Theli

There has been several discussions on the subject of 'everything's creation. And I've read Franc28 and others claim that "something can't come from nothing", but this could be false.
If you accept the idea of a zeroenergy universe (X+(-X)=0), where X represent the amount of positive/negative energy in the universe at it's initial state.
Now, where did the X come from? If no rules/god/will/design existed before the universe's creation X was completely random, right?
If something existed prior to Big Bang, X was a set value (or atleast influenced by prior values). Now let's look at those prior values, were those random?
If they were then it's probable to assume that they appeared out of nothing, unless you wan't to apply prior influencial values to those aswell, then we're back where we started.
If X (or it's prior influencial values) were "always" existing, what then triggered the creation of the universe?
If no change existed before universe's creation and no sudden changes or values appeared out of 'nowhere' then the universe would never have existed.

Am I right or am I a crackpot (if so, then why?).

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

copernicus

You are neither, Theli. You have asked a question, not made a statement. It is a good question, but it is one that we can probably never answer satisfactorily. God is not the answer, because that just modifies the question. Instead of asking what caused the Big Bang, now you have to ask what caused God. And what took him so long to get around to causing the Big Bang? What was he doing, just twiddling his celestial thumbs? Can you imagine his boredom before he got the brilliant idea to create the universe?

In any case, if you can accept the idea of a super intelligent being as the "uncaused cause", then you can accept the idea of space-time itself as an "uncaused cause".

There is some speculation that our universe is not the only one and that singularities--black holes--may in fact be part of the process that spawns other universes. Maybe our own was spawned by a different "reality" that is now inaccessible to us. All we know is that time in this universe goes back to the Big Bang, but time for us seems to stop with the beginning. If there was a "something" before the Big Bang, we can only speculate about it.

Theli

Copernicus...
Well, this question is a statement if you apply Ockhams Razor to it, wich I quess I should have done myself.

But it also makes the statement that something must at some point have come from nothing (Ex Nihilo).

Excacly, an uncaused god fails to explain the creation of the universe since he would have the same problem as an uncaused universe.

God cannot really have been "more supernatural" then singularity either, because if there were natural laws (for god to break) there had to be some set values. And then we have simply moved another step backward without having accomplished anything.
This is why saying that god would not apply to the same rules because he's "supernatural" is pretty stupid.

I saw this on television last week, it seems that a supermassive black hole exists at the center of every galaxy and was responsible for the galaxy having stars and planets instead of simply chaotic gas.

This would also be the reason our universe is not a chaotic cloud of gas anymore.

The question still stands, was X random, set or influenced?

Good brain excercise.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

*sigh* I give up. You guys don't even know basic logic.

Theli

The problem here is that your "logic" is way too basic. Similar to logic as "it just is" or "god did it" or "I know I'm right".

But by all means, don't give up. I would like to hear your explaination on how the value X was concieved (aswell as it's possible preceding values).

Sojourner553

Good point. This is an area scientists are already working hard at answering -- and the answer will probably be far more strange than any "armchair philosopher" can conceive of.

=======================================

"Alan Guth's inflationary model of the universe – which is currently
considered the best model for explaining the universe by physicists-- holds that
our universe is not unique, but arose from a quantum fluctuation in space.
Guth's theory is complex but following is a layman's explanation taken from
DISOVER Magazine:

Quantum theory holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to uncertainties.
This means that, there is an infinitesimally low probability that pairs of
subatomic particles – usually one positive and one negative – can pop into
existence, lasting a split second (on the magnitude of .000000000000000000001
second) in what physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. In 1980, Guth put forth
an inflationary model that described how a "false vacuum" (ie a peculiar form of
matter predicted to exist by many particle physicists) erupted to form our
universe:

…[I]ts expansion accelerat[ed] exponentially as its repulsive force
compounded,[creating] vast quantities of ever-doubling energy, which
decayed into a seething plasma of particles such as electrons, positrons,
and neutrinos. As the early universe went along doubling every
microsecond, the stuff in it doubled too – out of nowhere. The electrons,
positrons, and neutrinos became a sort of hot soup, which 300,000 years
later neutralized to form simple atoms. The simple atoms, like hydrogen,
helium, and lithium, were ripped apart and crushed together to form more
complex, heavier atoms inside stars. Exploded into space by supernovas,
they became the matter we see—and are—today." (Brad Lemley, "Guth's Grand
Guess", DISCOVER, April 2002, p 36)

