-
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
And if there must be a creator for the universe to exist, does that mean there must be a creator of the creator?
IMO, some things are simply beyond human comprehension.
If believing in fables answers the unanswerable for you, great.
-
08-18-2022 01:00 PM
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
case a) is very depressing (there will be nothing) and also raises the quesstion, how on earth can happen if there was nothing, then suddenly here is the Universe.
case b) is much more simpler. There always were something (so we do not have the problem of how and most importantly *why* it started) which is bigger than our universe, and unobservable from our universe, and unimaginable for us. As a part of its existence in some point our universe was created. The process or the entity who created it (our Universe), is our Creator by definition.
This sounds as a philisophycal thought (and indeed partly it is) but it is also physics, cosmology, again, refer to Stephen Hawking one of the most brilliant physicist of our age.
Hawking goes further exposing the most important question, is it possible to transfer information from a (dying) universe to a new universe about to be born? If it is possible, then we (the humanity, with very advanced knowledge and state, what is unimaginable for as currently) will be the creator of a new Universe, and there will we survive... exactly as our previous universe intelligence transferred its information to our...
-
I really like this video if you have a spare 30 minutes for an existential crisis. It starts out hype and pop sci but then calms down after 3 minutes.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Originally Posted by Gabor
I’ve been following Penrose’s ideas on this. Very elegant and beautiful (as with all things Penrose); a different way of the universe giving birth to a new one that is consistent with current observations though it’s probably wrong.
TBH I find that Hawking tended to dodge the basic existential question like most cosmologists; I doubt Penrose would deny this himself. The fundamental question remains in the realm of philosophy, and it’s my feeling that it will remain so by its very nature. A disproof of God via cosmology is not really compelling on that level.
As a side bar I would say that it’s extremely important not to take cosmology too seriously especially one person’s theory - however eminent or brilliant. (I enjoy Penrose’s humble wryness on the subject.)
Modern Lambda-CDM cosmology represents our best guess at addressing the data we have. (It is not completely successful- a persistent issue is the fact that there are two irreconcilable values for the Hubble constant.)
It’s also quite a new model. I studied a little undergrad cosmology during the CDM (Cold Dark Matter) era - the assumption was the universe would eventually grind to a halt due to gravity. Just as I was graduating, new distant supernova data suggested accelerating cosmic expansion and necessitated the introduction of the Lambda to the model - the cosmological constant that is the ‘back box’ that contains cosmic acceleration in the Einstein field equation. Absolutely no one expected this even theoretically, and my textbooks are now obsolete.
so, Cosmological models were subject to huge revision in my own lifetime. So skepticism seems reasonable.
We’ve now had 20 years to think about it and still no one has an experimentally verifiable way of explaining accelerating cosmic expansion (Lambda); we have theories(Dark Energy, Quintessence etc) but the conclusion that it is happening at all based on the possibly quite shaky cosmological distance ladder and the simplifying assumptions of cosmology which assume beyond a certain scale the universe is effectively flat and homogenous. We can tell from recent observations of the large scale structure of the universe that this does not in fact seem the case.
Tbf to Lambda-CDM it does a good job of explaining many features of our universe. As I say even though its a guess, it’s still our best guess and a remarkably educated one compared to where we were even a century ago…. and certainly none of the competing theories do a better job - yet.
This is where JWST comes in I expect. The more data we get the more questions we’ll have. It’s always the way.
This is going to be fun!
Ultimately cosmology is a narrative based upon science, not a science in the strict sense.Last edited by Christian Miller; 08-19-2022 at 05:33 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
...regarding science fiction, (Battlestar Galactica) the most inspiring thought for me, that what we thought as humanity during seasons 01-final is not we (because Kara leads the crew to the Neanderthal(?) Earth) so the crew are not *we*, anyway, those humans are the Creator for the cylons. (Also the most exciting ethical question rises, do the Cylons have soul, or they just toasters?) There is a Creator for the Cylons, also for C-3PO's Anakin and Hawking information passing from the dying universe to universe is about to be born: there is a Creator for everyone, for us.
-
Originally Posted by Gabor
-
Originally Posted by Gabor
"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
-
I am not buying the "there MUST have been a creator" argument. The idea of "creation" is a human construct and requires humanity's bias for understanding time only as linear change—we simply don't have the ability to understand non-linear "time" or any number of possibilities that preclude this idea that there was "nothing" and then some "other thing or process" besides "nothing" came along and created "everything." Not only do we not have the words to describe such an existence, I think it's probable that even the most intelligent, gifted, insightful human being who's ever lived could never "understand" the implications of any of the above.
Consider the structure of a tree, the sum of just the physical details that we can see, disregarding the underlying processes for how it functions, and the chain of events that had to occur in order for one tree to exist blows my mind—I think the two possibilities that my human mind is limited to—there is a creator or there is not a creator—are equally mind-blowing. Some physicists explore the idea that we exist in a "simulation"—I believe there was a paper that claimed it was more likely we are living in a simulation than not. What, then, is the simulation simulating? There's just no way for our ape brains to really "get" any of this, in my opinion. Some things are beyond comprehension, and that's okay—how much high-falutin' angst do non-primates suffer because they don't have to think about "meaning" or "creators"?
Edit: Here's a link to an article on the simulation hypothesis:
Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50 - Scientific AmericanLast edited by wzpgsr; 08-19-2022 at 02:13 PM.
-
Right, time to wheel out my favourite Popperite
-
I've read this whole, damned thing and come to the conclusion that I have no soul. These "big questions" are just not that important too me ..
Q: is this all there is ..etc ? A: isn't this enough ? will answering this really change the way you treat others ?
Q: how did humans get here, surely not just an accident of nature ? A: will answering this change your sense of honor / propriety ?
...apparently the answer is yes, in both cases. It'll cause at least one guy to stab another in the neck for casting aspersions on his favorite beliefs...
..and now, a simulation hypothesis ? This is what happens when people have too much time on their hands ... can someone find those guys a girlfriend ??
..and he spake unto me, said he him the holy word. He says ta me "Ook". ... He says "Ook-Ook". ... well I knew right then and there that my mission in life was to fling the holy excrement of salvation at everyone I saw .... a practice I intend to continue, just as soon as my parole is up ......
-best,
Mike
( soul-less bastard )
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Does pain hurt? Does love transcend? Nothing else really matters.
-
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
...however, this does not mean, that our Universe (again, which is only a part of the eternal timeline in where the "thing" is always existed and will exist) has no Creator. Creator is a relative entity, relative to its creation. For 3-CPO the creator is Anakin. For our Universe a Creator could be the entity who transferred his information (low enthropy) to our Universe at the time our Universe birth.
so although the ethernal "thing" has no creator, but this does not mean our Universe has no Creator.
(I used word "thing" for the super ethernal universe what were always existed, because the word "Universe" is already used to our observable Universe from its Big Bang to its death)
-
There being no existence or time for the universe to have been created in isn't proof that there's no creator. The end of the logic is simply that it's outside of our understanding. Which leaves us back at the possibility of a creator or no creator.
-
Stephen Hawking was saying the physics of the Big Bang doesn't need a creator. Of course, someone can posit a creator who creates in a way that looks like there is no creator!
People get to believe whatever they want.
-
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Stephen Hawking was saying the physics of the Big Bang doesn't need a creator.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Interesting article about multiverse theory in The Guardian:
Cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton: ‘Our universe is one tiny grain of dust in a beautiful cosmos’ | Astronomy | The Guardian
As for Battlestar Galactica, I too enjoyed the ambiguity of the religious aspects left at the end of the show.
I don’t recall ever reading anything about Hawking and transmitting information from one universe to its successor, but this does stir up vague memories of him talking about information crossing the event horizon from inside a black hole, presumably via quantum mechanical tunneling.
However, if it *were* possible to alter the configuration of one universe from its predecessor, then presumably incredibly minor perturbations could have profound consequences as the new universe evolved, affecting the distribution of stars etc. Perhaps those who could read these stellar ‘constellations’ would gain access to supernatural information passed on by our universal predecessors? Wait a minute, weren’t the constellations significant in BSG!?
-
Originally Posted by djg
AKA
-
Originally Posted by AKA
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
How many people say they wish they had been teenagers in the 1980's? A lot. I think it's a desire to go back to a more analog world.
Not to blather on about the same thing over and over but I'll never escape a bizarre series of events that happened in 1985.
Without the internet it never would have made a bit of sense. It does now but it seems like I'm living in a computer simulation.
This was genius;
I wasn't a teenager in the 1980's and have zero desire to have been one. I can still understand it.
The movie A.I. got into this too.
-
Originally Posted by CliffR
-
Please Recommend Me Some Beginner Solos/Heads to...
Today, 08:09 AM in Getting Started