To be quite frank, this question hurts me to think about. I don't think it's something that we can ever have a proper answer for, but it's something that we can guess at, and maybe, just maybe some guesses will be partially right, or at least more right than others.
Anyway, let's get into my thoughts on the matter:
The scientific "law" of 'energy cannot be created or destroyed...'
I have a major issue with this because at some point, however many billions of years ago, something had to just come out of nothing. If this is the case, energy can be created, or at least could be created at that time.
Religion
That comfy, fall-back-on response of "Goddidit" has the exact same issues as the previous point. If God created everything, what created God? And in case you were wondering: no, God cannot simply have existed forever. He had to come from something, or perhaps from nothing, but either way this explanation is equally as troublesome as nothing suddenly exploding and everything appearing.
I don't know... Maybe everything could have existed forever?
I'm so very confused.
I think the 3 main points here are:
1. Matter has always existed. There was no beginning.
2. Matter suddenly appeared out of nothing.
3. A kind of "conscience" has always existed (i.e. God) which is not made of matter, and created all matter.
I'm an atheist, by the way.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Is there any other explanation or possibility?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What matters creative endless toil
When, at a snatch, oblivion ends the coil?
My first thought is that your thinking on this matter is self contradictory. You are claiming that causality must be preserved with any answer given, but also saying it cannot be. (Since you are denying that something can be eternal--since everything must come from something--while also proclaiming the first thing must have come from nothing. Contradiction. Either causality must be persevered or it mustn't.)
Anyway, currently, science's best answer to the question is the Zero-energy universe theory (that if you add it all together you get 0); or Vacuum genesis (that the universe is really just a background fluctuation)
EDIT: Oh, I have been meaning to make a thread about this paper(pdf) someone in my department published. Interesting stuff as a possible answer to the question.
Something much smarter than us, created us. We don't have the answers and never will because we are just humans.
I'm one of those who takes the leap of faith because I find faith to be a very rewarding experience and give my life a better meaning than trying to anaylze fate like a math problem.
Something much smarter than us, created us. We don't have the answers and never will because we are just humans.
I'm one of those who takes the leap of faith because I find faith to be a very rewarding experience and give my life a better meaning than trying to anaylze fate like a math problem.
That's just me.
God Bless.:halo:
Sentence one: gives an answer.
Sentence two: claims we'll never have the answer.
he's saying something bigger than us made us, but we won't know what or how.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about."
-H. P. Lovecraft
String theory supports the multiverse answer. Other universes exist and usually through either interaction or causes outside the universe create them. Though then the "well where did that come from? " question happens.
the "begining" probably isn't something we can ever grasp. There will always be the question "why". Have you ever talked to a toddler before that got into the "why" or "how come?" string.
Why is it so hot out?
-Because the sun warms the earth
Why does the sun warm the earth?
-Because the thermal energy radiates from then sun hits the earth.
Why does it have ....ect forever.
The scientific "law" of 'energy cannot be created or destroyed...'
I have a major issue with this because at some point, however many billions of years ago, something had to just come out of nothing. If this is the case, energy can be created, or at least could be created at that time.
Technically matter and energy are equivalent. Research nuclear fission/fusion/radioactivity.
nothing suddenly exploding and everything appearing.
As I understand it, the big bang was an expansion of space rather than an explosion of matter.
As our standard models of physics were developed in an area where space and time exist, they tend to break down when they're pointed at the big bang.
Quote from Relevant warnings from the site"s concepts page »
Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Something must have existed at some point for no reason at all.
Think about it: nothingness is impossible. Well, that's not quite right, is it? Nothingness for some reason is impossible because if there were nothingness and a reason why there were nothingness, we'd be talking about nothingness plus something. Just think how strange that would be! There'd be absolutely nothing at all except for a reason why there's nothing at all. And "nothingness except for ______" is not nothing, it's something. There's something there. We'd be wanting to know why that reason (that "something" that existed) was there.
Is the "reason for the nothingness" there for no reason at all? Is it there for some reason?
If it's the first, then we have something that exists for no reason. If it's the second, then we'd have to ask why the reason for "the reason for nothingness" is there, and then we can repeat the same thing over and over.
So nothingness for some reason is impossible (because then there'd be nothing and a reason why, which isn't nothing), but nothingness for no reason at all is certainly possible. However, something for no reason at all would have to be considered possible as well, and just as likely at that. Why just as likely? Because otherwise we'd be talking about there being absolutely nothing except for "a reason why nothingness for no reason is more likely by default than somethingness for no reason". And, again, we'd be back at there being absolutely nothing in existence except for some reason (this time it's a reason why nothingness for no reason is more likely than something for no reason). And we wouldn't have nothing, we'd have a reason for one being more likely than the other, and we'd want a reason for that reason to be there in the absence of anything else, and a reason for that reason, and on and on. As long as we're still looking for reasons for things we aren't talking about there being nothing.
