How did the universe come into existence?

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

the orange exercise is a fun exercise as well. attempting to show that something could exist by its absence. another fun exercise is: if we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time? in this context God being a word to describe a Something Else than can enable Something to come from Nothing?

---

 

If we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time?

No.

Proving that nothing can be true in no way even hints at or suggests that there is a God.

The fact that we can understand that there can exist nothingness does nothing towards the understanding of a Something Else that can enable Something to come from Nothing. 

In believing in a nothingness as being a possibility, but now we are all observing a something, then we could imagine the concept of something arising from nothing, but if there were nothing then there would be no thing to enable the somethingness, so again my answer would unequivocally be no.

[Maryanne Solo]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

Was the guitarist wearing this hat ?

---

No Rob, Slash is meh , nothing but a copycat.

Jimmy Page & Marc Bolan both wore a tophat around the same time from what I can tell.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Maryanne Solo wrote:

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

Was the guitarist wearing this hat ?

---

No Rob, Slash is meh

, nothing but a copycat.

Jimmy Page & Marc Bolan both wore a tophat around the same time from what I can tell.

---

Ohhhhhhh, Marigold. Tophats predate both Page and Bolan and Slash is anything but meh

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh, you added more. 

If the atheist says there is no god how is he any different than the person who says there is a god. They have both based their statements on unprovables.

---

Exactly.

Making an atheist a belief statement, not a neutral position. Atheism is a religion. One which has been responsible for countless amounts of violence since Marx militarized the faithful - making it no less 'innocent' nor less prone to fanatacism than any other religion.

 

 

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

 

---

A new born baby is an atheist.

 

---

No.

A newborn is at best agnostic - find me one newborn that will speak out as it pops out and state that there is no divine. They have, at best, no opinoin; making them agnostic. An atheist declares a stance - opposition to the divine.

More likely, if the newborn could elaborate, it would see the divine in its mother or itself or the bond therein - given how behavoir shapes up at that age.

But it would certainly not have the elaborate position of denying any divine concept and insiting there is no life, only chemical reactions.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

You are assuming nothing comes from nothing because that is your observation within this universe

. 

But it is baseless to assume that if nothing comes from nothing within the limitations of this universe, that this same thing must be true externally to our universe

.

  That nothing comes from nothing may have only become a fact at time T where time T is the   exact moment the universe became extant.  And further it may be the case that nothing comes from nothing applies nowhere but within our universe.but where is the evidence for that?

---

That's correct - because this thread is about the universe - read the title. It is "How did the universe come into existence?" See it now? It doesn't say "How did the universes come into existance?", does it? How many times do I have to point that out before you finally catch on? So, at the risk of getting too boring, I'll say it again - nothing comes from nothing, without it being created by a someone or something.

We can't talk about what is external to this universe, except in pure fantasy or mathematical terms, so it's pointless even mentioning it (and the mathematics way is pure imagination). In all probility there is no "external" to the universe other than nothingness/Null.

One more thing. How many times do I have to say that I have not assumed a creator in any of my posts before you understand what it means and stop writing that I have that assumption? To put it another way, how long do you intend barking up the wrong tree? Or do you think that, if you repeat something enough times, it will magically become true? There is no magic, I'm afraid lol

The rest of your lengthy post is meaningless, so I'll leave it there.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Now you are claiming you are not assuming or suggesting a creator.  The following is a quote from your earlier post.  Note the word in bold.

The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that

creator

existed?

You posited not merely "something" existing, but specifically described it as a creator.

---

Sorry. There was a snippet in your lengthy post that merited a response.

The bit of mine that you quoted doesn't suggest that I "assume a creator". It asks a question AND the word "creator" that I used (that you bolded) specifically refers to the "something" that I mentioned in the previous sentence. So, although the word "creator" is usually used to mean an intelligent creator, such as God, in the case you quoted, it specifically, and obviously, means a "something" - non-intelligent.

