How did the universe come into existence?

Anaiya Arnold · March 3, 2012

Phil Deakins wrote:

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

It's a complete mystery to me why you would conclude that I wrote as though you had said or implied a "creator" in the sense of a person. Perhaps you can specify which comments of mine state or imply any such thing, because I have no idea where you pulled that out of.

There's no need to assume a creator. Either there was always something and the universe could have evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it, which is as likely to be a precursor as a creator, or something can come from nothing and so we don't need a creator.

Let's imagine for critical thinking exercise that there was no creator. Why is this a problem? Is it because within the rules of the universe something does not arise from nothing autonomously? Why on earth (haha) would that matter to how things happen outside or prior to our universe? Outsidethe limitations of our universe, perhaps something arises from nothing, autonomously, rather commonly. Or perhaps nothingness is simply a human fancy at odds with a reality of eternal somethingness, in which case we don't need a creator because there was never nothing and whatever there was could have been something that both the universe autonomously evolved from, and was not a creator.

Essentially your argument is an attempt to get around a problem of cause and effect and you do this by arbitarily inserting a creator as a "cause-effect" breaker. The creator is special and not ascertainable from within the universe so it does not matter if they ignore the cause and effect rule as we can just go all agnostic at that point. That's not an advance on simply deciding that the universe evolved from circumstances not ascertainable from within the universe so it does not matter if whatever those circumstances were and how they resulted in the universe, ignore the cause and effect rule that operates within our universe as nothing stops us going agnostic at that point.

The only difference between the two formulations, is one arbitarily assumes "creator" despite a complete absence of any particular evidence for that, despite the fact that this does not further our knowledge or give rise to a single testable premise or useful question, and despite the fact that it adds nothing whatsoever from where we are if we assume "circumstances unspecified" rather specifically a "creator".

Anaiya Arnold · March 3, 2012

The universe probably did not always exist, but that does not mean that there was ever a state of nothingness. Some precursor to the universe might have existed before it; it may be that there was always something and each subsequent thing flowed from it. While you think this may be incrediable, it's not one bit more incrediable than that a creator came forth from nothing or that a creator always existed.

Either something came from nothingness or there was never nothingness.

You seem to think your assumption is more likely than the alternative but it is obviously and categorically less likely.

Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness. Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true.

Porky Gorky · March 3, 2012

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness. Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true.

I think this is completely right and applicable to every single theory that mankind has ever come up with for the inception of the universe / multiverse. If you trace every single theory back to the initial source you have to accept the fact that the first thing that ever happened in the history of everything is that something appeared from nothing.

Madelaine McMasters · March 3, 2012

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

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 Helig 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 infinitely large, 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.

So far for the ' first cause' .

If our universe derived from a black hole in another universe, then it would not be THE universe and the "it's always existed" idea remains. I'm not thinking about only the universe we can perceive. I'm thinking about the whole enchilada.

ROB34466IIIa · March 3, 2012

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm thinking about the whole enchilada.

Apparantly you have an appetite for Mexican cuisine too.

Sorry btw .. I added a few words to my original reply while you answered. I hope you take those words into consideration too.

Madelaine McMasters · March 3, 2012

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm thinking about the whole enchilada.

Apparantly you have an appetite for Mexican cuisine too.

Sorry btw .. I added a few words to my original reply while you answered. I hope you take those words into consideration too.

I do!

Yeah, I see Phil is narrowing the discussion to our particular observable universe and potentially to a limited epoch from the big bang through to the big crunch (if that happens). Beyond the pleasure of the aesthestics, I'm not sure what value there is in theorizing about things the self same theories say are unproveable, but plenty of people are doing it and they're getting me to buy their books (which means I have just shown the value in it ;-)

So, for me, the question may boil down to whether the string theorists, and in particular the multiverse theorists, can craft theories beautiful enough to sway the masses, or whether new theories will spring up, even more bizarre, or whether the experimentalists will discover something that shows everything we know is wrong. As an engineer, who likes to get her hands dirty, I'm rooting for the experimentalists.

ROB34466IIIa · March 3, 2012

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

As an engineer, who likes to get her hands dirty, I'm rooting for the experimentalists.

