Why the hell appears by itself an Universe with moral?

[Enric]

My brother was all his life a lover of dirty life and now is an indigent. I was all the life a lover of letters and I'm now a writer.

Why the hell appears by itself an Universe with moral (little or big moral for you or for somebody).

I can understand an Universe chaotic appeared by itself (a soup of matter for exemple), but not this one.

It's shocking.

 

 

[Enric]

1 hour ago, Enric said:

My brother was all his life a lover of dirty life and now is an indigent. I was all the life a lover of letters and I'm now a writer.

Why the hell appears by itself an Universe with moral (little or big moral for you or for somebody).

I can understand an Universe chaotic appeared by itself (a soup of matter for exemple), but not this one.

It's shocking.

Sorry for the language and the personal affaires. It's only a dramazitation. Everybody knows a personal affaire with this parameters with some kind of moral.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Enric said:

 

 

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

This doesn't make much sense. Unless you can make your point more clearly, we will close this thread.

 

[Itoero]

 

2 hours ago, Enric said:

I can understand an Universe chaotic appeared by itself (a soup of matter for exemple), but not this one.

The complexity we observe now, evolved/developed because 'the soup of matter' which was in a sense present before the Big Bang, started to expand.

When 'the soup of matter' started to expand, the complexity we observe now slowly evolved/developed. Expanding of matter causes motion and motion causes interaction which causes complexity.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Enric said:

My brother was all his life a lover of dirty life and now is an indigent. I was all the life a lover of letters and I'm now a writer.

Why the hell appears by itself an Universe with moral (little or big moral for you or for somebody).

I can understand an Universe chaotic appeared by itself (a soup of matter for exemple), but not this one.

It's shocking.

4

Is this what your asking?

[Enric]

I want to say that morals it's not what we can expect precisely from a self-created universe.

 

Irrational things or absolutely all irrational are more expectable, I think, if this comes from the pure nothing without creator.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Enric

[Sensei]

6 hours ago, Enric said:

It's shocking.

Not at all. It's story about conservation of energy (which is stored in food or other resources).

There was story for children about squirrels (or other animals). One squirrel entire summer was busy gathering nuts for autumn and winter. Second was busy enjoying life and playing. The squirrel, who collected food for winter, survived harder times.

6 hours ago, Enric said:

My brother was all his life a lover of dirty life and now is an indigent.

He is like animal who in summer was not gathering food for winter..

There is needed healthy balance between learning, working, training & enjoying life. Somebody who is concentrating on just one of them, will have problems (economical, healthy or mental problems).

6 hours ago, Enric said:

I was all the life a lover of letters and I'm now a writer.

Majority of people on this world would say that you also don't have "true job".. i.e. job that is indispensable.. e.g. if there would no worldwide abundance of food, no mass production of crops, plants and meat, or there would be collapse of global economic, writer (or other intellectualist) would be the first one who would be jobless (people can survive without books, but can't survive without food). Somebody producing food, fuel, energy for production of food, creating, programming and maintaining electric and electronics devices, would have indispensable job position.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Sensei

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

 

The complexity we observe now, evolved/developed because 'the soup of matter' which was in a sense present before the Big Bang, started to expand.

When 'the soup of matter' started to expand, the complexity we observe now slowly evolved/developed. Expanding of matter causes motion and motion causes interaction which causes complexity.

Not sure what this thread is about but that is certainly wrong. There was "nothing" before the BB and even up to a very small fraction of a second post BB. The BB was the evolution of space and time from a hot dense state including the combination of the four forces we know of today, known as the superforce...matter came later as expansion continued with drops in temperatures and pressures and the superforce started to decouple.

Matter also did not expand, it simply coalesced as temperatures decreased with expansion until at around 3 minutes the first atomic nuclei were formed and at around 380,000 years, the first light element was formed.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by beecee

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, Enric said:

I want to say that morals it's not what we can expect precisely from a self-created universe.

I'm not sure what you mean by self created, I'm not sure why you would expect anything from the universe but if life evolved and some life forms evolved to be social then morals are exactly what you would expect to see.

All social animals have a range of behaviors that support the survival of the social group. Wolves, lions, horses, whales, any creature that survives via social interactions has inherent behaviors that support the survival of the group. Humans are no exception, while our social interactions may not be the same as other animals we still have them.

These interactions are called morals by some of us but they are really just behaviors that support the survival of the group. In our case individual survival is part of the equation and some of us fail due to behaviors not being as solidly inborn as say the social behavior of bees or termites but even they have have individuals whose behavior lies outside the norms of those groups. These individuals often fail to survive or sometimes result in their local groups failing to survive... 

2 hours ago, Enric said:

Irrational things or absolutely all irrational are more expectable, I think, if this comes from the pure nothing without creator.

Why? If complexity can come from chaos then why couldn't complex behavior come from chaos as well? In fact I think we should expect to see such behaviors arise with regularity exactly the way we currently see them..  