As I said earlier, you are just arguing for the sake of it, and not even trying to discuss or debate the actual topic. So from now, I will ignore your posts, as they are wholly argumentative and contain nothing in the way of genuine discussion on the topic. Ok?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Hey, I don't think she is arguing with you, just pointing out how what you said does imply you are saying creator.

Take number 1 from your reply above, "

 I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not [say] the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it."

So if the universe had to be created by someone or something, wouldn't that mean that that something or someone would be referred to as a creator?

---

I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent one, such as God, and she keeps on saying that I assume that to be the case. I don't. She really is just being argumentative for the sake of it - and getting nowhere.

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

16 wrote:

the orange exercise is a fun exercise as well. attempting to show that something could exist by its absence. another fun exercise is: if we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time? in this context God being a word to describe a Something Else than can enable Something to come from Nothing?

---

 

If we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time?

No.

Proving that nothing can be true in no way even hints at or suggests that there is a God.

The fact that we can understand that there can exist nothingness does nothing towards the understanding of a Something Else that can enable Something to come from Nothing. 

In believing in a nothingness as being a possibility, but now we are all observing a something, then we could imagine the concept of something arising from nothing, but if there were nothing then there would be no thing to enable the somethingness, so again my answer would unequivocally be no.

---

again my bad. sorry. i do again

i am positing that if Null could be proven. which is not the same as simply accepting, which is axiomatic. is generally accepted that a theory is provable by a rule of construction according to the respective discipline. an axiom is not. if an axiom was provable then it would not be an axiom. it would be a theory in the general case

so if Null could be proven by a rule of construction then we would have accomplished the seemingly impossible, at least by all currently known means. and if we could discover this rule of construction then we would have a tool that might then lead us to be being able to prove or disprove unequivocally the existence or otherwise of other null things. like God for instance if we categorise God as Null. which some people do

the interesting thing in these exercises is the rule of construction. what that might entail and what if any axioms in turn that this might entail. so my reference to Something Else and Plurality. whether these are valid in the quest for this particular elusive rule of construction (if such a thing even exists) is debatable, yes

+

ps. i am more inclined to the: infinity... <- Something <- Something <- Something <- ...infinity

but if it was Something <- Null then how did this happens if it did

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Hey, I don't think she is arguing with you, just pointing out how what you said does imply you are saying creator.

Take number 1 from your reply above, "

 I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not [say] the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it."

So if the universe had to be created by someone or something, wouldn't that mean that that something or someone would be referred to as a creator?

---

I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent one, such as God, and she keeps on saying that I assume that to be the case. I don't. She really is just being argumentative for the sake of it - and getting nowhere.

---

hey you were a god at one time ..remember?

where are those damn bots anyways these days? oh great one of the low prim furnishings

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Phil, I'm in agreement with Anaiya here. You did use the term "creator" and you did imply creator by using the term "creation". A distinction without a difference isn't useful. I also see dismissiveness in such statements as "I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense". I admit it appears like nonsense to me, but so does Congress and nearly everything my teenage neighbor tells me about cars. That said, I think science's search for answers is sincere and I don't dismiss it.

You also said "I find it totally inconceivable that the universe was always there - to infinity in the past." I suppose this explains the doggedness of your position. You're in good company though... Max Planck, the discoverer of quantum physics, found it ultimately inconceivable.

---

hehe. I'm not sure I want to be in the company of Max Planck. Guys like him later came up with the Many Worlds idea which is purely mathematical - and fantasy. Actually it was a student who came up with it, but some of those guys (not Planck because he'd departed by then) latched onto it.

It's true that science's search for answers is sincere and genuine. It's just that some of them search in the realms of fantasy, using mathematics as the tool. They come up with ideas and then do the sums to show that it *could* be true. The leading edges in this science are nothing but mathematics, which I don't find very impressive. String theory, branes, Many Worlds, multiple universes, etc. are all just excercises in mathematics.

