Where did the Universe come from

metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Where did the Universe come from

Who here can explain what made the universe  ? or can explain infinity ?
"Nothing" as an answer just doesnt do it for me Im afraid.
Im neither a Theist or an athiest as there are too many unanswered questions
on both sides that have not and will ever be explained .
I believe the time we'll find out or not is when we die end of story.


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

False vacuum.


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
speak English bro

speak English bro


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

The Big Bang


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
"Our universe is thought to

"Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something"

 A what ? and where did that come from or any  matter for that matter


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Who here

metaloz wrote:

Who here can explain what made the universe ? or can explain infinity ?  

Go to a library and pick up a book. You're not here to learn, you're here to debate an issue over which you've just conceded you are ignorant on...

If you are in any imaginable way actually interested, you could read this brief review:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

But again, if you don't know much of anything about cosmology, then don't debate out of ignorance,  the best place to begin is at the library. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: and where

metaloz wrote:

and where did that come from or any matter for that matter

Here are some answers:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

Again, if you yourself can't already come up with how cosmologists answer the question, then what are you seeking to accomplish here? 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Thought It may be a good

Thought It may be a good place to start  but  obviously not with my first post being greeted with  your arrogance. I came here with an open mind but looking around my view of this organisation  is that it has  many similarities to  those of secular Cults and even organised religion. I'll go elsewhere

Adios

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The Big Bang

You know I hate that phrase.  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote:Thought It

metaloz wrote:

Thought It may be a good place to start but obviously not with my first post being greeted with your arrogance.

There's nothing arrogant about suggesting that a person who has questions go to a library.

It's the height of arrogance to attempt to debate an issue that you've already conceded that you are fundamentally ignorant on.

Quote:

I came here with an open mind

Then stay. You're being astonishingly thin skinned here. If you are here with an open mind, then you'd stay.

The fact that your desparately trying to turn my post into an insult is a clear disproof that you are open minded.

Quote:
but looking around my view of this organisation  is that it has  many similarities to  those of secular Cults and even organised religion

Four posts in one thread, and you're ready to insult every member of the RRS. I'd not call that open minded.

You've been exposed. Leave, it's no loss. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


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

deludedgod wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The Big Bang

You know I hate that phrase.

 

Alternative?

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The Big Bang

You know I hate that phrase.

 

Alternative?

 

The big KABOOOOOOMM!!!!

How about "the initial expansion" 

I do hope you're not terribly insulted by my arrogance. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Alternatives?  "initial

Alternatives? 

"initial expansion" is good

So is "Hyperinflation"

"False vacuum collapse" is good too

So is Brane collision, if you are a Brane cosmologist

 As is "Spontaneous Breaking"

Or "Singularity decay"

I just don't like Big Bang because it implies two falsehoods 1) Big and 2) Bang. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


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

deludedgod wrote:

Alternatives?

"initial expansion" is good

So is "Hyperinflation"

"False vacuum collapse" is good too

So is Brane collision, if you are a Brane cosmologist

As is "Spontaneous Breaking"

Or "Singularity decay"

I just don't like Big Bang because it implies two falsehoods 1) Big and 2) Bang.

 

Funny, at first I said 'false vacuum'. Laughing

 

ummm... I prefer.....Little Non-Bang. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Funny, at first I said 'false vacuum'. Laughing

 

You're ahead of the curve. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Thought It

metaloz wrote:

Thought It may be a good place to start but obviously not with my first post being greeted with your arrogance. I came here with an open mind but looking around my view of this organisation is that it has many similarities to those of secular Cults and even organised religion. I'll go elsewhere

Adios

It's fun how quickly they come to this conclusion. The one about "you're the same as fundamental psychos" ... I love it. The "you're arrogant because you think I should have some idea of what I'm talking about before I start talking" attack is also one of my favorites. 

Then, if we're lucky, it turns into the "you guys are too arrogant for me, I'm open minded and you suck, I'm leaving".


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
A Quantum fluctuation...

A Quantum fluctuation...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Who here

metaloz wrote:

Who here can explain what made the universe ? or can explain infinity ?
"Nothing" as an answer just doesnt do it for me Im afraid.
Im neither a Theist or an athiest as there are too many unanswered questions
on both sides that have not and will ever be explained .
I believe the time we'll find out or not is when we die end of story.

There is a huge differance between the scientists conclusion and the theist conclusion.

