Who has created Chuck Norris, then, lol? The aswer is also not satisfying... No seriously. We actually are here to 'find' our 'answer' for that. I wondered about since I was a child as well, I guess you are not alone. I've tried to find an answer the scientific way. No chance. I only can post what I think about. The problem is always the same. We cannot accept that there is something that ever was, will be and is. It is our mind that is not peaceful and calm. People who believe in god say that that what always was will be and is, is God. Other people say there is no God. The fact that you can say 'I am' proves the existence of that, no matter what name people have for it. There had been no 'time' when you were 'not'. That what was, will be and ever is has no cause, it must be unconditional. It simply is. So you see the mind cannot 'explain' it. The attempt to explain 'it' will ever fail. The problem is actually simple, but we don't want to have it simple. So we want to explain.
You shouldn't think about these things for too long. You'll go When you look at the complexity of things both on a macro level (the universe) and a micro level (the atom), you can hardly imagine that all that exists is simply a coincidence. There's order. There's structure. There's design. So there has to be a higher power that created it all. Some call that higher power God, others call it science or nature. Personally, I think that God isn't a single being, but is in fact the sum of all living energy in the universe. An average human being consists of ten to the 14th power cells (that's a lot of cells). Does a cell in my big toe know who or what he is? Does a cell in my eye? Or a cell in my thumb? No. They exist, they live, and they function. But all of them together make me. And I can do so much more than the individual cells ever could. I believe that each living organism has life energy. Some call that a soul. And one soul compared to God, is the same as one cell compared to a human being. Insignificant, yet all are needed. When we die, the soul returns to the big pool of life energy, and everything we have experienced is shared. Life is nothing but a learning experience. This isn't the real life, it's just a training course. We are here to learn and experience. Which is why I also firmly believe in reincarnation. We will have to keep coming back until we have learned all there is to learn. Some things we encounter in life are intentional and unavoidable, to test us. With other things only the starting point (A) and the end point (B) are fixed. How we go from A to B is free will. I better stop now, before I go myself.
You're right yen. The thing is that there IS an answer, but we can't find that with our knowledge. Our knowledge won't ever reach the point where we can find the answer, just like we can't go faster that light. If we reach the point we know the answer then we can also undo the answer, rendering the whole question + answer useless. We can only find out how time and space were created by undoing it's creation, but then there is no question anymore, no reason to answer something and if there is no reason to answer something we don't have to undo anything. Here we are, the circle with the creation of space and time in the middle as a point. Btw, if we can undo it we won't exist anymore, nothing will, but heyyyyy, that makes me thinking of something. Maybe undoing the creation triggers a new big bang, maybe before the bang there were living things that found the answer. Things that caused their own death by finding it, but giving us a chance living here. Now we are looking for it, and no matter what anyone says, we will keep searching, killing ourselfs eventually when we find it. A new universe will be born with other life that start over with the quest again... Another thing, but NO OFFENSE: I think religion and things like god are just created by the mind to give us an answer to the questions of life. Just because we are scared of the truth, we want something to care about us and protect us. Somewhere where, if all goes wrong, we can still go to. Also because we can't accept we don't know how the universe is created, we blame god for creating it. It's an easy way to solve the questions. I think that's all what religion is about: we can't accept we don't know something and that it's all over when we die, so our mind create a thing that solves it. Maybe we should just stick to computers, a lot easier. Aren't we even supposed to think about all this? If faith doesn't want us to know we won't ever know, so no reason to search answers... EDIT: tomorrow you'll get a fully worked out cirkel theory I have something in mind but I'm to lazy to write it now
Cool, I am waiting for it. But I guess the contrary is true. The truth is that easy / simple that we cannot accept it / get it. Instead of we (I) try to mod BIOSes / solve PC related problems which is actually far more complex, lol. I guess Buddha / Jesus... weren't able to mod BIOSes. OK see ya tomorrow. I had fun here tonight.