I believe I'm right in saying that, when I've mentioned creation in my posts, I've always made it clear that the creator was a someone or something - even merely an event - and never just a someone. Anaiya keeps on using the word "creator" as though it's a someone, and that I assume to be a someone, which I haven't done in these posts. She writes very lenthy posts, mostly about how I assume a creator - a someone - and she simply ignores it every time I tell her that I haven't assumed that. I call that being argumentative for the sake of it.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

hey you were a god at one time ..remember?

where are those damn bots anyways these days? oh great one of the low prim furnishings

---

Only at one time?

My bots, my bots, my beloved bots. Where are they now? Actually, they are in the computer that I replaced two days ago, because it kept shutting down, sometimes only seconds after it started to power up. A few days ago, it took so many attempts at booting up that I thought it wasn't going to happen at all. So I got a new one, and I haven't yet transfered the bots across. They are also in my laptop, but its power supply died and the battery is too low. In other words, the bots are on holiday

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh, you added more. 

If the atheist says there is no god how is he any different than the person who says there is a god. They have both based their statements on unprovables.

---

Exactly.

Making an atheist a belief statement, not a neutral position. Atheism is a religion. One which has been responsible for countless amounts of violence since Marx militarized the faithful - making it no less 'innocent' nor less prone to fanatacism than any other religion.

 

 

 

---

I don't think atheism is a religion, as it is not organized and there are no set of beliefs. Atheism, as I understand it, means the belief that there is no god.

Fanaticism and violence can be the result of many things, people kill over Nike shoes, that does not make Nike a religion, but Nike does have fanatical followers, so do many other name brands, celebrities, stores, and just about anything else you can imagine. 

People will be violent given the slightest provocation, even more so if they have others to back them up or join them. Neither religion nor atheism are innocent, because the people that believe in them are not innocent, but that is because humans as we understand them are vicious animals and not because of what they choose to or have been forced to believe in.

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

16 wrote:

the orange exercise is a fun exercise as well. attempting to show that something could exist by its absence. another fun exercise is: if we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time? in this context God being a word to describe a Something Else than can enable Something to come from Nothing?

---

 

If we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time?

No.

Proving that nothing can be true in no way even hints at or suggests that there is a God.

The fact that we can understand that there can exist nothingness does nothing towards the understanding of a Something Else that can enable Something to come from Nothing. 

In believing in a nothingness as being a possibility, but now we are all observing a something, then we could imagine the concept of something arising from nothing, but if there were nothing then there would be no thing to enable the somethingness, so again my answer would unequivocally be no.

---

again my bad. sorry. i do again

i am positing that if Null could be proven. which is not the same as simply accepting, which is axiomatic. is generally accepted that a theory is provable by a rule of construction according to the respective discipline. an axiom is not. if an axiom was provable then it would not be an axiom. it would be a theory in the general case

so if Null could be proven by a rule of construction then we would have accomplished the seemingly impossible, at least by all currently known means. and if we could discover this rule of construction then we would have a tool that might then lead us to be being able to prove or disprove unequivocally the existence or otherwise of other null things. like God for instance if we categorise God as Null. which some people do

the interesting thing in these exercises is the rule of construction. what that might entail and what if any axioms in turn that this might entail. so my reference to Something Else and Plurality. whether these are valid in the quest for this particular elusive rule of construction (if such a thing even exists) is debatable, yes

+

ps. i am more inclined to the: infinity... <- Something <- Something <- Something <- ...infinity

but if it was Something <- Null then how did this happens if it did

---

Please, you have no need to apologize to me.

I did not realize that some people categorize god as null. Is that the same as saying god is nothing? So, if I am understanding correctly, are you saying that if we were somehow able to prove the existence of nothing, we could then prove the existence of god because god is nothing?

Now it is my turn to apologize, maybe I am not understanding the meaning of Null.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Phil, I'm in agreement with Anaiya here. You did use the term "creator" and you did imply creator by using the term "creation". A distinction without a difference isn't useful. I also see dismissiveness in such statements as "I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense". I admit it appears like nonsense to me, but so does Congress and nearly everything my teenage neighbor tells me about cars. That said, I think science's search for answers is sincere and I don't dismiss it.