[Itoero]

On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:42 PM, beecee said:

matter came later as expansion continued with drops in temperatures and pressures and the superforce started to decouple.

Why do you think that?(evidence/citation)

Isn't the BB the evolution of the universe from 'small to big', unrelated to  the forming of matter?

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Why do you think that?(evidence/citation)

Isn't the BB the evolution of the universe from 'small to big', unrelated to  the forming of matter?

The BB is the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds. Like I said, matter came later. While certainly the closer we come to the t+10-43 seconds, the less  certain we can be, the process as I posted, is the recognised scenario...............

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/26/universe.physics

0^-43 seconds

Known as the Planck Era, this is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time. At this moment, the universe is thought to be incredibly hot, dense and turbulent, with the very fabric of space and time turned into a roiling morass. All the fundamental forces currently at work in the universe - gravity, electromagnetism and the so-called strong and weak nuclear forces - are thought to have been unified during this stage into a single "superforce".

10^-35 seconds

The so-called Grand Unification Era, at the end of which the superforce begins to break apart into the constituent forces we see today. Around this time so-called inflationary energy triggers a dramatic burst of expansion, expanding the universe from far smaller than a subatomic particle to far larger than the cosmic volume we can see today. In the process, the primordial wrinkles in space-time are smoothed out.

10^-32 seconds

The energy dumped into the universe by the end of inflation leads to the appearance of particles of matter via Einstein's celebrated equation E=mc^2. Initially a mix of matter and antimatter, most of the particles annihilate each other in a burst of radiation, leaving behind randomly scattered pockets of matter.

10^-11 seconds

The so-called Electroweak Era, when the last two fundamental forces still unified with one another - electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force - finally split, leaving the universe with the four separate forces we observe today.

10^-6 seconds

As the universe continues to expand, it becomes cool enough to allow the familiar particles of today's matter, protons and neutrons, to form from their constituents, known as quarks.

200 seconds

At a temperature of one billion degrees celsius, protons and neutrons start to come together to form nuclei, the charged cores of atoms. Within 20 minutes, the temperature of the universe has become too cold to drive the process, which ceases with the formation of the nuclei of hydrogen and helium, the simplest and most common chemical elements in the universe. The formation of all the other elements - including the carbon, oxygen and nitrogen needed for life - will emerge with the first massive stars millions of years later.

300,000 years

The universe has cooled to about 1,000C - cool enough for electrons to pair up with nuclei to form the first atoms. By the end of this so-called Recombination Era, the universe consists of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. With the electrons now bound to atoms, the universe finally becomes transparent to light - making this the earliest epoch observable today.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Why do you think that?(evidence/citation)

Isn't the BB the evolution of the universe from 'small to big', unrelated to  the forming of matter?

It depends, to some extent, on what is meant by "matter".

If you define "matter" as fermions (as opposed to bosons, the force carriers) then as far back as our physics can take us, there was always "matter".

But if you think of matter as atoms, then they didn't appear until much later when the universe has cooled enough for atoms to form.

There may be intermediate definitions and stages.

 

Edit: cross-posted with Beecee's much more detailed answer!

Edited November 27, 2018 by Strange
xpost

[Itoero]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

It depends, to some extent, on what is meant by "matter".

If you define "matter" as fermions (as opposed to bosons, the force carriers) then as far back as our physics can take us, there was always "matter".

But if you think of matter as atoms, then they didn't appear until much later when the universe has cooled enough for atoms to form.

There may be intermediate definitions and stages.

Matter is imo any substance that has mass and takes up space.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Matter is imo any substance that has mass and takes up space.

So, if having mass is a requirement, then this takes us to the end of the electroweak era, when symmetry breaking caused the Higgs mechanism to give particles mass:

Quote

Electroweak symmetry breaking

10⁻¹² seconds after the Big Bang

As the universe's temperature continued to fall below a certain very high energy level, a third symmetry breaking occurs. So far as we currently know, it was the final symmetry breaking event in the formation of our universe. It is believed that below some energies unknown yet,^{[19][verification needed]} the Higgs field spontaneously acquires a vacuum expectation value. When this happens, it breaks electroweak gauge symmetry. This has two related effects:

1. Via the Higgs mechanism, all elementary particles interacting with the Higgs field become massive, having been massless at higher energy levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Electroweak_symmetry_breaking

[Itoero]

What's the experimental evidence for what happened after the big bang?

[beecee]

19 hours ago, Itoero said:

What's the experimental evidence for what happened after the big bang?

The CMBR at 2.73K and as predicted earlier by other researchers purely on theoretical grounds.

Edited November 29, 2018 by beecee

[jajrussel]

This conversation started off like a science attempt at improvisational Jazz. Then seemingly turned to an example of order from kaos. I keep thinking that  Dobie Gillis is going to step in any second now and explain the inner genius workings of Maynard’s mind.

At the minimum this thread does seem to be in the right category...