Sir, good question. And of course there are many scientific ideas about pre big bang but none of these have been established yet experimentally or observationally ... I am listing below some references which describe pre big bang. I am sorry to say that all the references are technical and nsome needs login and in order to understand these, one needs good physics background. G. Veneziano, A Simple/Short Introduction to Pre-Big-Bang Physics/Cosmology M. Gasperini, Elementary introduction to pre-big bang cosmology and to the relic graviton background A Feinstein , K E Kunze , M A Vázquez-Mozo Initial conditions and the structure of the singularity in pre-big-bang cosmology
Yen sir wrote; Here are the opinions of some leading physicists on the big bang, singularities, space, time, universe and all that. "It is shown that singularities of space-time are inevitable if the Einstein equations hold, if matter has normal properties and if the universe satisfies certain reasonable global conditions. These singularities would be in the past and would, in principle, be observable. Observation to determine whether such singularities actually occurred would provide a powerful test of the Einstein equations in strong fields. The singularity would not necessarily constitute a beginning of the universe ." Stephen Hawking, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, 294, 1439, 511-521 (1966) "The process, which I have called eternal inflation, keeps going as a chain reaction, producing a fractal like pattern of universes. In this scenario the universe as a whole is immortal . Each particular part of the universe may steam from a singularity somewhere in the past, and it may end up in a singularity somewhere in future. There is, however, no end for the evolution of the universe." Andrei Linde (Scientific American Nov. 1994) "The cyclic model was developed based on the three intuitive notions: The big bang is not a beginning of time, but rather a transition to an earlier phase of evolution ; the evolution of the universe is cyclic; the key events that shaped the large scale structure of the universe occurred during a phase of slow contraction before the big bang, rather than a period of rapid expansion (inflation) after the big bang. The last point means that, like previous periodic models, the cycles are tightly interlinked. The events that occurred a cycle ago shape our universe today, and the events occurring today will shape our universe a cycle from now." Paul J. Steinhardt & Neil Turok, astro-ph/04044080 (2004) "Despite the striking successes of the big bag theory (BBT), there is good reason to believe that the theory in its traditional form is incomplete. Although it is called the "big bang theory", it is not really the theory of a bang at all. It (BBT) is only the theory of the aftermath of a bang. It elegantly describes how the early universe expanded and cooled, and how matter clumped to form galaxies and stars. But the theory (BBT) says nothing about the underlying physics of the primordial bang. It gives not even a clue about what banged, what caused it to bang, or what happened before it banged . The inflationary universe theory, on the other hand, is a description of the bang itself, and provides plausible answers to these questions and more. Inflation does not do away with the big bang theory, but instead adds a brief prehistory that joins smoothly to the traditional description." Alan Guth, MIT Annual (2002) "It is shown that the cosmological singularity in isotropic minisuperspace is naturally removed by quantum geometry. Already at kinematical level, this is indicated by the fact that the inverse scale factor is represented by a bounded operator even though the classical quantity diverges at the initial singularity. The full demonstration comes from an analysis of quantum mechanics. Because of quantum geometry, the quantum evolution occurs in discrete time steps and does not break down when the volume becomes zero. Instead, space-time can be extended to a branch preceding the classical singularity independently of the matter coupled to the model . For large volume the correct semi classical behavior is obtained." Martin Bojowald, Phys. Rev. Let 86, 23, 5227 (2001) "The fact that we perceive the world to have three spatial dimensions is something so famlier to our experience of it that we seldom pause to consider the influence this special property has upon the laws of physics. Yet, it appears that the dimensionality of the world plays a key part in determining the form of laws of physics and in fashioning the roles played by the constants of nature ." J. D. Barrow, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 310, 337-346 (1983)
Infinity is not a real concept. It is a mathematical construct. Nothing as such can exist infinitely because the universe is governed by quantum phenomenon which are not static. Ref. Ultimate fate of the universe More information on BBT can be found here Evidence of Big Bang
Great thread Hopefully somewhat relevant, but there's a fabulous graphic located here: http://scaleofuniverse.com/ This is also quite a nice 3Dish effort: http://www.kiroastro.com/writings/perspective What if ,as humans, we just don't have the ability to conceptualize the idea that "makes sense" of it all? We would not expect a worm to grasp nuclear physics... Maybe the question is the obstacle,... Maybe the first question is, what question should we ask?
So here are my circles: The "being" and everything is on a circle. A circle has no beginning or end, but we could say it begins at the point in the middle. The answer of our existence lies in that center point. To find the answer we need to go to that point. BUT if we go to that point, we aren't on the circle anymore, therefore there is no "being" anymore and also no question about how it comes we "are". So now we are at that point, we have an answer, but not a question that the answer is for. So now again we need to find the question. To find the question we need to get back to the circle, but then again we don't have an answer anymore. This again is a vicious circle where we go from the circle to the point and back, over and over again. The solution would be to be at both places at the same time, to know both the question and the answer at the same time. So how do we know both at the same time? That's the question that lies on a 2nd circle. To know the answer to the question "how to know the question and the answer of the previous circle?", we need to go to the center of the 2nd circle. But here we go again, if we are on that center point we know the answer of that question, but not the question of "how to know both things of the previous circle?". How to know this answer and question at the same time? That's the question that lies on a 3th vicious circle. This goes on and on, and all the circles together are their own vicious circle. There is an infinite amount if circles, all on top of each other. The only solution to solve it is to know all questions and answers of all the circles + the ability to process that infinite amount of information. But in order to do that we need an infinite mind, which we will never have, just like a computer can't have an infinite amount of RAM and CPU power. So here we are: we won't ever know the answer, we won't even ever come out of the first circle, cause to understand that circle we already need to have all other circles. It's a bit like recursion, but infinite recursion.
What we perceive is our experiential version of the universe within our perceptual capability. We can perceive the universe only as events separated by time in a geometrical 3D space. That is our way of making the outside world meaningful and helpful for our existence. In other words we have evolved to view the world that way and it also makes us imagine there is a creator or a beginning or an end etc.
Can you define the concept of a law in such a manner that it is extrinsic to the perception of an observer? In other words can you define the concept of design objectively? Your post is back fitting the need for an explanation into an apriori fallacy. How, can you observe a universe in which the laws of nature as we know it, do not exist? Can you offer a plausible method? This, I think is our problem in a nutshell. So we come up with many theories. Some are just stories, some are the results of investigation though incomplete. We are equipped to perceive only certain parameters of the universe in a very subjective way that supports our existence. That is the way we have evolved. Things beyond our perception are called by names like “infinity” “infinitesimal” “uncertainty” etc. And those are the places where Gods are supposed to live. Yes , united we stand,divided we fall. How can the creator (God) position Himself in an imaginable or accessible area? His very existence is dependent on inaccessibility. He will become accessible only after we die. But I've taught that the definition of God is omniscient,omnipotent and omnipresent but confining him to a soul total of all souls doesn't prove that the universe is his creation. Our illiterate ancestors could not explain how nature works and the only explanation they could offer was that a super human called God is controlling everything. So, different groups in different parts of the world created Gods to suit their fancy. Newton discovered gravitational force and explained it. He explained that earth is going round the sun due to gravitational attraction and not because God keeps rolling it. That was one job less for god thanks to Newton. Similarly more and more discoveries are revealing how nature works making His job more easier every day. Yet, majority wants to stick to the same creator, God invented by our ancestors. . I have this fundamental doubt about soul. If person A and person B dies will their respective souls be able to recognize each other as A and B. If so how it is made possible? A person is recognized by his body characteristics and behavior. Both are brain/body related. So once the brain body is destroyed how is recognition possible? Without a brain how can they remember themselves as A and B. The last suggestion you made seem fallacious 'cos God's existence and freewill is incompatible. ok,bye!
This is cool and has made me smile, I like it Spontaneous reply: It is difficult to go as a 3 dimensional being 'on' a circle (2 dimensions) to a one dimensional point. It has contents of the BBT (regression to Singularity). If the start of all had been determined to be the first circle's point. When you go outside and you watch the sky and the stars: Can you see a limit? Is there a dark blue wall? How can you perceive the infinite sky with a finite memory? Does the universe exist when you sleep? What if the truth reveals when the mind who creates those infinite amount of circles simply vanishes? Like: The answer of all our questions relies on there where no question exists. Add: We are doing it again. We feed our minds. I did that many times in my life and I know it'll end in a headache. That's the reason why I mentioned multiple times the mind is not able to explain it and you say as well: we won't ever know the answer..there is no, yes.
You don't have to see the circle as dimensions. The circle is the "unit" of "being". Whether being has 3, 4 or 1000 dimensions doesn't really matter, cause dimensions are just how we see "being". You need to see the "being" as an object, and all dimensions and time are parts of the object.
To Yen sir and Stannieman sir, The questions you ask and answers you post are both beyond my level of understanding but here is something I want to say.To me the question is a paradox we created, but doesn't really exist. There is no such thing as nothing, in my opinion. The concept of nothing is an erroneous notion present in taking logic to its extremes. Because we have something, we drive our logic to an extreme in the other direction and say that there is nothing. Furthermore, we use the term 'nothing' within an assumed context, for example. if we are talking about an circle/s and I ask you thousands of questions about some circles in a paper or in a board you can see, and I ask you if there is anything in the board you may answer "nothing", because the context assumes we are referring to circles and there are no circles in the paper/board. Which obviously does not mean there is nothing in the board or in the paper in the broad context outside of which we were speaking. Therefore there is something, if it isn't one thing than it is another. Whether we have space, matter, vacuum, or any other phenomenon that we may not even know of yet. Everything is something. Many philosophers/ thinkers attribute darkness, to the lack of light and light to the lack of darkness. That being that each are dependent on each other. Something and nothing do not work like this, in my opinion. They do work like that only in the context of assumed things, but not generally. To say there is something because there is nothing, is not really saying anything. Seems circular argument. You could just as easily say that there is nothing because there is something. Other than words, nothing is going on, especially if I ask you to define your something and than to explain to me a reality in which what you have defined as something can entail nothing. please excuse my ignorance and correct me , thanks, sid_16.
Science is a product of the mind and because mind it's limited to its 5 senses, everything mind creates IS limited. To understand LIMITLESSNESS with the mind is pure madness. Time, space, up, down, past, present, future ARE limitations of the mind. So that's why a human cannot understand the universe.
Nothing is always an idea of something-->Only things exist-->there can't be absence of something-->there can't be nothing. (in a relative world) Absolute there are no objects--->no things exist--->absence of something--->Nothing is always the absence of something-->the true nature of all is to be no-thing. (but be-ing only)
So,nothing is always the absence of something, if it is the absence of something then it is the absence of importance as well. And if it is not the absence of importance, then certainly it is not the absence of something, and if it is not the absence of something, then surely it is not nothing, and the paradox of nothing being the absence of unimportance as well.