The theist by proxy of ancient tradition has stuck a myth where  they don't know.

 In any case an objective scientist WILL discard bad data if they are following scientific method properly.

 

Myth is nothing but human narrissism laid out in fiction and passed off as fact. 

 Certianly we dont know, right now. But to speak in terms of theism as being valid since we dont know, you might as well assume that a pink unicorn did it SINCE WE DONT KNOW.

Get it?

One has solid roots backed up by data. The other started as a result of humans wishfull thinking. 

That is the differance between a "theist" not knowing who incerts a myth into the gap. And a scientist saying, "We dont know right now, lets find out without sticking answers we like into it" 

Theism assumes a "who". Objectivity looks for a "what". 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Thank you Brian that is

Thank you Brian that is the reply I was hoping  for thank you for your help Smile.


ackthbbft
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Thank you

metaloz wrote:
Thank you Brian that is the reply I was hoping for thank you for your help Smile.

 

To further Brian's explanation, here is a bit more detail regarding scientific evidence vs. religious dogma.

One example of the scientific evidence we have regarding the "Big Bang" (or whatever you want to call it) is something called "red shift".

Light consists of electromagnetic waves and the frequency (or wavelength) of the wave determines it's "color" (in the case of visible light, at least, or various other wavelengths like microwaves, radio waves, infrared waves, etc.).

This is not unlike sound waves, which are the result of vibration of air particles, some frequencies being within the range of human hearing, and others not (e.g. high-frequency dog whistles or low-frequency elephant sounds).

I mention sound waves because it is the perfect analogy for describing how red shift occurs. Imagine a race car speeding by you. We've all heard it and know how it goes. First you hear a high-pitched engine sound as it approaches, which then turns into a low-pitched sound as it speeds away from you. The engine itself is running at a relatively constant frequency, however. The motion of the car basically "pushes" the sound waves closer together (resulting in a higher frequency) in front of the car, and "stretches" them out behind it (lower frequency).

Red shift works the same way regarding objects in space, stars and galaxies in particular. Scientists have observed that all the galaxies in the visible universe have this red shift - basically, a reddish tint instead of the pure white light one might expect. Because red is on the long end of the visible spectrum's wavelengths, this provides evidence that all the galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other. If they were moving toward each other, they would exhibit "violet shift" instead, violet having a much shorter, higher frequency wavelength.

Therefore, if all the objects in the universe are moving away from each other, the logical explanation is that it started from a central point of singularity which exploded outward in all directions.

That's the theory, anyway. But that's why it's a "theory" to begin with - it has scientifically observable and duplicatable evidence. That's the definition of a theory. Looking at the galaxies today shows the same red shift they did yesterday, last week, last month, last year... When religious people call something like the Big Bang or Evolution a "theory", it does not diminish the truth of it.

On the other hand, religious dogma has nothing more than a storybook to provide an explanation for the origin of the universe. Nothing in it qualifies as real evidence. Therefore, by definition, it doesn't even qualify as a theory. It doesn't even really qualify as an hypothesis. When people talk about the "theory of intelligent design/creationism", they merely show themselves to be totally lacking in credibility due to the misuse of the term.

George Carlin's most important Commandment:

3. Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself. 


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Who here

metaloz wrote:

Who here can explain what made the universe ? or can explain infinity ?
"Nothing" as an answer just doesnt do it for me Im afraid.

Does "I don't know" do it for ya?  Being admittedly ignorant is far superior to being willfully deluded. 

metaloz wrote:


Im neither a Theist or an athiest as there are too many unanswered questions
on both sides that have not and will ever be explained .

You can't be neither since one is the negation of the other.  There's theism, then there's not-theism which encompasses everything else.

metaloz wrote:


I believe the time we'll find out or not is when we die end of story.

There's not much reason to believe consciousness can exist independant of brain function, so I doubt there will be any post-mortem epiphanies. 

 


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
"There's not much reason to

"There's not much reason to believe consciousness can exist independant of brain function, so I doubt there will be any post-mortem epiphanies."

 

I guess if you discount everything transcendental or Spiritual

 

 

 

 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote:  I guess

metaloz wrote:

 I guess if you discount everything transcendental or Spiritual

 

I do.

Do you really have any REAL evidence to believe such things? 


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: "There's

metaloz wrote:

"There's not much reason to believe consciousness can exist independant of brain function, so I doubt there will be any post-mortem epiphanies."

 

I guess if you discount everything transcendental or Spiritual

Ya know what happens to roughly 18% of people who pass out during a centrifuge tests?  They experience an NDE.  They are a normal experience by a brain under tremendous stress.


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Whats an NDE ?

Whats an NDE ?


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Whats an

metaloz wrote:

Whats an NDE ?

Near-death experience.  It's the predictable route people take when attempting to justify their belief that consciousness is retained after brain death. 


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Ah yes have heard of it,

Ah yes have heard of it, Could be true ? seen cases on TV and some people have returned after being pronounced dead over 20 minutes.

Dont know enough  to make a conscious decision about it myself will have to look into both sides.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Who here

metaloz wrote:

Who here can explain what made the universe ? or can explain infinity ?
"Nothing" as an answer just doesnt do it for me Im afraid.
Im neither a Theist or an athiest as there are too many unanswered questions
on both sides that have not and will ever be explained .
I believe the time we'll find out or not is when we die end of story.

Thats a poor attitude. Is not knowing an excuse to stop searching for answers? How do you think people ended up thinking a deity named Thor made thunder and lighting? Because lazy people invented answers insted of accepting the fact they didnt know and didnt keep searching.

We may never know what happened before the start of the universe. But inserting disimbodied brains in as the answer is absurd.

"Cant we all just get along" seems to be your motif here on a planet of a divided species. What makes you think there arnt people here or theists as well who want peace? Isnt that really what you are talking about?

If it makes no sense to believe in Santa or Thor at the age of 50, why should magical claims such as girls geting knocked up by spirits be immune to scrutiny?

Whatever we dont know about what happened before should not involve incerting Superman vs Kriptonite mythological stories. Whatever is will fall under the known when we find out and will be natural, not magical.

 There is a war on science and it is not caused by the honest scientists both theist and atheist. The war on science is caused by kooks who cheerlead for a club in hopes to gain members and in the process dumb down socieity. These kooks live in Muslim, Jew, Christian and "paranormal" camps and all of them sell lies for self centered self intrest purposes.

I dont think any scientist be they believer or not who values science should put up with it's bastardization for self centered clowns who hurt humanity by twisting science into absurdity.

You are mistaking the issue as an US vs THEM issue when it is a fact vs fiction issue. 

So dont accuse us of being part of the problem when we are actually fighting it. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Thats was just an

Thats was just an expression on how I personally feel and see things with the evidence I've seen thus far from various circles and not intended to be an attack on anyone.

You have decifered things from it that were not even implied. Im sorry you interpreted it that way


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Im neither a

metaloz wrote:
Im neither a Theist or an athiest as there are too many unanswered questions

I don't see how you can be both or neither of these. You either believe in Gods or Godesses or you don't. Right?

If you don't believe in God (currently) due to lack of evidence then you are an atheist like the rest of us.

If you believe in God (currently) even though there is a lack of evidence then you are a theist.

"I refuse to have an opinion" sounds like a lack of belief in God. I know that this wasn't the intent of the OP, and also that this semantic debate generally goes nowhere. At any rate, I always find this sort of statement odd.  


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The Big Bang

You know I hate that phrase.

 

Alternative?

 

 

The Grand Expansion?

The Initial Inflation?

HOLY FUCK, LOOK AT THAT!

Kent Hovind's Asshole.

 

 

 

Sorry, I've been up for a while.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
I dont think its as cut and

I dont think its as cut and dry as that. You cant be both but can be undecided I think. From the knowlege I have so far my feelings are inconclusive and should be at this point in time as theres a mountain of shit I need to read and look into first.

BTW Does Theism include all forms of spirituality


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: I dont

metaloz wrote:

I dont think its as cut and dry as that. You cant be both but can be undecided I think.

If you are undecided, do you currently believe in a god? I understand that it means you are considering the question 'does god exist?' and haven't decided if you do.  But so long as the answer isn't "yes," then you currently do not believe.  That is atheism.  

Until your answer is yes, the answer must be no.   The question is whether you have belief in god.  if you are asking what you know, then you can simply say 'I don't know' and be undecided, but his is agnosticism.  You can be unsure (agnostic) and still, at the same time, lack belief (atheism).

I'm an agnostic atheist, and it sounds like you are too (currently). 

Quote:
From the knowlege I have so far my feelings are inconclusive and should be at this point in time as theres a mountain of shit I need to read and look into first.

Agreed.  And if you would like some suggestions, give me an idea about what you would like to research, and I'll see if I have any good ones for you.   

Quote:
BTW Does Theism include all forms of spirituality

That would depend on the definition of spirituality.  I would say that it's possible to believe in something "spiritual" and yet not believe in a god per se.  I personally don't believe in anything supernatural, as I believe it is an incoherent term.  I believe in spirit as Nietzsche talked about it, which is consistant with my being a metaphysical naturalist.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: I dont

metaloz wrote:

I dont think its as cut and dry as that. You cant be both but can be undecided I think. From the knowlege I have so far my feelings are inconclusive and should be at this point in time as theres a mountain of shit I need to read and look into first.

BTW Does Theism include all forms of spirituality

 If you're undecided, then you're an atheist because you don't (yet) believe in any deities, so you fit the one and only criterion for atheism: no belief in god(s).

 Theism does not include all forms of spirituality,  it includes all forms of spirituality that appeal to a supernatural "higher power".


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
At present Agnostic is

At present Agnostic is probably the way to describe myself. This however could change over a period of time as I said above I want to look into subjects such as World religions, spiritualism, Evolution,  Check out some of Richard Dawkins, Robert Winston and others works. For example Ive read some  articles (plus there are heaps of books out there) that  quash the evolution and Big Bang Theories by scientists not Theists and others that support. so yeah a lot of stuff for me to weigh up before I make up my mind. So many plausible claims and counter claims.

 

PS Can anyone help me with multiple quote tags I cant work it out. probably missed something simple


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: PS Can

metaloz wrote:

PS Can anyone help me with multiple quote tags I cant work it out. probably missed something simple

Our Susan wrote an excellent tutorial on using the quote function, here:

How To Use The Quote Function

 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Where did the thing that the

Where did the thing that the thing that things come from come from?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote:     Who

metaloz wrote:

 

 

Who here can explain what made the universe  ? or can explain infinity ?
"Nothing" as an answer just doesnt do it for me Im afraid.

I hope you read todangst' link.

The universe has set boundaries defined by the hyperbolic curvature of the space-time fabric. Granted, the universe is expanding under the push of Dark Energy, but it still has defined boundaries. When you reach the "edge" of the universe, you will simply curve around the side. But like the curvature of the Earth, this hyperbolic shape is so vast that it is completely imperceptible. The existence of Dark Matter (albeit not detected yet) was sealed by evidence that Omega is 0.3, and Lambda is 0.7, which is consistent with the known makeup of the universe, which is consistent with the Cosmic background black-body radiation detected by WMAP

The universe is not static either. It is expanding. Fast. There is a fight going on between the gravitational attraction of bodies of matter that reside in the space-time membrane and a mysterious "dark energy" that overpowers gravitational attraction. As gravity becomes weaker, expansion becomes faster. If we were to draw a map of the universe, the dark energy would be spread out in perfectly even pattern of exactly 10^-26 g/cm3. This means there is little more than an asteroid sized chunk in the entire galaxy. Almost nothing. Ordinary matter on the other hand, is clumped. In this map of the universe, there would be billions of of small dots representing galaxies arrayed in a filament-like arrangement, and no matter anywhere else. In most parts of the universe, the denisty of matter is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, which for all intents and purposes, is nothing.

If the universe is expanding, it had a beginning. It is not eternal. It was born in a singularity exactly 13.7 billion years ago according to extremely authoritative data from WMAP that can establish it to an astonishing 1% margin of error. Idiots call this singularity the Big Bang, when it was not big, and definitely not a bang.

One thing that struck me immediately is the notion that the BB was the "start" of the universe. This is not the case. BB is transition, not creation. The symmetry breaking, brane collision, false vacuum fluctuation etc is the creation, BB is a transitional event that occured 10^-43 seconds after the birth of the universe called the Planck Era. Nothing is known about the prior state, and by the reckoning of some cosmologists, nothing can be known of this state. But BB is a transition event, the genesis of matter and energy, not the universe. Of all the things that sealed my belief in the finite universe, none did more so than when I was shown Smoot's historic picture from the WMAP probe.

If we wind the clock back, we find a state of hypercompressed energy that created a false vacuum forcing an outward expansion which expanded at the rate of empty space called hyperinflation, which is about 10^50m/s. This is many times faster than light speed, but as there is no matter and no mass empty space can violate the c-limit.

Quantum tunnelling and hyperinflation will always be more parsimonious than God. Spontaneous breaking, and SU1xSU2xSU3 Grand Unifying theory (which have to do with something known as a false-vacuum fluctuation) are simply better explanations. They make sense.

 

I always found it difficult to overcome my prejudice against ex nihilo, which clearly violated the iron laws of thermodynamics. However, that all changed one day when I was abruptly reminded by Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, that the actual matter/energy content may be very low because the false vacuum has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunnelling event which broke the singularity, and released a huge tide of positive energy, cancelling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood).

However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's OK though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect)?

In a flash, Guth had blown my mind. I had forgotten about the negative energy of the vacuum. But in truth, he had pointed out something really obvious. After all, the solution to something that seemingly breaks the first law of thermodynamics would probably have to be so simple and obvious, because if it was monstrous and complex, it would probably be false, given how iron that law is.

I also wish to cover ex nihilo. We need to understand spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one. As the four forces are unified into one, there is no coherent mathematical relationship, also called a singularity. This arrangement is extremely unstable, and as it spiralled asymptotically towards infinity and zero (because it has no mass), it breaks like a dam bursts, and the more stable arrangement (the four forces are broken thus producing the space time continuum) is born. Something can indeed come from nothing

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:

> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
"Where did the thing that

"Where did the thing that the thing that things come from come from?"

 agreed


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Obviously one has to have

Obviously one has to have a good handle on science to digest and understand all of that , I found myself consulting a dictionary every 5 seconds then couldnt be bothered. However I did pick up on some of the more general points as Ive read some similar but simpler explanations elsewhere and remain agnostic.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: Obviously

metaloz wrote:

Obviously one has to have a good handle on science to digest and understand all of that , I found myself consulting a dictionary every 5 seconds then couldnt be bothered. However I did pick up on some of the more general points as Ive read some similar but simpler explanations elsewhere and remain agnostic.

Way to make a half-hearted effort, give up and walk away stauch in your views. If only more people did that, this world would be a much better place.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
"Way to make a half-hearted

"Way to make a half-hearted effort, give up and walk away stauch in your views. If only more people did that, this world would be a much better place"

I detect sarcasm. I appreciate the effort someone put into copying and pasting that there and spent a great deal more time reading it but have since found  easier understanding and more balanced  views elsewhere  on the net.Like everyone else I have the right to choose what I read, how much I read, where I read and from what viewpoint. 

I dont force my so called staunch views or beliefs on anyone .people can believe what they want as long as it does no harm to others.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I detect sarcasm. I

I detect sarcasm. I appreciate the effort someone put into copying and pasting that there and spent a great deal more time reading it but have since found easier understanding and more balanced views elsewhere on the net

Copying and pasting?Are you implying that I plaigarize? Excuse me? That was my own writing and I took the time to draft it myself. Please do not lie through your teeth. I don't think you understand, I have the backing of the world's most celebrated physicists on this matter, Alan Guth, Michio Kaku, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg.

Now if you have a genuine objection to my scientific line of thought into ex nihilo, please raise it, but until then, please do not attempt to debate on issues you have already conceded yourself fundamentally ignorant on. Please do not accuse me of plaigarism since I actually did have that conversation and actually did study quantum physics and actually do (hard to find these days...) know what I am talking about

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


metaloz
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
I never implied you never

I never implied you never wrote that article ( I did not know) but more so implied it wasnt written specifically for me. I dont believe I was debating your article

God theres some uptight fucks here who expect people to just go hey i believe these guys without looking at other viewpoints. 

Has neuroscience come up with a chill pil yet ?

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Has neuroscience come up

Has neuroscience come up with a chill pil yet ?

I didn't expect you to agree with me, but I did expect you to either a) debate it, or b) respond in some real fashion seeing as you are the OP and you asked the original question, to which I responded.

The essay was not written for you per se but since you asked precisely the question which I adressed, I see little difference.

As to your second question, I earned my degree in neurology and follow neuroscience quite closely, and we do have certain drugs that affect the ion channels in the hypothalamus and the dopamine receptors that induce relaxed, happy feelings, as well as serotonin-control mechanisms that can be directly implanted in, or taken in pill form.

So yes. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
metaloz wrote: I detect

metaloz wrote:

I detect sarcasm.

Do you?