This is something I can't comprehend. Who made all of this? Who set the rules for how things should behave (physics)? ER...what made the thing that made all of this?
...How can anything exist?
...How can anything exist?
Why does stuff exist? Where did we come from?
- Thread starter RESmonkey
- Start date
Scientific View:
Our Universe was created in an event called teh big bang which is entirely possible under the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
As I understand it the total energy in teh Universe is zero, so the instantaneuos creation and subsequent persistance of a Universe out of nothing is possible .
If you want to get religous, you could ask who made up these laws of physics to enable such things, and that's a sutable role for your chosen deity.
Peter
Our Universe was created in an event called teh big bang which is entirely possible under the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
As I understand it the total energy in teh Universe is zero, so the instantaneuos creation and subsequent persistance of a Universe out of nothing is possible .
If you want to get religous, you could ask who made up these laws of physics to enable such things, and that's a sutable role for your chosen deity.
Peter
Yeah, that's the thing. Who made these laws? (not religious). How does it all work? I won't find an answer from ATOT, but I just think about this from time to time.
Why do you assume that anybody or any thing had to mnake the laws of physics.
Religion aside, I see no such need.
Peter
Religion aside, I see no such need.
Peter
Even once you get outside of the religious aspect of things, where did your religions "creator" come from? You can just keep going farther and farther back, where there are no answers
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
The Anthropic principle
Basically, the rules exist because if they didn't exist, we wouldn't be around to observe that they don't exist. The reason why they exist is because we are able to observe that they exist.
Basically, the rules exist because if they didn't exist, we wouldn't be around to observe that they don't exist. The reason why they exist is because we are able to observe that they exist.
Hi,
Yes.
That explains quite a lot of things if you accept the existance of a Multiverse, in which many Universes exist and where each Univrese potentially has different laws of physics, or at least different vaules for some of the key constants.
Given that, of course we inhabit a universe whose laws are capable of supporting life.
But to some extent this begs the question. The concept of the Multiverse depends on some aspects of the laws of physics remaining constant across dufferent Universes - for instance the creation process for each Universe depends on the Uncertainblty Principle, so that has to be consistant.
If we define the "fundamental" laws as those that are constant across Universes, then we still have to ask " where do these fundamental laws come from" and the answer " String Theory" is not entirely satisfactory... though we may have to wait some time before we get a better one.
Peter
Yes.
That explains quite a lot of things if you accept the existance of a Multiverse, in which many Universes exist and where each Univrese potentially has different laws of physics, or at least different vaules for some of the key constants.
Given that, of course we inhabit a universe whose laws are capable of supporting life.
But to some extent this begs the question. The concept of the Multiverse depends on some aspects of the laws of physics remaining constant across dufferent Universes - for instance the creation process for each Universe depends on the Uncertainblty Principle, so that has to be consistant.
If we define the "fundamental" laws as those that are constant across Universes, then we still have to ask " where do these fundamental laws come from" and the answer " String Theory" is not entirely satisfactory... though we may have to wait some time before we get a better one.
Peter
a) God
or
b) There are an infinite number of parallel universes, spanning every possible permutation of initial conditions and physical constants.
or
b) There are an infinite number of parallel universes, spanning every possible permutation of initial conditions and physical constants.
The best answer may be found while studying General Relativity and applying some philosophical thinking.
With General Relativity, you learn the great importance of the observer. You learn that depending on which observer you choose, the outcome of a single scenario seems to change. In reality, the outcome doesn't change. All that changes is what you see.
So, how does this apply to the laws of physics? Well, if I remember correctly, someone once said something along these lines: Every time man makes a revolutionary discovery, the universe changes. What he meant wasn't that the formalization of the Bohr model suddenly created an immeasurable number of tiny little balls with positive, negative, and neutral charges. He meant that as we create more accurate models of the universe, we begin to see more of it.
The significance of the statement permeates every aspect of science. No matter what area of science you study, you use tools to observe, be they rulers, telescopes, or that thermometer you shoved up where the sun don't shine. However, no matter what tool you use, you always end up using one of your five senses to observe the results. That's the most important point.
If you are blind, you cannot see whether the sky is blue. Yes, you can have someone who can see tell you, but how do you know he's telling the truth? How do you know he's not just saying it's blue so you'll shut up and go away so he can continue messing around with your sister? In fact, how do you know he's there in the first place? You reach out a hand and feel a body, but how do you know it's a body you feel and not a complex doll? If you were blind from birth, imagine if every time you reached out for your mother, you felt a balloon. Uh, oh, I just felt something rubbery, cold, and full of air. Must be a woman.
So, what's my point, other than be careful of blind men with blow-up dolls? The point is the observer always sets the rules. The observer chooses the tools used to observe and chooses the interpretation of what the tools tell him. Slap a magnet next to a compass, and all of a sudden, the sun rises in the South.
The laws of physics were created by men to explain the world as seen by men. You could come up with your own set of rules, but good luck creating a set as accurate that encompasses so many situations.