So the only way for there to be truly nothing is for there to be nothing for no reason. And it's also just as likely that there would've been "something" for no reason. Consider that absolutely nothing is not going to give rise to something (at least not for any reason, and if you suppose that it gave rise to something for no reason, then that is essentially the same as saying that something just existed for no reason). This being the case, and it also being the case that we presently recognize that there is "something" we can conclude that it must have been the case that something existed for no reason at all.
Does your head hurt yet?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Think about it: nothingness is impossible. Well, that's not quite right, is it? Nothingness for some reason is impossible because if there were nothingness and a reason why there were nothingness, we'd be talking about nothingness plus something. Just think how strange that would be! There'd be absolutely nothing at all except for a reason why there's nothing at all. And "nothingness except for ______" is not nothing, it's something. There's something there. We'd be wanting to know why that reason (that "something" that existed) was there.
You are making a metalanguage/object language mistake. The object language of an empty object is indeed empty, but we can still speak about that object in metalanguage. "X is empty because of reason P" does not mean that P is in X or springs from X -- it is a metastatement about X rather than an element of X.
Consider the empty set in mathematics -- empty sets truly contain nothing, yet we can reason about them (without making them nonempty in the process) by using a metalanguage that exists entirely outside of and independent from the nothingness that is found on inside of the set.
When you say that all reasoning about the universe must be contained within the universe, you are collapsing the metalanguage into the object language, which is logically forbidden.
So I'm afraid this whole line of reasoning doesn't work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I do not see how that law of energy can be true in a finite universe.
How can energy be eternal but the universe not? It does seem to me to be rather plain that we first need a universe before we can have a physical phenomena such as energy. Can energy exist before a universe existing if so how and if so how. How is this not just putting ideas of God under a different name or in other words a rose by a other name.
And just in case anyone is wondering I'm basing my knowledge of a finite universe on a certain Physicist in a wheelchair and a article he wrote and if anyone is doubting this I would be happy to give links. According to him all evidence points to a finite universe.
I do not see how that law of energy can be true in a finite universe.
The statement in the OP is not true; it's a layman's-terms oversimplification of the real mass-energy conservation law. You can't make sound deductions from a false premise, so you need to look into what the law actually says and why it says it before you even start thinking about how you can confirm your religious beliefs with it.
Now, as it happens, a mathematician named Emmy Noether proved in 1915 (the same year as general relativity) that the mass-energy conservation law is a consequence of the symmetry of time: basically, mass-energy is conserved between Monday and Tuesday because there is no physical test that can distinguish Monday from Tuesday. But time is not symmetrical at or around the Big Bang. So neither must mass-energy necessarily be conserved.
And just in case anyone is wondering I'm basing my knowledge of a finite universe on a certain Physicist in a wheelchair and a article he wrote and if anyone is doubting this I would be happy to give links. According to him all evidence points to a finite universe.
Yes, links are generally much better than snarkiness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
God said so, and Bang! it happened. I saw a bumper sticker that said so, it must be true.
Ultimately, something had to come from nothing. Since matter is not in the habit of spontaneously coming into existence, something must have made it happen. This is about as far as we can get on pure logic though.
Ultimately, I believe that "Goddidit", as you put it, but I cannot logically prove this to be so.
I don't see anything in that link that actually supports your argument that goddiddit more than it supports Spirit's argument of a non-symetrical universe.
It does poke holes in the OP, but that post was a very simplified summary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyway, let's get into my thoughts on the matter:
The scientific "law" of 'energy cannot be created or destroyed...'
I have a major issue with this because at some point, however many billions of years ago, something had to just come out of nothing. If this is the case, energy can be created, or at least could be created at that time.
Religion
That comfy, fall-back-on response of "Goddidit" has the exact same issues as the previous point. If God created everything, what created God? And in case you were wondering: no, God cannot simply have existed forever. He had to come from something, or perhaps from nothing, but either way this explanation is equally as troublesome as nothing suddenly exploding and everything appearing.
I don't know... Maybe everything could have existed forever?
I'm so very confused.
I think the 3 main points here are:
1. Matter has always existed. There was no beginning.
2. Matter suddenly appeared out of nothing.
3. A kind of "conscience" has always existed (i.e. God) which is not made of matter, and created all matter.
I'm an atheist, by the way.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Is there any other explanation or possibility?
When, at a snatch, oblivion ends the coil?
My awesome blog of awesomeness.
Anyway, currently, science's best answer to the question is the Zero-energy universe theory (that if you add it all together you get 0); or Vacuum genesis (that the universe is really just a background fluctuation)
EDIT: Oh, I have been meaning to make a thread about this paper(pdf) someone in my department published. Interesting stuff as a possible answer to the question.
I'm one of those who takes the leap of faith because I find faith to be a very rewarding experience and give my life a better meaning than trying to anaylze fate like a math problem.
That's just me.
God Bless.:halo:
Sentence one: gives an answer.
Sentence two: claims we'll never have the answer.
???
You can't have it both ways.
