Can Science Explain the Existence of the Universe?

[ParanoiA]

What is of interest to me is that this is a completely negative result – science is in effect denying the possibility of its own existence. There must be some significance to this that goes beyond petty issues.

 

Science isn't denying its own existence, it's denying the knowledge of how this existence is achieved. The study simply doesn't know. Not sure why you're having such a hard time with that.

 

Also, note the difference between science and scientists. Scientists are individuals with their own belief systems that participate in the study of science. Science is the institution, the study itself.

 

Most of the time they are treated synonymously by the media and its participants. If a scientist claims "X", then the media reports that science claims "X". That's false. That particular scenario is exploited extensively by the Rush Limbaugh's by the way.

 

No, there's no significance to it, because your original argument is flawed. Then we decided to chat amongst ourselves, it got slightly heated, but that's what usually happens when religion is thrown into the mix...this is a science forum after all.

 

And that's my fault. Sorry...

[Realitycheck]

No. The existence of the universe is itself unscientific because it came into being though the appearance of incomprehensible amounts of energy and matter from nothing and nowhere. According to science matter must come from something – it cannot simply suddenly appear. If even a small amount of matter should likewise appear today science would be unable to explain it and it would be considered a miracle. The principles and laws of science cannot explain how matter can be created from nothing. But still science does not consider existence of the universe a miracle. The laws of physics that scientists believe in rule out the universe’s existence. Scientists believe in a system of thought that denies the very existence of the world they live in.

 

However, science does not propose that the universe came from nothing. Some may believe in an intrepretation that is not well thought-out, but as you may have perceived, there are countless variations of Big Bang theory and existence. The one that I am familiar with defines pre-BB existence as simply a super-hot (1-10 million degrees) bundle of matter/plasma that is so hot that the matter does not even take any one form, is not capable of it.

 

There are very few intrepretations which claim that everything derived from nothing, for such a design would not stand up to science's own laws, just as you point out. There are countless ideas that people come up with to look for a fit, but inevitably, it is impossible to prove, just as impossible to prove that God exists or is rather, a figment of people's imagination that people like to use as some sort of anchor to hold on to.

[ParanoiA]

Despite the enormity of it all, it all must be finite, for that is the only thing that is logical.

 

You mean it's the only thing that is logical to the human mind. How logical do you think space is to a dog? A rooster? If you make a table, does it think? We are a resultant of the physical world - there's no reason to think we possess the physiology to understand it.

 

Logic is relative to the being. I have no reason to think that humans have been blessed with the brain to truly understand the universe. Further, I have no reason to think that humans ask or inquire anything relevant. It's just important, to us. To us tool makers, it stands to reason we would ask questions about how stuff works.

 

Our particular capacity for logic and reason seems arbitrary in the big picture - a stopping point. If humans didn't exist, then does that mean that Apes are equipped with the logic to contemplate the ultimate knowledge of everything? Of course not. So what makes us think that WE are equipped for such notions?

 

In other words, what makes you think your idea of "logic" or "reason" is relevant to the universe? There's no reason to believe that the laws of physics must be comprehensible to the little humans on earth. So to say it all must be finite because that's only "logical" is more than comical.

[Klaynos]

We are a resultant of the physical world - there's no reason to think we possess the physiology to understand it.

 

This is an unavoidable flaw in humans and one that not enough people appreciate.

[Dennisg]

Thanks people for your imput - its just a thought and not a perfect one at that

[npts2020]

ParanoiA; The reason I think my ideas of logic and reason apply to the "real" universe, is because they explain things in a manner I can understand and relate to what I see in my life. It is also how I can predict future events when given enough relevant facts. Even though there are many incomprehensible (to me anyway) things in the universe, I have enough hubris to believe that my understanding of it is greater than that of any human of 1000 years ago and probably only a fraction of many humans 1000 years hence.

[bascule]

Why is everyone assuming that matter/energy isn't eternal?

 

Dunno, perhaps causality is circular, or an infinite regression (turtles all the way down)

[padren]

I think what we can reduce the confusion down to, is that science isn't the study of the universe per say, it's the study of observable causality: ie, how things effect each other, which only can be observed over time.

 

Any question that involves "when time started" or when the laws of causality started, is beyond our current capacity to study in science, and may always be. At least with regards to the "first action" paradox.

 

As already said, there is no need to call unknowns or even unknowables "miracles" either, as that is making an assumption in itself.

 

 

On the theistic note, I've never understood why the answer to the "first action" paradox of "because god is eternal" would seem to be a more complete answer than "because the universe gets really weird when you go back to the start of the big bang" - to me they are both saying it's beyond current comprehension.

[bascule]

On the theistic note, I've never understood why the answer to the "first action" paradox of "because god is eternal" would seem to be a more complete answer

 

That's just another example of an infinite regression, which doesn't require a deity to be a plausible explanation

[rueberry]

the universe is what it is. frankly, i would be surprised if the human race ever got close to understanding its nature before we do as 99 percent of all the species that have ever existed have done. become extinct. still, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. the theories we have now will be used as have those before them, as a stepping stone to better knowledge and more accurate theories. the big bang, god, etc. frankly we simply don't know. but, there is much we do know and, more to come. as a religious fellow once said, " we see through a glass darkly ". we all have a mind and this forum shows that they are diverse, intellegent and worthy to be listened to. and i believe one of you will someday bring us to a new enlightenment in science. as for those among us who believe in god, have faith. for if god exist, science will one day discover him, should he wish to be.

[thedarkshade]

No.

Tha's a big word you know!

If even a small amount of matter should likewise appear today science would be unable to explain it and it would be considered a miracle.

It won't appear don't worry. We know that from conservation of energy (since matter is energy)!

But still science does not consider existence of the universe a miracle.

There is absolutely no reason why we should give this more privilege than the other countless problems since deals with.

It indeed is a striking thing to even just think about, but that makes is just another problem for science, nothing more!