So, in conclusion, the laws of physics don't govern the universe. The way we observe the universe governs the laws of physics. Everything is a black box with which we can only observe inputs and outputs. We don't care if inside it is a strange wooden contraption, a mouse on a wheel, or the remnants of alien civilization, as long as something takes numbers and operators and inputs and outputs the right numbers, we call it a calculator.
As a side note, how do you know the laws of physics are true? Have you ever seen an atom split? How do you know they weren't created years ago as a way of governing the behavior of the general populace? How do you know your memories are real? How do you know you're not stuck in some virtual reality game where you live as a strange creature in a strange world with random laws of physics? Are you actually reading this text or is it input straight into your brain? Do you even have a brain?
With General Relativity, you learn the great importance of the observer. You learn that depending on which observer you choose, the outcome of a single scenario seems to change. In reality, the outcome doesn't change. All that changes is what you see.
So, how does this apply to the laws of physics? Well, if I remember correctly, someone once said something along these lines: Every time man makes a revolutionary discovery, the universe changes. What he meant wasn't that the formalization of the Bohr model suddenly created an immeasurable number of tiny little balls with positive, negative, and neutral charges. He meant that as we create more accurate models of the universe, we begin to see more of it.
The significance of the statement permeates every aspect of science. No matter what area of science you study, you use tools to observe, be they rulers, telescopes, or that thermometer you shoved up where the sun don't shine. However, no matter what tool you use, you always end up using one of your five senses to observe the results. That's the most important point.
If you are blind, you cannot see whether the sky is blue. Yes, you can have someone who can see tell you, but how do you know he's telling the truth? How do you know he's not just saying it's blue so you'll shut up and go away so he can continue messing around with your sister? In fact, how do you know he's there in the first place? You reach out a hand and feel a body, but how do you know it's a body you feel and not a complex doll? If you were blind from birth, imagine if every time you reached out for your mother, you felt a balloon. Uh, oh, I just felt something rubbery, cold, and full of air. Must be a woman.
So, what's my point, other than be careful of blind men with blow-up dolls? The point is the observer always sets the rules. The observer chooses the tools used to observe and chooses the interpretation of what the tools tell him. Slap a magnet next to a compass, and all of a sudden, the sun rises in the South.
The laws of physics were created by men to explain the world as seen by men. You could come up with your own set of rules, but good luck creating a set as accurate that encompasses so many situations.
So, in conclusion, the laws of physics don't govern the universe. The way we observe the universe governs the laws of physics. Everything is a black box with which we can only observe inputs and outputs. We don't care if inside it is a strange wooden contraption, a mouse on a wheel, or the remnants of alien civilization, as long as something takes numbers and operators and inputs and outputs the right numbers, we call it a calculator.
As a side note, how do you know the laws of physics are true? Have you ever seen an atom split? How do you know they weren't created years ago as a way of governing the behavior of the general populace? How do you know your memories are real? How do you know you're not stuck in some virtual reality game where you live as a strange creature in a strange world with random laws of physics? Are you actually reading this text or is it input straight into your brain? Do you even have a brain?
PhatoseAlpha
Platinum Member
- Apr 10, 2005
- 2,131
- 21
- 81
Why? as any child will be happy to remind us, it a hopeless question. There is no point at which an answer cannot be followed up by another "Why?"
It's constantly used because people eventually get sick of asking why and stop, and in the meantime the questioned tends to instead answer What? and How?, which are generally more useful then why.
It's constantly used because people eventually get sick of asking why and stop, and in the meantime the questioned tends to instead answer What? and How?, which are generally more useful then why.
Ruptga
Lifer
- Aug 3, 2006
- 10,246
- 207
- 106
Exactly, there's lots of philosophical arguments, but it's like trying to prove/disprove God's existance (can't prove positively because he's directly unobservable, and it's impossible to prove a negative, like trying to prove we didn't coverup Roswell).
Where'd God come from? "He's always been here, been here before time because he, in fact, made time," that's your usual Christian answer. Those that don't put God into the system usually tell us that the universe kinda creates itself then falls into itself and remakes itself in some way, but that still doesn't tell us why something came from nothing. It's also said that stuff is balanced, somehow they got the equation to even out so that you can, in fact, get something from nothing, but why hasn't that been observed if it's possible? Not to mention, even if it has been observed, that really screws with the basic principles that science rests upon, such as doing the exact same thing twice will always yeild the exact same results. I mean if matter and whatnot can just come into existance whenever, there's no telling how my experiment (or whatever, your car's engine even) could be contaminated.
We don't know where whatever made everything else came from, and the question is rather irrelevant anyway; we're here now and stuff is happening, we could ponder this until the sun goes dark and the whole world passes us by (or takes us over).
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I looked at both the scientific and religous view on this alot.
I think I side with both.
Maybe the big bang did start things off but I beleive that there is a God and that he is the architect of it all. Its all way too complex and works too well for me to think that it "just happened" .
I see evidence of God every single day.
As for the questions of "well, where did God come from then ? , how did he create everything out of nothing ?" .. I think our human minds are not capable at present to comprehend such things .