"I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about."
-H. P. Lovecraft
Tiax is saying if we don't know what or how, then how do we know it's 'something bigger?'
It's contradictory to say "I have no idea, but I have an idea."
the "begining" probably isn't something we can ever grasp. There will always be the question "why". Have you ever talked to a toddler before that got into the "why" or "how come?" string.
Why is it so hot out?
-Because the sun warms the earth
Why does the sun warm the earth?
-Because the thermal energy radiates from then sun hits the earth.
Why does it have ....ect forever.
Technically matter and energy are equivalent. Research nuclear fission/fusion/radioactivity.
As I understand it, the big bang was an expansion of space rather than an explosion of matter.
As our standard models of physics were developed in an area where space and time exist, they tend to break down when they're pointed at the big bang.
I have serious problems with any argument of the "god did it" type, because as you said those arguments don't actually explain anything.
Mostly I trust that the phsyicists aren't just making **** up, what with my various electronic items reliably working (mostly).
However, my understanding of physics isn't much, I'm going to hand you over to people who seem to know what they're talking about.
Art is life itself.
Think about it: nothingness is impossible. Well, that's not quite right, is it? Nothingness for some reason is impossible because if there were nothingness and a reason why there were nothingness, we'd be talking about nothingness plus something. Just think how strange that would be! There'd be absolutely nothing at all except for a reason why there's nothing at all. And "nothingness except for ______" is not nothing, it's something. There's something there. We'd be wanting to know why that reason (that "something" that existed) was there.
Is the "reason for the nothingness" there for no reason at all? Is it there for some reason?
If it's the first, then we have something that exists for no reason. If it's the second, then we'd have to ask why the reason for "the reason for nothingness" is there, and then we can repeat the same thing over and over.
So nothingness for some reason is impossible (because then there'd be nothing and a reason why, which isn't nothing), but nothingness for no reason at all is certainly possible. However, something for no reason at all would have to be considered possible as well, and just as likely at that. Why just as likely? Because otherwise we'd be talking about there being absolutely nothing except for "a reason why nothingness for no reason is more likely by default than somethingness for no reason". And, again, we'd be back at there being absolutely nothing in existence except for some reason (this time it's a reason why nothingness for no reason is more likely than something for no reason). And we wouldn't have nothing, we'd have a reason for one being more likely than the other, and we'd want a reason for that reason to be there in the absence of anything else, and a reason for that reason, and on and on. As long as we're still looking for reasons for things we aren't talking about there being nothing.
So the only way for there to be truly nothing is for there to be nothing for no reason. And it's also just as likely that there would've been "something" for no reason. Consider that absolutely nothing is not going to give rise to something (at least not for any reason, and if you suppose that it gave rise to something for no reason, then that is essentially the same as saying that something just existed for no reason). This being the case, and it also being the case that we presently recognize that there is "something" we can conclude that it must have been the case that something existed for no reason at all.
Does your head hurt yet?
You are making a metalanguage/object language mistake. The object language of an empty object is indeed empty, but we can still speak about that object in metalanguage. "X is empty because of reason P" does not mean that P is in X or springs from X -- it is a metastatement about X rather than an element of X.
Consider the empty set in mathematics -- empty sets truly contain nothing, yet we can reason about them (without making them nonempty in the process) by using a metalanguage that exists entirely outside of and independent from the nothingness that is found on inside of the set.
When you say that all reasoning about the universe must be contained within the universe, you are collapsing the metalanguage into the object language, which is logically forbidden.
So I'm afraid this whole line of reasoning doesn't work.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
How can energy be eternal but the universe not? It does seem to me to be rather plain that we first need a universe before we can have a physical phenomena such as energy. Can energy exist before a universe existing if so how and if so how. How is this not just putting ideas of God under a different name or in other words a rose by a other name.
And just in case anyone is wondering I'm basing my knowledge of a finite universe on a certain Physicist in a wheelchair and a article he wrote and if anyone is doubting this I would be happy to give links. According to him all evidence points to a finite universe.
Now, as it happens, a mathematician named Emmy Noether proved in 1915 (the same year as general relativity) that the mass-energy conservation law is a consequence of the symmetry of time: basically, mass-energy is conserved between Monday and Tuesday because there is no physical test that can distinguish Monday from Tuesday. But time is not symmetrical at or around the Big Bang. So neither must mass-energy necessarily be conserved.
Um... it makes no claim about any entity's intelligence, benevolence, or omnipotence?
Yes, links are generally much better than snarkiness.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ultimately, something had to come from nothing. Since matter is not in the habit of spontaneously coming into existence, something must have made it happen. This is about as far as we can get on pure logic though.
Ultimately, I believe that "Goddidit", as you put it, but I cannot logically prove this to be so.
I'm not a physicist and that's a wikipedia link, so take it with as many pinches of salt as you require.
Art is life itself.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
It does poke holes in the OP, but that post was a very simplified summary.
Art is life itself.