Andrei Linde of Stanford has used advanced quantum physics based on Guth's
inflationary model to take this one step further. Linde has used (what he calls
the "eternally existing, self-reproducing inflationary universe"), to describe
an infinite series of universes created before and after our universe. Brad
Lemley of DISCOVER magazine described Linde's model as follows:

The multiverse... is like a growing fractal, sprouting inflationary domains
that sprout more inflationary domains, with each domain spreading and
cooling into a new universe. If Linde is correct, our universe is just
one of the sprouts.

The theory neatly straddles two ancient ideas about the origin of our
universe: that it had a definite beginning, and that it has existed
forever. In Linde's view, each particular part of the multiverse,
including our part, began from a singularity somewhere in the past,
but that singularity was just one of an endless series that was spawned
before it and will continue after it. (Brad Lemley, "MULTIPLE Universes -
Is ours the only ONE with life?" DISCOVER MAGAZINE, November 2001)

Alan Guth agrees that Linde's model is not only possible, it seems like a
sure thing. Guth wrote in his 1997 book, THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE, how "any
cosmological theory that does not lead to the eternal reproduction of universes
will be considered as unimaginable as a species of bacteria that cannot
reproduce." (Lemley, IBID, p 38. Note: I did not quote the first sentence above
as it comes from Lemley not Guth.)

The multi-universe idea is not a new concept: In the late 1700's, the
philosopher David Hume mused that other universes might have been "botched and
bungled, through eternity, ere this system." The same idea applies: that only a
tiny fraction of universes, including ours, happens to be set at the values
required for life

Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal and author of the book JUST SIX
NUMBERS (see footnote (2) below) is a proponent of Linde's model for a multi-
universe. Rees argues that if our universe was built by a divine creator,
rather than through randomness, we should see more elegance (or less "ugliness
and complexity") in other physics constants. For example, per Rees, a divine
intelligence would probably have chosen a perfect circle for Earth's orbit, as
opposed to its actual elliptical shape. Another example given by Rees is that
the antigravity constant is just a smidgen above zero.

Of course, assuming Linde's model holds up (Rees speculates there might be
ways of testing this theory within this century) then this means the universe is
about a zillion times larger, not to mention "weirder" than almost anyone had
ever conceived of."

[taken from Section VIII, Chapter 1]

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

As for the principle of Ockham's Razor -- it already fails with what is known about quantum theory.


Sojourner

Theli

Sojourner553...

Good article.

If Andrei Linde is right and the multiverse functions as a fractal then X is either set or atleast influenced.
Generally a fractal has a begining but not an end.
It depends on if the fractal branches or not.
And the quesion still remains, if X was influenced by this then what influenced it must also have a cause (or be random).
The value of the multiverse's branching must also have been set or random.
Other than that, I'm for the multiverse theory.

Martin Rees makes a good point about god. The complexity that exists would not be necessary is a creator existed.

I don't see your objection here. Data can be measured from experiments involving Quantum Mechanics. And theories/explainations can be made from this. Even if Ockhams Razor might be less used here, it doesn't excacly fail.

Sojourner553

Yes. The point is that the Big Bang may have been a random event, as opposed to a supernatural event. This would explain, "What was God doing before the Big Bang?" A religious response could also be, "God was busy creating OTHER Big Bangs."


My point was that Ockham's Razor was first used to apply to metaphysical explanations; and does not always apply when choosing between physical models or explanations of the world.

Sojourner

Daydreamer

We seem to be using different definitions of Ockham's Razor. It originally read "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".

This DOES work with quantem mechanics because the excess "entities" and such that complicate things have been shown to exist and have noticable effects on how things work. You see, Ockham's Razor assumes that outside of the two contesting theories levels of complexity, all else is equal. When they are not equal, such as when there are explainations for more phenomena under one theory than under the other, Ockham's Razor does not apply.

"Uncaused god caused the universe" is more complex than "uncaused universe", yet both equally explain the existence of our universe, and both have the same causability problem, hence Ockham's Razor applies.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Daydreamer ]</p>