something cannot come from nothing on its own

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

Postby Hugh » Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:57 pm

moonlord wrote:It seems we now have three main theories.

1. Creation/irockyou
2. Train-time/Hugh
3. Infinite time loop

Rob wrote:4. God made the universe.

PWrong wrote:5. The flying spaghetti monster created a mountain, trees and a midget, followed by the universe.

1. is self-creation from absolute nothingness. (which I don't think any physicists support)
2. and 3. are a forever existing "something".
4. and 5. are a forever existing creator "god".

Just to clarify things, I think that either 2, 3 or 4 are possible.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:21 pm

3. is not forever existing. That's the problem. Forever implies time. In that third hypothesis, time is only defined locally, between two consecutive BB - BC. There is nothing before a Big Bang, in fact it is not possible (as in undefined) to refer to something before a Big Bang. It's not just a point of all matter, but a point of both space and time. Time stops at Big Crunch, time starts at Big Bang, but they're different times. Or at least this is how I see it. It's a dead theory anyway. As I said, it seems there will be no Big Crunch.

Many scientists, including Hawking, support the first theory. Or better, supported it, as they're now looking for a new one (M theory), that would combine the five existing string theories with the supergravity theory.

The second is impossible. It leads to a paradox if it lacks a Creator. That's when it becomes the fourth theory. Which I dislike.

So to sum up, none is good. That's why it HAS to be the FSM. Although I believe he firstly created the trees...
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Hugh » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:41 pm

moonlord wrote:3. is not forever existing.

It is from the perspective that it keeps on going through the loop endlessly. Also, as far as this topic is concerned, its a "something" that exists forever.
moonlord wrote:Many scientists, including Hawking, support the first theory. Or better, supported it, as they're now looking for a new one (M theory), that would combine the five existing string theories with the supergravity theory.

I don't think that Hawking, or any other physicist, ever said that the universe began through self-creation from "absolute nothingness" as I've defined it. If he or they did, please give the quote.
moonlord wrote:The second is impossible. It leads to a paradox if it lacks a Creator. That's when it becomes the fourth theory.

Why is 3 impossible? Why can't the "something" that makes up our universe have always existed in some form? There is no paradox, just perpetual existence of something. It may be hard for us to think of something existing forever but that's because we have a lifespan. The "something" that makes us up continues on, in another form.
moonlord wrote:So to sum up, none is good.

A forever existing something is the only logical alternative to me, whether that be the matter and energy of the universe or a creator god.

What I can't fathom is all of this creating itself from nothing at all.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:08 pm

Reason for 3 to be impossible (page 32 in my translation of "Universe in a Nutshell", firstly stated by Kant): If the Universe appeared at the beginning of time (minus infinity), then it must have reached maximum entropy by now. Is seems it hasn't. So suppose the Universe appeared X years ago (finite X). Tell me why has it been an infinite period of time before the start. Or better, tell me how can you define something after an infinite amount of time.

Now that I think it over again, time was created at Big Bang, and is undefined at singularity. So whether the singularity was there before or created itself out of nothing is actually the same thing. There is no before.

Time axis: A (minus infinity) ------- B (finite X) ------- C (zero - now).

Big Bang occured at B. Before B, time does not exist. Therefore, A and B are the same, and A is not at minus infinity. Simply because before implies time, and time is not defined for values smaller than X (aka, before B).

I think this is the best I can explain why I think the singularity appeared out of nothing.

As for the quotes, I can give none, but he and others show that this is the only theory that hasn't been ruled out. I mentioned it might not be correct, because ppl are looking for another theory now...

PS. I reject God for the same reason PWrong (or jinydu, I don't remember exactly) does. If God created the Universe and set the rules for physics, then God exists. If God exists, then he can change the rules. Why are we still looking for them, then?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:42 pm

moonlord wrote:PS. I reject God for the same reason PWrong (or jinydu, I don't remember exactly) does. If God created the Universe and set the rules for physics, then God exists. If God exists, then he can change the rules. Why are we still looking for them, then?


How does that disprove existance of God?
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby moonlord » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:51 am

It does not, it only suggests that if God exists, all our search for scientifical knowledge is useless. He can change the rules according to his will, so why bother to find out a rule that's only valid until God changes it?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:28 pm

Maybe God created the universe and then ceased to exist.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby moonlord » Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:51 pm

... which is essentially the same with the first theory. Occam's Razor should "shave" God.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:29 pm

moonlord wrote:Occam's Razor should "shave" God.


... what?
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby moonlord » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 pm

Theory 1: God created the singularity, then ceased to exist.
Theory 2: The singularity appeared out of nowhere.

