which came first, the brick or the $125 million mega mansion?

paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
which came first, the brick or the $125 million mega mansion?

A complex being like god would be the mega mansion. Things start simple.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll stick with the $125

I'll stick with the $125 mansion thanks.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Ownership has

   Ownership has gotten out of hand.

The Indians asked "how can you own the land, will the water and sky be next ? "

Destroy the rich, "eat the rich" .....

If we shared it ALL, we'd all be truely rich and nearly free .... working for more better bigger FUN ....


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
There is just one catch to

There is just one catch to your new home. The plumbing, the lights, the hardwood floor.. well.. everything.. is.. how do I put it.. invisible.  But trust me, it's there.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I thought this post was

I thought this post was gonna be about televangelists.


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I thought

magilum wrote:
I thought this post was gonna be about televangelists.

I apologize for that inconvenience. But I do know a good lender, and rest assured, she does not deal in invisible money.

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:which came first,

Quote:
which came first, the brick or the $125 million mega mansion?

All 3 are man made

paulogic wrote:

A complex being like god would be the mega mansion.
What is 'god'? And how do you know 'god' is complex? Complex how?
Quote:
Things start simple.
Non sequitur, unless you are deliberately contradicting yourself. Complexity and simplicity are antithetical.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: What is 'god'?

aiia wrote:
What is 'god'? And how do you know 'god' is complex? Complex how?

Yes, very complex. I know such a being would require an incredible amount of energy and infrastructure just to exist.  Nothing can escape the laws of physics.

 

Something so complex could not just pop out of nowhere. It would have needed to be part of an environment such the one that facilitated our own evolution.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
paulogic

paulogic wrote:

 

Something so complex could not just pop out of nowhere. It would have needed to be part of an environment such the one that facilitated our own evolution.

 

 

 

Who said it popped out of nowhere?

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Who

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Who said it popped out of nowhere?

Yeah theists don't say that.

They say...wait for it...it ALWAYS existed.  Whew.  Sidestepped that little hurdle.  lol

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The question "Which came

The question "Which came first?" assumes a single, uni-directional dimension of time. The arrow of time in our universe is, to my limited understanding tied to the Laws of Thermodynamics and entropy. But there is no guarantee that those laws are valid outside of our space/time. Also, there are theories that allow for more than one dimension of time.. So, while obviously speculative, an entity existing "outside" our space/time and embedded in a bi-directional time dimension would have no beginning or end. I'm not sure how all that relates to our universe. Maybe not at all.


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Who

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Who said it popped out of nowhere?

You are right, it popped out of somewhere.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
paulogic

paulogic wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Who said it popped out of nowhere?

You are right, it popped out of somewhere.

No it didn't 'pop' out of anything.

 

Why can't something be eternal? 


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The

wavefreak wrote:
The question "Which came first?" assumes a single, uni-directional dimension of time. The arrow of time in our universe is, to my limited understanding tied to the Laws of Thermodynamics and entropy. But there is no guarantee that those laws are valid outside of our space/time. Also, there are theories that allow for more than one dimension of time.. So, while obviously speculative, an entity existing "outside" our space/time and embedded in a bi-directional time dimension would have no beginning or end. I'm not sure how all that relates to our universe. Maybe not at all.

All we can really base any logical beliefs in is what we can observe and measure. We can only observe that time is running in one direction and that the universe is all there is. We observe that there is a certain amount of matter in the universe and that matter cannot be created or destroyed. We have no evidence otherwise.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
paulogic wrote:   All we

paulogic wrote:

 

All we can really base any logical beliefs in is what we can observe and measure. We can only observe that time is running in one direction and that the universe is all there is. We observe that there is a certain amount of matter in the universe and that matter cannot be created or destroyed. We have no evidence otherwise.

If I remember correctly, quantum fluctations of the vacuum result in a particle and anti-particle moving in opposite directions in time. So at least on a quantum level, the arrow of time is not absolute. And cosmologies that allow for multiple dimensions of time are logical extensions of observable physics. While it is all on the edges of understanding, it is not just woo-woo.


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
paulogic wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Who said it popped out of nowhere?

You are right, it popped out of somewhere.

No it didn't 'pop' out of anything.

 

Why can't something be eternal? 

Yes, it popped out of somewhere very specific.

 

If the theory that all matter expands and collapses in an endless cycle is correct, matter is eternal.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
paulogic

paulogic wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
paulogic wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Who said it popped out of nowhere?

You are right, it popped out of somewhere.

No it didn't 'pop' out of anything.

 

Why can't something be eternal?

Yes, it popped out of somewhere very specific.

 

If the theory that all matter expands and collapses in an endless cycle is correct, matter is eternal.