You also said "I find it totally inconceivable that the universe was always there - to infinity in the past." I suppose this explains the doggedness of your position. You're in good company though... Max Planck, the discoverer of quantum physics, found it ultimately inconceivable.

---

hehe. I'm not sure I want to be in the company of Max Planck. Guys like him later came up with the Many Worlds idea which is purely mathematical - and fantasy. Actually it was a student who came up with it, but some of those guys (not Planck because he'd departed by then) latched onto it.

It's true that science's search for answers is sincere and genuine. It's just that some of them search in the realms of fantasy, using mathematics as the tool. They come up with ideas and then do the sums to show that it *could* be true. The leading edges in this science are nothing but mathematics, which I don't find very impressive. String theory, branes, Many Worlds, multiple universes, etc. are all just excercises in mathematics.



I believe I'm right in saying that, when I've mentioned creation in my posts, I've always made it clear that the creator was a someone or something - even merely an event - and never just a someone. Anaiya keeps on using the word "creator" as though it's a someone, and that I assume to be a someone, which I haven't done in these posts. She writes very lenthy posts, mostly about how I assume a creator - a someone - and she simply ignores it every time I tell her that I haven't assumed that. I call that being argumentative for the sake of it.

---

I am not very good at history or math, but didn't ancient scientists or whatever they were called prove or at least theorize that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it actually revolved around the sun? And didn't they use math to come to that realization? Wasn't that considered fantasy at the time?

[Phil Deakins]

---

16 wrote:

i am positing that if Null could be proven. which is not the same as simply accepting, which is axiomatic. is generally accepted that a theory is provable by a rule of construction according to the respective discipline. an axiom is not. if an axiom was provable then it would not be an axiom. it would be a theory in the general case

so if Null could be proven by a rule of construction then we would have accomplished the seemingly impossible, at least by all currently known means. and if we could discover this rule of construction then we would have a tool that might then lead us to be being able to prove or disprove unequivocally the existence or otherwise of other null things. like God for instance if we categorise God as Null. which some people do

the interesting thing in these exercises is the rule of construction. what that might entail and what if any axioms in turn that this might entail. so my reference to Something Else and Plurality. whether these are valid in the quest for this particular elusive rule of construction (if such a thing even exists) is debatable, yes

+

ps. i am more inclined to the: infinity... <- Something <- Something <- Something <- ...infinity

but if it was Something <- Null then how did this happens if it did

---

I'm still discussing our universe as though it is the only one, although this still applies in a multi-universe scenario. It's believed that the universe is finite, so, if that is true, isn't it self-evident that there is a state, or something, other than the universe, even if that state/something is Null? If it isn't true, then the size of the universe is infinite, and I don't think that any of the leading scientists in the field believe that.

Null, of couse, isn't infinite, because to be infinite (or finite) requires at least time, and there is no time in Null.

I can't agree with your inclination that existance (non-Null) goes back infinitely through time, regardless of the various stages it might have gone through along the way. I just can't see how existance can always (eternally) have been there, because I'd want at least an idea of how come it was always there. Null, of course doesn't have any measurement of time, so the idea of 'always there' doesn't apply. I have to conclude that existance actually had a beginning. To my way of thinking, it's the only possible conclusion without recourse to the realms of pure fantasy.

All of that applies even if we live in one of many universes.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Phil, I'm in agreement with Anaiya here. You did use the term "creator" and you did imply creator by using the term "creation". A distinction without a difference isn't useful. I also see dismissiveness in such statements as "I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense". I admit it appears like nonsense to me, but so does Congress and nearly everything my teenage neighbor tells me about cars. That said, I think science's search for answers is sincere and I don't dismiss it.

You also said "I find it totally inconceivable that the universe was always there - to infinity in the past." I suppose this explains the doggedness of your position. You're in good company though... Max Planck, the discoverer of quantum physics, found it ultimately inconceivable.

---

hehe. I'm not sure I want to be in the company of Max Planck. Guys like him later came up with the Many Worlds idea which is purely mathematical - and fantasy. Actually it was a student who came up with it, but some of those guys (not Planck because he'd departed by then) latched onto it.

It's true that science's search for answers is sincere and genuine. It's just that some of them search in the realms of fantasy, using mathematics as the tool. They come up with ideas and then do the sums to show that it *could* be true. The leading edges in this science are nothing but mathematics, which I don't find very impressive. String theory, branes, Many Worlds, multiple universes, etc. are all just excercises in mathematics.



I believe I'm right in saying that, when I've mentioned creation in my posts, I've always made it clear that the creator was a someone or something - even merely an event - and never just a someone. Anaiya keeps on using the word "creator" as though it's a someone, and that I assume to be a someone, which I haven't done in these posts. She writes very lenthy posts, mostly about how I assume a creator - a someone - and she simply ignores it every time I tell her that I haven't assumed that. I call that being argumentative for the sake of it.

---

I am not very good at history or math, but didn't ancient scientists or whatever they were called prove or at least theorize that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it actually revolved around the sun? And didn't they use math to come to that realization? Wasn't that considered fantasy at the time?

---

ya at first the world was flat then we found land ..then the whole universe revolved around the earth .or all the things we could see anyways..then they found out the sun was the center..then they seen there was more past  our planets and then solar system and so on..

to where we are now...

most things we can't see now is figured with math..like the black holes..math proved they existed but still had not seen any..then they finally found activity and still never saw one but could tell it was there by how things reacted around it..

crazy world huh? hehehehe

our universe started out as the ocean lol

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I am not very good at history or math, but didn't ancient scientists or whatever they were called prove or at least theorize that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it actually revolved around the sun? And didn't they use math to come to that realization?

 Wasn't that considered fantasy at the time?

---

Yes, mathematics are a standard tool to show something. Such greats as Newton and Einstein did it that way (although Einstein got a friend to do some of the harder maths ). But what they revealed was testable. The difference these days is that some of them come up with fantastic ideas that can't be tested, and then do the maths to show how something that is untestable *could* be true.

I've mentioned the Many Worlds idea a few times. It was dreamed up by a student and latched onto by some physicists/cosmologists. It's one of the multi-universe ideas but not the only one. The idea is that, whenever a decision is made by anyone, and presumably by anything, a new universe splits off for each possible decision. The same thing happens in each of the new universes, and so on and so on. So, if I decide to make cuppa, I can choose either tea or coffee. The result is that two seperate universes continue - one in which I chose tea, and one in which I chose coffee. And don't forget yet another new universe in which I decided against having a cuppa at all. It sounds pure fantasy, and it is pure fantasy, but the sums suggest that I *could* be true. That's the sort of thing I mean.

Another example is string theory. There are several string theories. One mathematically requires 9 dimensions instead of the 4 we are familiar with (3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension) or it can't be true, and another mathematically requires 10 dimensions or it can't be true. In both cases the sums work.

Then there's brane theory where our universe is on a flat plane (sheet) and other universes also on flat planes, and one where the universe is on the surface of a sphere and what we percieve is nothing more than holographic images projected from the surface to the inside of the sphere.

It's all dreamed up from the realms of fantasy, and the sums are done to show that it *could* be true. It's not like the good old days at all

I don't think it was considered to be fantasy at the time. It was considered to be herecy and that's different.

 

ETA: I chose tea. I expect there's another me in another universe writing that I chose coffee 

[Charolotte Caxton]

Lol, the only difference is that then they killed you for it

Now, they make TV shows about it

Fringe is an American science fiction television series created by J. J. Abrams, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. The series follows a Federal Bureau of Investigation "Fringe Division" team based in Boston, Massachusetts under the supervision of Homeland Security. The team uses unorthodox "fringe" science and FBI investigative techniques to investigate a series of unexplained, often ghastly occurrences, which are related to mysteries surrounding a parallel universe. The show has been described as a hybrid of The X-Files, Altered States and The Twilight Zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_(TV_series)

and

Police detective Michael Britten (Jason Isaacs) is newly returned to work after being in a car crash along with his wife Hannah (Laura Allen) and his son Rex (Dylan Minnette). After the crash Britten discovers that every time he goes to sleep he switches between two realities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake_(TV_series)

[Helium Loon]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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.

---

 

Sorry, but simple dismissal isn't a valid argument.

 

So let's demonstrate some logic that satisfies it.

 

Is this universe infinite?  Based on current measurements, no.  It has an expanding edge.  What is it expaning out into?  Nothingness?  But the slowing of the expansion rate indicates either resistance (which would indicate there IS something beyond that edge, retarding it's expansion) or loss of energy in the closed system of this universe.....but where is it escaping to?

Based on all observable evidence, thermodynamics holds true for all closed systems.  By your requirements, our universe is definitely a closed system.  However, at time t=0, a very large amount of energy suddenly appears.  Where did it come from.  Even if we decide it's an endlessly cyclical phenomenon (i.e. the big-bang/big-crunch cycles), the energy either comes from a complete 'nothingness' or NULL, if you must, at a time where t < 0, or it comes from outside the system, which means there are other universes.....or the laws of thermodynamics are violated (specifically, the First and Second laws, look them up.)  THEREFORE, either 'something' can spontaneously arise from 'nothingness/null', violating causality......OR.....there exists something outside our universe.  Pick one, or violate the laws of thermodynamics.

 

You are stuck in linear time and 4 dimensions, and simply dismiss any concept which goes against your beliefs.  Provide some actual logical proofs (based on actual scientific laws and theories) and we can continue.....

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

16 wrote:

ps. i am more inclined to the: infinity... <- Something <- Something <- Something <- ...infinity

but if it was Something <- Null then how did this happens if it did

---

I'd like to say more about the part of your post that I've bolded.

If I understand your use of "<-" correctly, it indicates backwards in time when I think it should indicate space. Take the Null state - no existance whatsoever - no time and no space. Then suddenly, there is the universe (time and space  - existance). It's believed that the universe expanded, and is still expanding, and, if it expanded, then it's size is finite. Otherwise it had to be infinite and couldn't expand.

Since it has a finite size, you could write what you wrote like this:- "Something <-| Null", with the | indicating the expanding outer limit of the universe. Then your question "how did this happen if it did" doesn't arise. The "<-" part can still indicate backwards in time but the "Null" part is not part of the timeline.

I have to say that I've put a logical slant on it, and that this universe is weird stuff. Imagine being able to break the speed limit (speed of light) and actually travel to the outer limit of the expanding universe. What would happen when you got there? You couldn't go through beyond the boundary because you only exist in the universe and Null is nothingness so there's nowhere to go. Would you crash into the boundary? Would you be able to see through it? There'd be Null to see so would it just appear black or what would the boundary look like? Would you touch the boundary and instantly be in a completely different location on the boundary, perhaps at the other side of the universe, because you'd touched Null, and there is no space in Null so, in a sense, it's everywhere where the universe isn't? Spacially, it's really weird stuff.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Lol, the only difference is that then they killed you for it

Now, they make TV shows about it

Fringe is an American science fiction television series created by J. J. Abrams, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. The series follows a Federal Bureau of Investigation "Fringe Division" team based in Boston, Massachusetts under the supervision of Homeland Security. The team uses unorthodox "fringe" science and FBI investigative techniques to investigate a series of unexplained, often ghastly occurrences, which are related to mysteries surrounding a parallel universe. The show has been described as a hybrid of The X-Files, Altered States and The Twilight Zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_(TV_series)

and

Police detective Michael Britten (Jason Isaacs) is newly returned to work after being in a car crash along with his wife Hannah (Laura Allen) and his son Rex (Dylan Minnette). After the crash Britten discovers that every time he goes to sleep he switches between two realities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake_(TV_series)

---

I like shows like that. I liked the X-Files and Warehouse 13, and I'll look out for the Fringe. We may get it but the name wouldn't normally attract me, so I'll look for it and give it a try.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

16 wrote:

ps. i am more inclined to the: infinity... <- Something <- Something <- Something <- ...infinity

but if it was Something <- Null then how did this happens if it did

---

I'd like to say more about the part of your post that I've bolded.

If I understand your use of "<-" correctly, it indicates backwards in time when I think it should indicate space. Take the Null state - no existance whatsoever - no time and no space. Then suddenly, there is the universe (time and space  - existance). It's believed that the universe expanded, and is still expanding, and, if it expanded, then it's size is finite. Otherwise it had to be infinite and couldn't expand.

Since it has a finite size, you could write what you wrote like this:- "Something <-| Null", with the | indicating the expanding outer limit of the universe. Then your question "

how did this happen if it did

" doesn't arise. The "<-" part can still indicate backwards in time but the "Null" part is not part of the timeline.

I have to say that I've put a logical slant on it, and that this universe is weird stuff. Imagine being able to break the speed limit (speed of light) and actually travel to the outer limit of the expanding universe. What would happen when you got there? You couldn't go through beyond the boundary because you only exist in the universe and Null is nothingness so there's nowhere to go. Would you crash into the boundary? Would you be able to see through it? There'd be Null to see so would it just appear black or what would the boundary look like? Would you touch the boundary and instantly be in a completely different location on the boundary, perhaps at the other side of the universe, because you'd touched Null, and there is no space in Null so, in a sense, it's everywhere where the universe isn't? Spacially, it's really weird stuff.

---

Now you got it! lol

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I like shows like that. I liked the X-Files and Warehouse 13, and I'll look out for the Fringe. We may get it but the name wouldn't normally attract me, so I'll look for it and give it a try.

---

I have to admit I tried watching it but it wasn't for me, I have heard it compared to Dr Who, but other than the popularity of the name, I know nothing about it so I couldn't say one way or the other how accurate or relevant that is.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Helium Loon wrote:

Sorry, but simple dismissal isn't a valid argument. 

---

Unfortunately, dismissal of things we think cannot conceivably be true is all we have, because there is no evidence to show one way or the other.

 

---

So let's demonstrate some logic that satisfies it.

Is this universe infinite?  Based on current measurements, no.  It has an expanding edge.  What is it expaning out into?  Nothingness?  But the slowing of the expansion rate indicates either resistance (which would indicate there IS something beyond that edge, retarding it's expansion) or loss of energy in the closed system of this universe.....but where is it escaping to? 

---

The last I heard was that the universe is still in inflationary expansion; i.e. the rate of expansion is still increasing. That was discovered in the late 90s. Perhaps I'm out of date but I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

If it were slowing, it wouldn't indicate a loss of energy from the universe. It would only indicate what always happens with energy - a transference. But it's not slowing, so the question doesn't arise.

---

Based on all observable evidence, thermodynamics holds true for all closed systems.  By your requirements, our universe is definitely a closed system.  However, at time t=0, a very large amount of energy suddenly appears.  Where did it come from.  Even if we decide it's an endlessly cyclical phenomenon (i.e. the big-bang/big-crunch cycles), the energy either comes from a complete 'nothingness' or NULL, if you must, at a time where t < 0, or it comes from outside the system, which means there are other universes.....or the laws of thermodynamics are violated (specifically, the First and Second laws, look them up.)  THEREFORE, either 'something' can spontaneously arise from 'nothingness/null', violating causality......OR.....there exists something outside our universe.  Pick one, or violate the laws of thermodynamics.

---

I'll pick an intelligent creator. Will that do? 

Incidentally, I haven't suggested that there aren't other universes. In one post I included the possibility of this universe being the result of a black hole in another universe, so you saying that, "By your requirements, our universe is definitely a closed system" is a gross misrepresentation of what I've written in the thread. In general I've confined myself to the thread's topic/title, which is still shown on every post.