We agree to disagree on that one though. I prefer the theorist stating : OMG , what was I thinking' over the experimentalist who states : " WTF was that !? " ... :robotindifferent:

Prolly because i' m one of those bores who can drag on about a theory endlessly to a point where others start yelling "Hey, how about some goddem action!" ... :robotfrustrated:

Maryanne Solo · March 3, 2012

This doesn't make a lot of sense because it was a dream. It relates more to people already existing somehow and what they needed to survive.

An amazing rock guitarist atop a worlds tallest mountain, (no snow for some reason lol), played astonishing and seemingly impossible combinations of notes, (to gut wrenching drum and bass performed by unseen but equally gifted individuals), as he sounded them, each note also took on its written form and cascaded slowly down to the assembled worlds population, where they caught and consumed the amaaazing sounds/notes 8^0

Connecting with the music was what they needed to sustain themselves and ensure their continued and happy existance. There was no pushing, shoving or fighting as there were more than enough for every single person. The scene was not one of desperation, just pure joy. The cycle continued endlessly. It was, the meaning of life ^^

I dreamt I heard the unbelievable music, saw the beautiful notes and woke breathless, ecstatic and incredibly happy.

ROB34466IIIa · March 3, 2012

Was the guitarist wearing this hat ?

Phil Deakins · March 3, 2012

You're just splitting hairs. I think everyone except you understood exactly what Charolotte meant.

Pussycat Catnap · March 3, 2012

Creation is a room with a light switch.

Judism: God flipped the switch.

Christianity: God flipped the switch. Jesus held the door open.

Islam: God flipped the switch. Jesus held the door open, The Prophet guides the path through the room.

Rastafari: God flipped the switch in Africa. Jesus held the door open, Halie Selassie's teachings show us everyone has an equal place in the room.

Hinduism: Shiva wrecked his hotel room, found a switch, a flipped it. He does this now and then.

Buddhism: Who cares who flipped the switch and why - now that we're all in here, what to do to get out?

Taoism: Owl confusing, over water. Honey good, in jars; earthy. Virtuous Piglet, worry of bee stings in air. Eyeore, gloom. Tea at Rabbit's, with fire.

Plains Indians: Grandmother Spider wove a beautiful switch so we could flip it, but Coyote snuck in and did it first, then dropped the birthday cake and got it all over the room, so grandfather has to come in and repaint everything by hand.

Wicca: The Horned god flipped Mother Earth's switch, so she gave birth to the room.

Atheism: There is no switch. By random chance the room is, and we're not even really here in it, we're just random noise on the TV screen that think's its alive. Any second now, the power's going to run out.

Phil Deakins · March 3, 2012

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

It's a complete mystery to me why you would conclude that I wrote as though you had said or implied a "creator" in the sense of a person. Perhaps you can specify which comments of mine state or imply any such thing, because I have no idea where you pulled that out of.

When we talk about a creator, we generally mean an intelligence. All of your post simply used the word "creator" so it looked like you meant an intelligent creator - a person.

There's no need to assume a creator.

Either there was always something and the universe could have evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it

, which is as likely to be a precursor as a creator,

or something can come from nothing and so we don't need a creator.

Nothing can "come from nothing".

If the universe "evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it", as you suggested, then something would have existed before it, so where did that come from? From something that existed before that? And so it goes on and on. In other words, it always existed, which is something that I find cannot possibly be true. If it is true, how come it got to always be there? That's the question that leads to the conclusion that it can't always have been there.

The rest of your post uses the word "creator" as an intelligent being, but I'll assume you don't mean it that way. If you do, why talk to me about it? I never suggested such a thing.

All I am saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever. If you sit back and really consider that it might have existed forever - infinitely in the past, never having had a beginning - you'll come to the conclusion that it can't have been that way.

I'm not suggesting anything about where it may or may not have come from, or how it got started when there was Null, and no place or time for Null to be. There are all sorts of fancy ideas about that, but nobody will ever know because it's not possible for us within the universe to know.

ROB34466IIIa · March 3, 2012

There' s also for everybody else to see you both have invalid assumptions on numbers.

Charolotte Caxton · March 3, 2012

Phil Deakins wrote:

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.

I think nothingness is like a basket of oranges. You remove all the oranges and you have null oranges. When you say the basket is full of no oranges, that does not make the nothingness something, the word is just a way to describe something that isn't.

Calling nothingness something does not make it something, it does not revoke its null state.

So I agree, nothingness can be and I can imagine it.