You mean the oscillating universe?

 

It's wrong. The universe will continue to expand indefiently. 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: No it

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
No it didn't 'pop' out of anything.

 

Why can't something be eternal? 

Because if it existed eternally in the past then "now" would never be reached by said entity.

Are you going to claim  "God exists outside of time and space" to get around this? 

Richard Dawkins responds to such a statement "Well isn't that just too easy?".  It closes down all rational discussion and encases such an entity as being beyond all rational thought and refutation.

You might as well respond, "God works in mysterious ways" when someone asks why evil exists.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher

Watcher wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
No it didn't 'pop' out of anything.

 

Why can't something be eternal?

Because if it existed eternally in the past then "now" would never be reached by said entity.

Are you going to claim "God exists outside of time and space" to get around this?

Richard Dawkins responds to such a statement "Well isn't that just too easy?". It closes down all rational discussion and encases such an entity as being beyond all rational thought and refutation.

You might as well respond, "God works in mysterious ways" when someone asks why evil exists.

 

All right then, what did the universe 'pop out of'? 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: All

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

All right then, what did the universe 'pop out of'? 

There's this well supported theory called the Big Bang.  Google that and you should get all the answers you need.

Or I can copy and paste crap for you.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher

Watcher wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

All right then, what did the universe 'pop out of'?

There's this well supported theory called the Big Bang. Google that and you should get all the answers you need.

Or I can copy and paste crap for you.

 

Than you are running into the same problem the OP is proposing. 

 

The Big Bang is by no means 'simple.'


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: You


Cpt_pineapple wrote:
You mean the oscillating universe?

Exactly, but I never really cared much about it until I read an article somewhat recently that stated the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Nothing can ever escape the long arm of gravity. The momentum of the bang will eventually be overtaken by the natural attraction of all matter.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Than

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Than you are running into the same problem the OP is proposing. 

 

The Big Bang is by no means 'simple.'

I wouldn't propose that anyone should mix up the idea that if it is difficult to understand then it is by definition complex.

However, I think that the workings of a single cell in your little pinky is HUGELY more complex than the Big Bang actually was in reality.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
paulogic

paulogic wrote:


Cpt_pineapple wrote:
You mean the oscillating universe?

Exactly, but I never really cared much about it until I read an article somewhat recently that stated the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Nothing can ever escape the long arm of gravity. The momentum of the bang will eventually be overtaken by the natural attraction of all matter.

 

The current theory is that eveyrthing will end in the 'Big Freeze'.

 

Also you are running into the same problem Watcher proposed.

 

I created a topic about it some time ago.

 

 

Watcher wrote:

I wouldn't propose that anyone should mix up the idea that if it is difficult to understand then it is by definition complex.

 

 

What? 

 

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Watcher wrote:

I wouldn't propose that anyone should mix up the idea that if it is difficult to understand then it is by definition complex.

 

What? 

Ok, let's say this as an analogy.

An intelligent alien lifeform captures a human.  As the alien is studying the human the human scratches himself.  Now why the human scratched itself is simple for another human to understand.

He scratched himself because he had an itch.  No human would find this a difficult or complex idea for his actions.

However it may completely baffle the alien that has no concept of what it is to itch or how scratching would make it feel better.

Just because something is difficult for you or I to understand does not mean it is complex.

We know for a fact that a cell is very complex.

Find me a scientist that says the Big Bang was itself a complex thing.  Sure some may say it is somewhat complex to understand.  That's not the same thing.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher

Watcher wrote:

Just because something is difficult for you or I to understand does not mean it is complex.

We know for a fact that a cell is very complex.

 

 

The Big Bang entails high energies and short distances. At such high energies/low distances Quantum Mechanics rules supreme. QM is by no means simple.

 

Why do you think they're having such a hard time unifying GR with QM?

 

 

Watcher wrote:

Find me a scientist that says the Big Bang was itself a complex thing. Sure some may say it is somewhat complex to understand. That's not the same thing.

 

Take a QM course and get back to me.

 

 {edit}

As for your 'itch' analogy, the biological mechanisms that cause the itch are more complex than just saying 'It's itchy'

{/edit}

 

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Intelligence is the issue

Intelligence is the issue here, not complexity.

As you were.


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
paulogic wrote: Exactly,

paulogic wrote:

Exactly, but I never really cared much about it until I read an article somewhat recently that stated the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Nothing can ever escape the long arm of gravity. The momentum of the bang will eventually be overtaken by the natural attraction of all matter.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The current theory is that eveyrthing will end in the 'Big Freeze'.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Also you are running into the same problem Watcher proposed.

Problem with gravity winning in the end? That is the only explaination for the slowing rate of the expansion of the universe. If the universe was empty with only two atoms placed a million light years from each other, the attraction would eventually bring them back together.

That means the Big Crunch theory is most likely true. Will it cycle into another expansion afterwards? It has to.. because we are in an expansion now and before the expansion there must have been a big crunch.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The Big Bang entails high energies and short distances. At such high energies/low distances Quantum Mechanics rules supreme. QM is by no means simple.

Why do you think they're having such a hard time unifying GR with QM?

Take a QM course and get back to me.

 

 {edit}

As for your 'itch' analogy, the biological mechanisms that cause the itch are more complex than just saying 'It's itchy'

{/edit}

The biological implications about what caused the itch isn't the point of the analogy.  *slaps hand to face*

How did I know you would sidestep the point by bringing that up?

It wasn't "what caused the itch" it was, "why did that earth creature decide (<- did you notice that word?  DECIDE) to rub it's keratin composed residual claws that are on it's smallest appendages on it's upper limbs over its skin in that particular location in that particular manner?"

Ok, here I will make a stand.

One cell in the human body is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than the Big Bang.

Quantum Mechanics is behind it all if you want to go with it in that direction.  QM is behind it all: the big bang, animal/plant cell, rock, etc.  Big whoop and beside the point.

Added complexity.  More complexity.  Evolved complexity.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
paulogic wrote:   Problem

paulogic wrote:

 

Problem with gravity winning in the end? That is the only explaination for the slowing rate of the expansion of the universe. If the universe was empty with only two atoms placed a million light years from each other, the attraction would eventually bring them back together.

 

That means the Big Crunch theory is most likely true. Will it cycle into another expansion afterwards? It has to.. because we are in an expansion now and before the expansion there must have been a big crunch.

 

F=G*M*m/r^2 

 

Plug the mass of hydrogen atoms and a million light years and see what you get. 

 

 Or a better way to put it:

The universal density is less than the critical density, ergo it will continue to expand, it is being pushed by Dark energy.

 



Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Ok, here I

Watcher wrote:

Ok, here I will make a stand.

One cell in the human body is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than the Big Bang.

 

Okay, if we don't know much about the Big Bang, then how do you know it's simplier than a cell? 

 

 


 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Watcher wrote:

Ok, here I will make a stand.

One cell in the human body is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than the Big Bang.

Okay, if we don't know much about the Big Bang, then how do you know it's simplier than a cell? 

Because complexity increases from a more simple state.

What is the "most simple" element?

Hydrogen

What amount of matter in the universe is made up of hydrogen?

97%

What is the next "most simple" element?

Helium

What amount of matter in the universe is made of Helium?

2.999%

So far this is only elements we are talking about.  Elements are less complex than molecules, and FAR less complex then cells.

Ok, so let's disect the most simple element.

One single hydrogen atom.

One proton, one electron, and normally no neutron for the most common isotope of hydrogen.

A proton is less complex than a hydrogen atom.

What is the proton composed of?

Something less complex.  Quarks and whatnot, I forget all the names and don't feel like doing a quick search on the matter, but it continually breaks down into more and more simple components.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The 'singularity', which is

The 'singularity', which is one idea of the starting state of the Universe, is the ultimately simple thing - by definition it has no structure.

Of course the theory we have built up to provide a framework to reflect the way matter and energy behave at the scale of fundamental particles, namely Quantum Theory, is complex. It provides a framework for hypotheses of how the raw energy of the primeval universe spawned an ever-growing sea of particles and flows of energy eventually leading to the distribution of galaxies we now observe.

The increase of information involved here matches the increasing entropy. 

Current evidence is that the rate of expansion is increasing.

One speculation that appealed to me is, as far as I can remember at the moment, that collections of matter will ultimately continue to fragment, and that at some point something will trigger new 'Big Bang' expansion within each fragment. This has the side 'benefit' that the new Big Bang starts off with a tiny fraction of the entropy of the original Universe, thereby avoiding one set of objections to the BB based on the second Law of Thermodynamics.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The 'singularity', which is one idea of the starting state of the Universe, is the ultimately simple thing - by definition it has no structure.

 

I'm pretty sure that it was a state of max entropy ergo the reason that it's so 'simple' is that we can get no information from it.

 

But even then the symmetry breaking would be complex.

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Current evidence is that the rate of expansion is increasing.

One speculation that appealed to me is, as far as I can remember at the moment, that collections of matter will ultimately continue to fragment, and that at some point something will trigger new 'Big Bang' expansion within each fragment. This has the side 'benefit' that the new Big Bang starts off with a tiny fraction of the entropy of the original Universe, thereby avoiding one set of objections to the BB based on the second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Welcome to multiverse theory.

 

 

Watcher wrote:

 

Something less complex.  Quarks and whatnot, I forget all the names and don't feel like doing a quick search on the matter, but it continually breaks down into more and more simple components.

 

Oh, and if you think that protons/anit-protons or electrons/positrons  can spring into existance look up quantum flucuations.

 

 

I'm not arguing against the Big Bang or any other theory of physics, all I'm saying is that they are complex. 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Qute apart from exactly

Qute apart from exactly what the true state was at time zero, the well established ideas of the 'evolution' of the Universe involves many examples of more complex arrangements of matter/energy 'condensing' out of more formless states.

The raw sea of energy condensed into sub-atomic particles as it expanded and cooled.

As the energy density dropped further, hydrogen atoms could form out of the sea of particles.

Further down the track, clouds of hydrogen gas began to form clumps under the influence of gravity, which condensed into the first stars, which started fusion reactions to form heavier elements, releasing energy which eventually caused them to explode and scatter the new elements into the interstellar gas clouds.

At a later stage, longer-lived stars formed and began to coalesce into galaxies. Stars continued to form within gas-clouds in tho galaxies, and in some cases at least, the left over matter around a newly formed star condensed into more solid cold objects such as asteroids, planets, comets, etc.

On at least one planet, as it cooled, some analogue of this pattern continued, to form some more complex collections of atoms and molecules, leading ultimately to life as we know it....

 Not pretending my account here exactly describes just what happened or the best current research, but I make the point how desperately mistaken and naive are the ideas of even the more 'sophisticated' believers about natural processes,  'cause and effect', entropy, 'information', and the 'natural' explanations for how what we perceive as 'complexity' arises from less complex states of matter, in both living and non-living matter.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


paulogic
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
F=G*M*m/r^2 

 

Plug the mass of hydrogen atoms and a million light years and see what you get. 

No matter the distance, there will always be a pull.. however, just to make you happy, I calculated it anyways. How troublesome.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 Or a better way to put it:

The universal density is less than the critical density, ergo it will continue to expand, it is being pushed by Dark energy.

It all comes down to whether dark energy exists. I personally do not think it does but that does not matter as it is just my opinion. Thanks for the discussion.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

The 'singularity', which is one idea of the starting state of the Universe, is the ultimately simple thing - by definition it has no structure.

 

I'm pretty sure that it was a state of max entropy ergo the reason that it's so 'simple' is that we can get no information from it.

You mean minimum entropy, hence no information. Otherwise you can't go any further, since entropy can only increase.

Information was generated by the random quantum processes taking place as it expanded and cooled. I actually read this in an article in NewScientist magazine. It requires more information to define the state of a mass of particles than a tiny 'glob' of raw energy.

I repeat, a singularity has no structure, it has the absolute minimum possible 'information' content. The maximum information content of a volume of space is theorised to be proportional to the surface area enclosing it.

Original thermodynamic definition of entropy is related to the total quantity of thermal energy in a system divided by the absolute temperature. Since the primeval fireball universe would have been at some astronomical temperature, that corresponds to a very small entropy, increasing as the temperature falls, matching the increase in entropy. Complexity increased from virtually zero.

The further a system is from equilibrium, the greater is the increase in entropy associated with its energy flows, and the more those flows of energy can support spontaneously self-organising local systems, up to and including life. See the works of Ilya Prigogine.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
paulogic

paulogic wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
F=G*M*m/r^2

 

Plug the mass of hydrogen atoms and a million light years and see what you get.

No matter the distance, there will always be a pull.. however, just to make you happy, I calculated it anyways. How troublesome.

 

 

Great, I have another calculation for you!

 

 (critical density)=3H^2/8(pi)G

 

Critical of the universe is 8.9x10^-27kg/m^3

 

The current density is less than that, ergo the universe will NOT  Big Crunch. It will slow, but not enough. 

 

paulogic wrote:
 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Or a better way to put it:

The universal density is less than the critical density, ergo it will continue to expand, it is being pushed by Dark energy.

It all comes down to whether dark energy exists. I personally do not think it does but that does not matter as it is just my opinion. Thanks for the discussion.

 

It's the best current theory.

 

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

  I repeat, a singularity has no structure, it has the absolute minimum possible 'information' content. The maximum information content of a volume of space is theorised to be proportional to the surface area enclosing it.

 

 

The average particle energy was 10^20Gev, giving near perfect symemtry.  However, yes as it cooled, the forces seperated...blah blah blah.

 

My point is if these mechanism were simple, then physicists would be out of the job. The laws that govern the particles etc..

 

 

 My stance is that whatever was at the begining, God or no God, had to be complex.