The two theories are essentially the same, but the first requies an extra ethereal entity. Occam's Razor suggests that, from two or more similar situations, we should choose the one which implies the least ad-hoc entities (gods, axioms...). Look for Occam's Razor on Wikipedia for more details. I'm not sure I can explain properly.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:40 pm

Yes, that made sense. :)

But: there's a difference. God may have existed forever before the universe was created, then created the universe and ceased to exist. This does not cause a completely abrupt creation, whereas something appearing for no reason does, hence the first theory is more plausible.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby moonlord » Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:39 am

God could not have existed forever before the Universe was created. God cannot be defined before the Big Bang. But it seems none understands this... Hmm, maybe I'll do a drawing.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:07 am

And why couldn't God have existed before the Big Bang?

What if there WASN'T a Big Bang? :roll:
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby moonlord » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:44 am

:wits end:

God cannot exist before BB because nothing is defined out there. Not even the syntagm "before the Big Bang" is defined. It's like saying God is south from the south pole.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:17 pm

So, you are referring to the BB as the beginning of time. Why must this be the case?
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby houserichichi » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:56 pm

It's the beginning of spacetime. With the beginning of one comes the beginning of the other necessarily.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Nick » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:00 pm

I didn't read any of the new posts, so I hope noone said this yet. Here's my theory of how things go on:

1. There is nothing. No time elapses because there is no time.
2. A perfect singularity, one without volume but with infinite mass is created. Since there is no volume, it does not need to come from anywhere.
3. Since it has mass, it must exist, therefore time is created.
4. Since time exists, space can now begin to exist. Currently space exists only where the singularity exists; the singularity gets volume, because there is space to expand to; space created by itself.
5. Big Bang

Reasons:
1. Absolute nothingness postulate (lol)
2. Def. Singularity;
If there is no time or space, then the laws of physics as we know them do not exist.
3. Def. existing; space and time are dependent upon each other (Einstein's theory of relativity)
4. Same as 3.
5. Big Bang Theory

I didn't put in every step, because I figured you would be able to connect the dots for yourself; so don't take this opportunity to rip it to shreds, you'll waste my life having to explain all the intermediary steps.

Other than the lack of detail and obvious flaws caused by the lack of detail, we can agree that my theory requires only one assumption: Big Bang Theory. Hugh's theory requires the existance of previous Universes; in other words, requires both Big Bang and Big Crunch. I believe Occam's Razor has made his point ;)
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Keiji » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:05 pm

irockyou, you are still forgetting that something needs to happen to create the singularity.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby houserichichi » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:31 pm

Rob wrote:irockyou, you are still forgetting that something needs to happen to create the singularity.


You're forgetting that causality (cause forces an effect or all effects are preceded by a cause) applies within our universe. We have no idea (and no reason to suspect either way) how it works outside. If causality is not applicable outside our universe then no, nothing needs to happen to create the singularity and it can just arise from "nothing".
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby moonlord » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:22 pm

What about there is a 50% for the singularity to be there or not. At some time, it appears.

BTW, this is my last post before I leave town. Returning on the 25th, in the evening.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Nick » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:31 pm

Yeah, as moonlord said. The laws of physics as we know don't exist without the backdrop of space and time (I say "and" and not "or" because their dependent on each others existence).
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby papernuke » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:15 am

Yea, actually Ive never thought of that before. I just realized that if there was nothing (absolutely nothing) befor the Big Bang (which most people agree with) then God (or any other god) would have not been there to even create the Universe.
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby jinydu » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:43 am

moonlord wrote:PS. I reject God for the same reason PWrong (or jinydu, I don't remember exactly) does. If God created the Universe and set the rules for physics, then God exists. If God exists, then he can change the rules. Why are we still looking for them, then?


Actually, my reason for not believing in a God is a little different from that:

If God exists, then clearly God is either bound by the laws of nature or God isn't. If God is, then God isn't powerful enough to deserve being called God. If God isn't, then the laws of nature are not absolute and the universe is not governed by an equation; thus, the universe is irrational, disorderly and ugly. While I cannot prove that this is not the case, I would find it extremely unappealing.
Last edited by jinydu on Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Hugh » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:02 am

moonlord wrote:If the Universe appeared at the beginning of time (minus infinity), then it must have reached maximum entropy by now.

The universe could have appeared 15 - 18 billion years ago, all I'm saying is that it didn't come from absolute nothingness.
moonlord wrote:So suppose the Universe appeared X years ago (finite X). Tell me why has it been an infinite period of time before the start. Or better, tell me how can you define something after an infinite amount of time.

