Answerer

Simply put, causality doesn't make an important part of quantum physics, things can just happen without a cause. Vaccum fluctuation is one such case and it happens that the 'spark' could be just another form of vaccum fluctuation.

Koyaanisqatsi

Agreed.

EarthGirl

[eg] I suppose that the main reason that I posted this topic in the philosophy forum is because I am just totally, scientificly, inept. Also, because I have a tendency to look at this sort of thing--life and why we are here, in a philosophical way.

Honestly, the only thing that I even remotely understand when I read about quantum stuff is that nothing can come from nothing. If this is what the theory shows, isn't it possible that this "nothing" could indeed be something? Couldn't it be something that we are just in no way capable of grasping w/our limited capabalities?

Why is it some people are so apt to say that there just probably is not a god and others are more inclined to say that there is? I myself, just enjoy pondering this but I am open to the truth.

eh

EarthGirl,

The idea is that the laws of physics which govern the quantum world, have independent existence of the universe. Even if space-time did not exist, these laws still would, allowing a quantum fluctuation to bring our more familiar world into existence. Personally, I find the idea to be as silly as God creating a universe with his magic wand, and don't see why it's any more plausible.

But then, why must the universe have been created?

Answerer

Simply put, quantum physics don't give us definite answers unlike ordinary physics you see in your daily life. It gives us a range of "possible answers". Thats why quantum physics always state that the vaccum in space is not "empty", energy-filled field particles often appear for a certain period of time out of nowhere before disappearing again.

Don't ask us why, but this is how our universe behaves. Many scientists had tried to explain this randomness by creating several of quantum interpretations. Refer to them is you can, but we are not sure which will give us the answers yet.



Well, if there is a God, then this will be a even greater deal of things that left unexplained like "who created God?", "Why does he make the world in this, not that?", etc.

Somehow, the answers we received in our lives are very unconvincing.

JGL53

As I see it, the important question to be answered regarding the existence of our observable universe is:

" What is the default position", i.e., the simplest theory that suffices, i.e., that which does not multiply causes beyond necessity?

Theory 1. A naturally existing eternal universe (or multiverse).

Theory 2. An artifice universe 'created' by an unknown (possibly unknowable), invisible, immaterial, all-powerful 'person'.

I'm thinking the former.

paul30

The whole idea of "cause" is human, and involves time.

A cause must precede its effect, by definition.

But in the very early universe, there really was no time yet, because there was no space yet (space-time came into being with the universe).

So to postulate a cause is to postulate something preceding itself.

Or to say the cause caused itself.

That is, the idea of cause does not apply.

We think in terms of causes because we see events following other events with a certain regularity. That doesn't necessarily go for the very early universe.

:boohoo:

JGL53

So the observable universe was uncaused. This also leaves god out in the cold. The motherfucker just can't win, can he?