I compare it to going back in time to the first humans that walked upright and trying to explain what we know about the universe now. They would look at you like your some kind of idiot babbling nonsense.
Things like "Adam and Eve" were way more complex than the stories in the bible, but were recorded in ways that people at the time could understand.
We know what we know, and for the rest of the stuff we will just have to wait till we "evolve" to the point of understanding.
I think I side with both.
Maybe the big bang did start things off but I beleive that there is a God and that he is the architect of it all. Its all way too complex and works too well for me to think that it "just happened" .
I see evidence of God every single day.
As for the questions of "well, where did God come from then ? , how did he create everything out of nothing ?" .. I think our human minds are not capable at present to comprehend such things .
I compare it to going back in time to the first humans that walked upright and trying to explain what we know about the universe now. They would look at you like your some kind of idiot babbling nonsense.
Things like "Adam and Eve" were way more complex than the stories in the bible, but were recorded in ways that people at the time could understand.
We know what we know, and for the rest of the stuff we will just have to wait till we "evolve" to the point of understanding.
To add a little more to this unresolvable thread, is the idea of infinity. The universe goes forever we're told, but how is that possible to never end? If it does end then what is beyond it? If I were to go into space and never run out of propulsion, when would I come to the end?
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment,
We are choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside
This holy reality, this holy experience.
Choosing to be here in
This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.
Alive, I
In this holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in
This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.
Twirling round with this familiar parable.
Spinning, weaving round each new experience.
Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing.
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. we are eternal.
all this pain is an illusion.
EDIT: must give credit where credit is due... "Parabola" by Tool
We are choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside
This holy reality, this holy experience.
Choosing to be here in
This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.
Alive, I
In this holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in
This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.
Twirling round with this familiar parable.
Spinning, weaving round each new experience.
Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing.
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. we are eternal.
all this pain is an illusion.
EDIT: must give credit where credit is due... "Parabola" by Tool
SoulAssassin
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2001
- 6,135
- 2
- 0
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
Imagine if you will that the dimensions we can readily observe (point, line, 2d, 3d, and time) are not the only ones. Brane cosmology
toughwimp11
Senior member
- May 8, 2005
- 415
- 0
- 76
This is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with why 'stuff' exists. Although I admit that it's really an unanswerable question at this point.
This is probably true, and in any case, 'why' is not really a valid question when speaking of the creation of the universe unless you accept God. 'Why' implies that there was a reason behind the creation of the universe. In order for this to be true there must be some sentient being at the beginning of it all. A more appropriate question is 'how.'
How was everything created? How can anything exist? What does it even mean to exist? These questions are completely mind-boggling in the truest sense of the word, and I don't think any theory of physics is going to solve them. String theory is fantastic and unbelievable in its own right, if true, but it doesn't deal with how all those little vibrating strands of energy came into existence.
This is another extremely interesting concept.
To begin with, I'm not sure if it's commonly accepted that the universe is infinite. According to Big Bang theory, the universe started off as a miniscule ball of whatever, and then exploded and began to expand. This means that at any time in history, there was always an 'outer edge' to the universe, unless I'm interpreting the theory incorrectly, which is entirely possible.
How about the idea of a singularity, though? Something that is infinitely small, with an infinite density? Very interesting to consider.
Again, very interesting, but it doesn't give us an answer as to how everything exists.
I think, for now, the question is unanswerable. I don't even know that the question is in the scope of any current science. Physics, I think, aims to understand the laws that govern our universe. It doesn't aim to tell us how these laws, or matter/energy/strings, came about in the first place.
Origin and Conclusion are purely human constructs. They really have no basis in either nature or religion.
The atheist asks "What is the origin of the universe, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed?"
The deist asks "God created the universe.. who/what created God?"
Another way to frame it is to take a deeper look at randomness/chance. When you flip a coin, the outcome may appear random, and even may be practically random, but do you have all the information needed to determine the outcome? Do you know all the gravity interactions and electron clouds and ZPE (for example) for all the molecules and atoms and other particles involved in that coin spinning and flipping through the air? No, but perhaps a computer 1000 years from now will be powerful and accurate enough to properly analyze that, and then you wouldn't say it is random any more. And then with that computer you discover nothing is random, and so infinity (for the scientist) and eternity (for the theist) become much easier to accept as the answer to the questions of origin and conclusion.
The atheist asks "What is the origin of the universe, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed?"
The deist asks "God created the universe.. who/what created God?"
Another way to frame it is to take a deeper look at randomness/chance. When you flip a coin, the outcome may appear random, and even may be practically random, but do you have all the information needed to determine the outcome? Do you know all the gravity interactions and electron clouds and ZPE (for example) for all the molecules and atoms and other particles involved in that coin spinning and flipping through the air? No, but perhaps a computer 1000 years from now will be powerful and accurate enough to properly analyze that, and then you wouldn't say it is random any more. And then with that computer you discover nothing is random, and so infinity (for the scientist) and eternity (for the theist) become much easier to accept as the answer to the questions of origin and conclusion.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter