nothingness

our measurements show that what we can observe has a begining and an end. from this we reason that the universe did have a beginning. when we conjecture that before the beginning there was Null - the state of absolute nothingness - then we create a paradox. the Null state is unprovable by any known method of measurement. so we treat it as an axiom. as a btw, in a semantic debate it can be shown that the state of nothingness itself cannot exist as when we assign a property value then it becomes something

which opens up: if we say that it cannot be Null, as Null is unprovable

then: a) what was it before the beginning? or b) was there even a beginning as we normally understand the concept? if we say that it was Null, even if we can't prove it, then we are being axiomatic

as a starting premise i am more inclined to b). what we do know is that things evolve. from this we can postulate that the universe in its current form evolved from a previous form and will one day evolve into another form. ad infinitum. if only because of the Null argumentation

---

That's the problem when discussing what I've called "nothingness" (you used a better word - "Null"). Even calling it a state/condition/circumstance/condition/whatever of nothingness is meaningless because that turns it into a something, which negates the very idea of absolute nothingness. Even using a word for it (nothingness or Null) turns it into a something. Imagining it without it being a state of reality in time and space is impossible for us. That's why I've suggested considering it rather than imagining it, because we can't possibly imagine it.

I see no reason to decide that something isn't true, just because it's unprovable. I see no reason to say that Null can't have been.

As an aside, I like to think that Null exists (although the word "exists" gives it the property of existing, which is not what I mean). I like to think that outside the expanding universe is singularity - Null - absolute nothingness. Not the singularity that cosmologists talk about as being at the centre of black holes - one singularity to each black hole. I like the word "singularity" to describe Null, so it's just "singularity" and not "the singularity" or "a singularity" - just "singularity". Maybe the very centre of black holes touch singularity too - or maybe they don't.

The evolving universe doesn't deal with the thread's question - "How did the universe come into existance?". The evolving universe is all about after it came into existance.

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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?

---

 

Why can't the Universe always have been there? Why can't it have sprung from nothing?

When you say "how come it exists" when facing something that always existed, I'm not sure you can expect an answer.

 

---

As Helium pointed out before there' s the theory of a singularity, derived from the theory of relativity. One hypothesis is the bang has begun as a singularity. There could be a chance our singularity derived from a black hole from another universe.

We do know that our known universe is time bound ( 15 billion years since the bang ). It may be growing infinitely large into an unknown dark void, but it is certainly not infinitely old. Scientifically there' s even no agreement wether this universe will forever expand ( which it is doing now ) or at one point in time will collapse into that singularity again, starting things all over as a perpetuating hartbeat.

So far for the ' first cause' .

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If numbers are infinite, why can't a universe be infinite? 

What does how come mean, or rather, what are you intending it to mean?

:heart:

---

Numbers don't exist in time and space. That's the reason they can be infinite.

That's difficult to answer. I mean, how come the universe was always there? How did it get to be always there?

[ROB34466IIIa]

Numbers aren' t infinite. The number 1,234,567,678,6778,888,999,443,111 is as far away from infinity as the number 1. You can only keep adding to any number ad infinitum.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. As you said, you can keep adding to a number ad-infinitum which, to my way of thinking, means that a numbers are infinite; i.e. a number can keep increasing infinitely.

[Porky Gorky]

I think the most currently accepted theory is that our universe is infinite. The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and is speeding up. We have no idea why so we stick a fancy label on the driving force and call it Dark Energy. Ultimately all the galaxies move away from each other either on their own or in clusters and the only observable light will be from our own local cluster. Eventually all the stars will run out of fuel and star formation will be exhausted, any proton decay or other stellar remnants will disappear and only black holes will be left in a void barren universe that exists in a state of absolute zero. The Big Freeze.

So I think the universe is infinite in it's expansion and that expansion will ultimately result in a virtual nothingness.

I see our particular universe as being like a science experiment. The experiment in our case was a test to see whether or not matter or anti-matter would prevail. Matter won, barely. So the experiment happened, we are living in the dissipation of that chemical experiment. Eventually the experiment will end as the left over's from the chemical reaction fade away. The "intelligence" that triggered it will loose interest and stop watching. The universe or science lab will still exist. It will just be closed for business as there will be nothing left to see here.

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not sure what you're driving at. As you said, you can keep adding to a number ad-infinitum which, to my way of thinking, means that a numbers are infinite; i.e. a number can keep increasing infinitely.

---

Eventhough you can infinitely add up to numbers, numbers in itself are limited by their own definition. 1 is limited, 10 as well, 100,000 too and so on. A number cannot increase infinitely on it' s own remaining itself. Addition to the original number means the number isn' t the same after the addition, which one can keep doing forever resulting in a different number all the time. A number that never changes into infinity is a constant.

Please note specifically what dr. Sagan states from 02:02 uptil 02:15.

The symbol for infinity isn' t a number

. It' s a loop between the infinitely large and infinitely small i.e. eventhough we draw a left side going to the right and back there is no limit to either one. You cannot assign or put any number to it.

Another property would be the absence of a middle. Infinity can never be explained by the value of 0.