I have something stuck in my head that I don't know how true it is, but sounds kinda relevant to me. I think I was told that cold is the absence of heat. If that were true, could we say nothingness is the absence of somethingness?

Porky Gorky · March 3, 2012

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Creation is a room with a light switch....

I really that. You should get T-shirts made up and sell them on Ebay :smileyhappy:

Charolotte Caxton · March 3, 2012

Porky Gorky wrote:

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness. Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true.

I think this is completely right and applicable to every single theory that mankind has ever come up with for the inception of the universe / multiverse. If you trace every single theory back to the initial source you have to accept the fact that the first thing that ever happened in the history of everything is that something appeared from nothing.

..or that something always was.

Phil Deakins · March 3, 2012

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

The universe probably did not always exist, but that does not mean that there was ever a state of nothingness. Some precursor to the universe might have existed before it; it may be that there was always something and each subsequent thing flowed from it. While you think this may be incrediable, it's not one bit more incrediable than that a creator came forth from nothing or that a creator always existed.

Either something came from nothingness or there was never nothingness.

You seem to think your assumption is more likely than the alternative but it is obviously and categorically less likely.

Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness. Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true.

You seem to be repeating yourself in cosecutive posts, so I'll repeat myself a bit...

Nothing springs from nothing. I'll add, not without someone or something causing it.

And you're still using the word "creator" as an intelligent creator. "Creator" means an entity/person/intelligence. I'm not assuming, or suggesting, a "creator". I'm saying that this universe (this space, this time, and this matter that we know) didn't always exist and so it must have been created. I've made no suggestion as to how it got created. It might have popped through from another universe for all I know, or it might have been created by an omnipotent being. I don't suggest any particluar way of its creation, but I do say that it hasn't existed forever.

You also think it's more likely not to have existed forever, so why are you debating against me so much?

You said, "Either something came from nothingness or there was never nothingness"

Before this universe came into being, there was nothingness - Null. If there hadn't been nothingness/Null, the universe would have already existed and that can't be.

I think you are thinking about many universes, and perhaps thinking that our universe sprang from one of them. Some scientists suggest that too. But other universes are not this universe, and this universe is the only one that I've been talking about. If there was something here already for another universe to shove stuff into, then the spacetime of this universe was here already, so it would promote the "always existed" idea. And that can't be.

Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness. Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true.

I haven't written an assumption of a "creator". I do have a "creation" assumption, which is quite different. But, since you write as though I have a "creator assumption", I'll say that I do have a similar assumption. I've said it before, anyway. Since this universe cannot have been here eternally, it must have had a beginning, and, since nothing can spring from nothing without someone or something creating it, it must have been created. It's the only conclusion. A someone could be God, or someone in a lab in another universe, or even the ultimate fate of a black hole. I can't argue either way. What I can argue about, and it's all I've been arguing about, is that this universe cannot have existed eternally.

Charolotte Caxton · March 3, 2012

Phil Deakins wrote:

You're just splitting hairs. I think everyone except you understood exactly what Charolotte meant.

It's cool. I had never thought about numbers like that before, how ROB34466 pointed out. So I am glad for the explanation and also that you understood my meaning.

Charolotte Caxton · March 3, 2012

Why couldn't it have always been here? Why must we conclude that it has a beginning?

Phil Deakins · March 3, 2012

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I think nothingness is like a basket of oranges. You remove all the oranges and you have null oranges. When you say the basket is full of no oranges, that does not make the nothingness something, the word is just a way to describe something that isn't.

Calling nothingness something does not make it something, it does not revoke its null state.

So I agree, nothingness can be and I can imagine it.

I have something stuck in my head that I don't know how true it is, but sounds kinda relevant to me. I think I was told that cold is the absence of heat. If that were true, could we say nothingness is the absence of somethingness?

Lol. I do like your thinking

The thing about an empty basket of oranges is that there is space in the basket for the oranges not to be in - and time for them not to be there too

Temperature is merely the speed at which the particles are moving. The slower they move, the colder it is, and vice versa. The base temperature is the total absence of movement. After that, it just gets warmer

Could we say that nothingness is the absence of somethingness? I suppose we could. Space is something, time is something, and matter is something. Remove all those, and we have nothingness, or Null. But nobody would be around to realise it

Charolotte Caxton · March 3, 2012