You can define something as that something, whatever it is; energy, matter, whatever.
moonlord wrote:Now that I think it over again, time was created at Big Bang, and is undefined at singularity. So whether the singularity was there before or created itself out of nothing is actually the same thing. There is no before.

Why does time have to be created at the Big Bang? Time flows along well here, and there are singularities currently existing in black holes. Whether the singularity was there before or created itself out of nothing is definitely not the same thing. One is a logical possibility and the other is not.
moonlord wrote:As for the quotes, I can give none

When you find some that say that everything created itself from absolute nothingness please do.
moonlord wrote:If God created the Universe and set the rules for physics, then God exists. If God exists, then he can change the rules. Why are we still looking for them, then?

If a creator God exists, then yes he could change the rules, but have you seen evidence of this, or the opposite?

Also, there are those that have thought that the universe created itself from nothingness. Why then would those same people choose to try to understand the universe if it could change or re-invent itself on its own whim at any time again?

It's the laws we see, the magnificent beauty and order we experience that draws us to understand the nature of our existence. We certainly didn't create ourselves.

@Rob: Good points.

@house: Causality applies as far as we know, with everything we experience, so it doesn't make sense that something can come from absolute nothingness.
jinydu wrote:If God exists, then clearly God is either bound by the laws of nature or God isn't. If God isn't, then God isn't powerful enough to deserve being called God.

If God exists, then he created the laws of nature. He is "above" them, not bound by them. Why would you say that if he wasn't bound by the laws of nature that he isn't powerful enough to deserve to be called God? If God exists, and created the universe and its laws, he would be powerful, and would deserve being called God.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Nick » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:16 am

OK, so God is greater than the laws of the Universe. Tell me this, then: can God create a boulder so heavy that not even he can lift it?

Also, casuality applies as far as we know in the presence of space and time. So it does make sense that something can come from nothing, because it's coming from absolute nothing. Are you getting this yet, or are you just going to keep uttering the empty phrase "It doesn't make sense that something can come from nothing", when everyone else agrees that it does?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Keiji » Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:02 pm

irockyou wrote:can God create a boulder so heavy that not even he can lift it?


Ah, the classic "God is not omnipotent" argument.

Paradoxes arrive when addressing the future, thus, they do not apply. The argument is meaningless.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby jinydu » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:05 pm

Hugh wrote:
jinydu wrote:If God exists, then clearly God is either bound by the laws of nature or God isn't. If God isn't, then God isn't powerful enough to deserve being called God.

If God exists, then he created the laws of nature. He is "above" them, not bound by them. Why would you say that if he wasn't bound by the laws of nature that he isn't powerful enough to deserve to be called God? If God exists, and created the universe and its laws, he would be powerful, and would deserve being called God.


I made a typo there. It's fixed now.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Nick » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:21 am

Rob wrote:
irockyou wrote:can God create a boulder so heavy that not even he can lift it?


Ah, the classic "God is not omnipotent" argument.

Paradoxes arrive when addressing the future, thus, they do not apply. The argument is meaningless.


The argument has complete meaning. I am not addressing the future.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Hugh » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:39 am

Rob wrote:Ah, the classic "God is not omnipotent" argument.

Yes, this one has been around for centuries. There is a page about it at Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox that explains the logical impossibility of it.
jinydu wrote:I made a typo there. It's fixed now. If God exists, then clearly God is either bound by the laws of nature or God isn't. If God is, then God isn't powerful enough to deserve being called God.

I agree.
jinydu wrote:If God isn't, then the laws of nature are not absolute and the universe is not governed by an equation; thus, the universe is irrational, disorderly and ugly. While I cannot prove that this is not the case, I would find it extremely unappealing.

If there is a creator God, I don't think he would be bound by the laws of nature because he would be the creator of them. He could change them if he wanted to. The universe would be his creation, governed by the equation that he would create. The universe could be created in a rational, orderly and beautiful way, that one could find extremely appealing.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby thigle » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:45 am

the God which i suppose you talk about is a sentient being like you and me, only difference is that he was first, in this solar system to observe the creation, which he mistook for his and then the imsunderstanding propagated itself until these days.

it's just different fate, karma, action that led to birth as first in this universe, but it's not fully awake anyway.

there are myriad of Gods and Godesses, btw. though i would agree that the God of the monotheistic traditions is somehow special in our spacetime coordinates, but not that special anyway.

God is not omnipotent, but is more potent than an ordinary human being. whether we talk about Greek, Christian, Islamic, or Egyptian, or Hindu, god(s), both humans and gods are omnipotent AND omniscient only if they are fully awake, which is taken to mean that their primordial potentiality is fully freed and fully manifesting (as an aware singularity).
thigle
Tetronian
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest