Why the universe is here

[EquisDeXD]

I don't know if it belongs in philosophy or speculations, it's a series of what I hope are cohesive logical correlations, which isn't science, but it's not really something I just make up either, they are the dentition of words.

Essentially, it works like this:

The universe contains everything, therefore before the universe there could only have been nothing. If there is nothing, there is no thing to limit what can exist. Since there is nothing limiting what can exist, anything that has a probability to exist can exist, therefore the reason everything exists is because it has the probability to exist, because if it has 0 probability of existing it would exist, and before the universe (or at least matter and energy) was (were) created because there was no thing to limit the probability of any particular matter to being 0 or less. Matter and energy and everything else exists simply because it has the probability to exist, and if it didn't, then it wouldn't exist.

I guess though, there is still more of a question of how probability was existent before the universe was created, but that would imply that probability is not a physical thing that requires existence? If it doesn't have any aspect of a physical manifestation, it isn't a "thing" is it? So perhaps that's why probability could have existed. That would technically mean imagination could have existed, but with our current evidence imagination can only come from things that exist. I guess if there was no thing before the universe, then there was no thing to limit the existence of probability, it answers itself!

Edited October 3, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

Whatever the universe is and no matter where it is the is at least one universe is and it is here because we are here. I doubt there are any options than that because there seems to be plenty of evidence that we exist in the universe. Perhaps, all this and us are only holograms or programs or figments of imaginations all those would have to be effects of some causes and those causes would have exist somewhere and that somewhere would have to be somewhere, etc...

Not that it makes much difference, I choose to believe that the universe is because it is. Also, rather than keep asking where the univers is and wherever that is is and so on, I choose the universe is has always been and always will be.

[EquisDeXD]

Whatever the universe is and no matter where it is the is at least one universe is and it is here because we are here. I doubt there are any options than that because there seems to be plenty of evidence that we exist in the universe. Perhaps, all this and us are only holograms or programs or figments of imaginations all those would have to be effects of some causes and those causes would have exist somewhere and that somewhere would have to be somewhere, etc...

Not that it makes much difference, I choose to believe that the universe is because it is. Also, rather than keep asking where the univers is and wherever that is is and so on, I choose the universe is has always been and always will be.

 

Except there's not much evidence for that, your disagreeing not only with most of the religious community, but the scientific community, there is concise evidence that there was in fact a point in time at which the observable universe was formed, if we had it your way we would never have had the theory of the big bang. Saying that "it exists because we are here" also doesn't make much sense because by out current physics there is no way humans could exist in the state they currently do without there being a previous state of the matter that comprises them.

[pcalton]

Except you added a word "visible" and that does make a big difference. As far as "...humans could exist in the state they currently do" you've added onto what I said. You are welcome to disagree with what I say. For the record. Also, you've taken my statements added words and meanings to them, drawn conclusions, applied them to how you understand things such as religion and science, and somehow pinned them to me. I like discussions on both science and religion.

You included my statements, thank you. You and others can see exactly where you added terms. We all can determine for ourselves if its my statement or your extrapolations that you disagree with.

I doubt I stated my point perfectly but I did not state what you think I said, however thanks for you comments.

 

Something comming from nothing poses a quandary for me. A nothing that could do that isn't really nothing. Some seem to allow this to serve their theories or they add on universes.

Earlier you mention religion, which I consider man-made and with too many variations. I believe if there is God, then God is and any further definition will fall short.

 

I don't know if it belongs in philosophy or speculations, it's a series of what I hope are cohesive logical correlations, which isn't science, but it's not really something I just make up either, they are the dentition of words.

Essentially, it works like this:

The universe contains everything, therefore before the universe there could only have been nothing. If there is nothing, there is no thing to limit what can exist. Since there is nothing limiting what can exist, anything that has a probability to exist can exist, therefore the reason everything exists is because it has the probability to exist, because if it has 0 probability of existing it would exist, and before the universe (or at least matter and energy) was (were) created because there was no thing to limit the probability of any particular matter to being 0 or less. Matter and energy and everything else exists simply because it has the probability to exist, and if it didn't, then it wouldn't exist.

I guess though, there is still more of a question of how probability was existent before the universe was created, but that would imply that probability is not a physical thing that requires existence? If it doesn't have any aspect of a physical manifestation, it isn't a "thing" is it? So perhaps that's why probability could have existed. That would technically mean imagination could have existed, but with our current evidence imagination can only come from things that exist. I guess if there was no thing before the universe, then there was no thing to limit the existence of probability, it answers itself!

This post has been edited by EquisDeXD: 2 October 2012 - 09:33 PM

 

Except there's not much evidence for that, your disagreeing not only with most of the religious community, but the scientific community, there is concise evidence that there was in fact a point in time at which the observable universe was formed, if we had it your way we would never have had the theory of the big bang. Saying that "it exists because we are here" also doesn't make much sense because by out current physics there is no way humans could exist in the state they currently do without there being a previous state of the matter that comprises them.

Sorry about the multiple posts. I'm trying learn how to include the post I'm responding to. This a new forum for me.

[moth]

Perhaps, all this and us are only holograms or programs or figments of imaginations all those would have to be effects of some causes and those causes would have exist somewhere and that somewhere would have to be somewhere, etc...

This is one reason why, for me, it would seem to be impossible to explain the "creation" of the universe using Physics. Where would these Physics laws exist? Can they be self actualized?

 

 

Since there is nothing limiting what can exist, anything that has a probability to exist can exist, therefore the reason everything exists is because it has the probability to exist, because if it has 0 probability of existing it would exist, and before the universe (or at least matter and energy) was (were) created because there was no thing to limit the probability of any particular matter to being 0 or less. Matter and energy and everything else exists simply because it has the probability to exist, and if it didn't, then it wouldn't exist.

I guess though, there is still more of a question of how probability was existent before the universe was created, but that would imply that probability is not a physical thing that requires existence? If it doesn't have any aspect of a physical manifestation, it isn't a "thing" is it? So perhaps that's why probability could have existed. That would technically mean imagination could have existed, but with our current evidence imagination can only come from things that exist. I guess if there was no thing before the universe, then there was no thing to limit the existence of probability, it answers itself!

If probability to exist can explain the universe then is there "probability space"? Are abstract "spaces" in general, "real"?

 

Where is the complex plane?

[pcalton]

This is one reason why, for me, it would seem to be impossible to explain the "creation" of the universe using Physics. Where would these Physics laws exist? Can they be self actualized?

 

>>>I no longer have the need to explain creation.

 

 

If probability to exist can explain the universe then is there "probability space"? Are abstract "spaces" in general, "real"?

 

>>>I'm not familiar with "Probality Universe" or "Probality Space." What is your meanins of "Space" and "Probabilty Space?"

 

Where is the complex plane?

 

Not sure what it is along with where it is. Is it an abstract term or factor used in mathematics or other science?

[moth]

What is your meanins of "Space" and "Probabilty Space

That's a great question and i wish i had a great answer.

 

By space I think I mean something like: container for energy

so probability space would "contain" probabilities I guess?

 

The phrase "complex plane" has a few meanings, but I was referring to the Cartesian-like coordinate system with one axis representing units of the imaginary number i ([math] \sqrt {-1} [/math]). I just mentioned it as an example of an abstract space.

Edited October 12, 2012 by moth

[pcalton]

Philosophy, religion, and science struggled within me for the first 30-years of my life. Each line-of-thought started coming at me from different family members. Those family members did not get along with each other and their viewpoints within me didn't get along within me either. 

So, I became very mixed-up about those topics. I would become uncomfortable in conversations about philosophy, religion, science and I would need some space (pun intended) if the topics started overlapping.  

I had deep interests in all three topics and studied them privately. Over my life I managed to work through some of my conflicts.  Around Thirty-two years ago, at about the age if 30, I had a startling, wonderful, and internal peacemaking conscious-shift. I had an awakening, a spiritual, philosophical, and scientific experience. Mediation meld them together, balanced in my mind and soul, and revealed common threads. The became comfortably distinguished yet held together granting me peace of mind. 

[EquisDeXD]

Except you added a word "visible" and that does make a big difference.

It does make a difference because I'm not trying to say I know more than the human race, saying that you know there is more matter than there is observable matter is essentially saying that, and furthermore I don't see how you could have any evidence for that unless you have some super secret telescope that can look infinitely deep into the universe.

 

As far as "...humans could exist in the state they currently do" you've added onto what I said. You are welcome to disagree with what I say. For the record. Also, you've taken my statements added words and meanings to them, drawn conclusions, applied them to how you understand things such as religion and science, and somehow pinned them to me. I like discussions on both science and religion.

You included my statements, thank you. You and others can see exactly where you added terms. We all can determine for ourselves if its my statement or your extrapolations that you disagree with.

But your statements have no scientific grounds. "We exist because we are here" is also just a tautology, it's meaningless.

 

 

Something coming from nothing poses a quandary for me. A nothing that could do that isn't really nothing. Some seem to allow this to serve their theories or they add on universes.

How do you know nothing can't do that? How on Earth could you possibly no that nothing can't have something come about in it unless you were around to witness that when there was nothing, that nothing started to exist? Which by the way is a paradox, because if you were around, there wouldn't be nothing. You keep making all these assumptions that have no scientific evidence.

 

If probability to exist can explain the universe then is there "probability space"? Are abstract "spaces" in general, "real"?

 

Where is the complex plane?

 

Probability isn't really a physical thing, so I don't think it's bounded by physical laws themselves. In fact, there exists a probability for all sorts of any type of matter ever imaginable right now all around you, but the matter of which has probability doesn't exist because it's probability of being in any spacial coordinates is equal 0.

Edited October 12, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

It does make a difference because I'm not trying to say I know more than the human race, saying that you know there is more matter than there is observable matter is essentially saying that, and furthermore I don't see how you could have any evidence for that unless you have some super secret telescope that can look infinitely deep into the universe.

 

>>>We can't see a black hole.

We can't see dark matter. But, some scientists believe they are the causes of effects that we have observed and measured. No, I don't have evidence of any particles that I'm keeping secret. The Higgs Boson was only theory but some think there is now evidence. I do not recall the original comment that got here. I do believe there is much more real things or particles that yet to discovered.

 

 

But your statements have no scientific grounds. "We exist because we are here" is also just a tautology, it's meaningless.

>>>perhaps you are correct. If I'm wrong then the alternative seems creepy. That might mean that I'm only imagining I'm here and in saying that I wider where I am I really and is that where I doing my imagining.

 

 

 

How do you know nothing can't do that? How on Earth could you possibly no that nothing can't have something come about in it unless you were around to witness that when there was nothing, that nothing started to exist? Which by the way is a paradox, because if you were around, there wouldn't be nothing. You keep making all these assumptions that have no scientific evidence.

 

>>>Earlier I did post that creation is not something important to me. I don't believe I was there when there was nothing, how could I have been? This seems to be going in circles. Of course there is no evidence. For me this stuff doesn't matter.

 

 

Probability isn't really a physical thing, so I don't think it's bounded by physical laws themselves. In fact, there exists a probability for all sorts of any type of matter ever imaginable right now all around you, but the matter of which has probability doesn't exist because it's probability of being in any spacial coordinates is equal 0.

 

What?

[EquisDeXD]

What?

 

We can't see a black hole, but we can directly observe its predicted effects, saying that your imagining your here also doesn't make sense with our evidence because there's plenty of evidence to suggest you couldn't have been here without constituent materials that created your body before you started existing. And if this topic doesn't matter to you why are you posting on it?

[pcalton]

Perhaps, probably, more than likely, what else could it be other than a predicted black hole? I suspect that us what it is. Then I ask about the so called "Event Horizon" yet to be seen, and the hole itself. At one time it was supposed to let nothing escape, now that his been proven wrong. So many unproven theories, String, Branes, Mulitiple Universes, Parallel Universes. Bosons, new elements in the Paticle Zoo, Dark this and that..., science is really so far from understanding what stuff is out there

[EquisDeXD]

Perhaps, probably, more than likely, what else could it be other than a predicted black hole? I suspect that us what it is. Then I ask about the so called "Event Horizon" yet to be seen, and the hole itself. At one time it was supposed to let nothing escape, now that his been proven wrong. So many unproven theories, String, Branes, Mulitiple Universes, Parallel Universes. Bosons, new elements in the Paticle Zoo, Dark this and that..., science is really so far from understanding what stuff is out there

 

But time doesn't look outward, it looks forward and backward.

[pcalton]

Time, there you got me. What is time? You seem to be saying time is a noun. Time looks? Then it would have to be a noun, right? And, if time looks forward and backwards, not outwards, then where is time, from where is time doing its looking? Does time have a shape? Size? Is time made up of particles? Let me be the first to name the particles of time... "Tictokitucles."

[ydoaPs]

Except there's not much evidence for that, your disagreeing not only with most of the religious community, but the scientific community, there is concise evidence that there was in fact a point in time at which the observable universe was formed, if we had it your way we would never have had the theory of the big bang.

 

That doesn't mean it's not eternal. Remember that the universe is all that is, ever was, and ever will be. There is no point in time at which the universe did not exist. And since something is said to be eternal iff there is no time at which it does not exist, then the universe is, by definition, eternal.

 

The universe contains everything, therefore before the universe there could only have been nothing.

 

"Before the universe" is incoherent without positing some sort of meta-time, and there's no real reason to do that.

[EquisDeXD]

That doesn't mean it's not eternal. Remember that the universe is all that is, ever was, and ever will be. There is no point in time at which the universe did not exist. And since something is said to be eternal iff there is no time at which it does not exist, then the universe is, by definition, eternal.

 

 

The universe contains every physical object, and where an object will be in a future coordinate is not a physical thing in present time, and it's not 100% determinable where an object will be due to the nature of quantum statistics. An object does not currently exist where it "will" exist, so the notion that the universe contains an object at a future time coordinate doesn't make a lot of sense.

Saying "there was no point in time" that the universe didn't exist is also a meaningless conjecture, because logically time didn't exist before the universe. I also don't really see how the universe is eternal from these conjectures.

 

 

 

"Before the universe" is incoherent without positing some sort of meta-time, and there's no real reason to do that.

 

No, you don't need "meta time", you just need the absence of time. True nothingness is a hard concept to grasp, but if you think of time merely as another dimension that has changing coordinates or properties like any other dimension, you can picture existence without time a lot easier. Before the existence of the universe was before the existence of time, which means there was nothing to count the length of time that the universe wasn't in existence, so theoretically all of non-existence was an instantaneous moment that took 0 time.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

>>>I'm back to the start because it seems we are drifting and tangling terms and ideas.

 

 

I don't know if it belongs in philosophy or speculations, it's a series of what I hope are cohesive logical correlations, which isn't science, but it's not really something I just make up either, they are the dentition of words. 

Essentially, it works like this:

 

>>>did you intend to write "...they are the definition of words"? Spell checker sometimes has a mind of its own. 

 

"The universe contains everything, therefore before the universe there could only have been nothing. "

 

>>>Are you referring to the universe we are in, it being the only one? Or referring to just our universe with other universes that we'll not refer to? I ask this just to clarify and know we are writing and thinking similarly. 

 

>>>Since you write "...contains everything..." I'll assume you are referring to the whole Universe regardless of how, or if, it keeps on going on. 

 

>>>"...therefore before the universe..." implicates time existed "before the universe." You further write "there could only have been nothing." Mmmm, "...cohesive logical correlations..." maybe a start to slip a bit here. I wonder how something came from nothing? I wonder how time applies to nothing?

 

"If there is nothing, there is no thing to limit what can exist. "

 

"If there is nothing" is a big leap for me. "If" is a big word in this context. Perhaps you are leaving a little wiggle room. 

 

"Since there is nothing limiting what can exist, anything that has a probability to exist can exist, therefore the reason everything exists is because it has the probability to exist, because if it has 0 probability of existing it would exist, and before the universe (or at least matter and energy) was (were) created because there was no thing to limit the probability of any particular matter to being 0 or less."

 

>>>let me catch my breath, mighty long sentence to digest my friend. 

 

>>>I guess you give existence of anything Zero-Probality or less because all matter came from nothing? 

 

>>>If the above is what you meant, I think our correlating has jumped the track. If you mean something else try to write it a different way. 

 

"Matter and energy and everything else exists simply because it has the probability to exist, and if it didn't, then it wouldn't exist."

 

>>> Then how come you shot down my first statement... "Whatever the universe is and no matter where it is [there] is at least one universe and it is here because we are here" ( edited by me for typos)

 

>>>How do you arrive at... zero-probability or less become probability? Perhaps you'll get me on track. 

 

"I guess though, there is still more of a question of how probability was existent before the universe was created, but that would imply that probability is not a physical thing that requires existence?"

 

>>>I guess I still need some questions answered and clarifications made for me to know if I have answers to you questions. 

 

If it doesn't have any aspect of a physical manifestation, it isn't a "thing" is it? So perhaps that's why probability could have existed. That would technically mean imagination could have existed, but with our current evidence imagination can only come from things that exist. I guess if there was no thing before the universe, then there was no thing to limit the existence of probability, it answers itself!

 

Nothing=zero probability +probability+time +ability to create matter.   Is this what you are saying?

[EquisDeXD]

>>>I'm back to the start because it seems we are drifting and tangling terms and ideas.

 

 

 

Nothing=zero probability +probability+time +ability to create matter. Is this what you are saying?

 

Not in the slightest. If there's nothing around, then that means there's nothing limiting the probability of what can happen and no matter to exclude any other matter from existing.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

Not in the slightest. If there's nothing around, then that means there's nothing limiting the probability of what can happen and no matter to exclude any other matter from existing.

 

Still you mention time in the nothing you write about. Still you are making something from nothing.

 

"there's nothing limiting the probability"

>>>Nothing itself limits everything. Nothing is Nothing, period. Probality means nothing to nothing.

It seems you are over-trying to establish there was a nothing from which came a beginning.

I had a chiken-egg like battle in my mind for thirty years. I tried to imagine infinite nothing at the point of creation, I tried giving nothing a value of one and blowing it up to make it matter. Finally 35-years ago I concluded what works well for me for now...i.e., everything there is, has always been.

[EquisDeXD]

Still you mention time in the nothing you write about. Still you are making something from nothing.

I did not once use the word time in the previous post.

 

 

Nothing itself limits everything.

Obviously not if the universe had a beginning and it's here.

 

 

 

 

Nothing is Nothing, period. Probality means nothing to nothing.

I agree, nothing is nothing, until there is something, and nothingness doesn't care about probability, that's why it doesn't try to limit it.

 

It seems you are over-trying to establish there was a nothing from which came a beginning.

There's already scientific evidence that particles can appear for no external reason in a specific location, then stop existing as well, but even before that, there's still he issue that is the definition of the universe, which is that if the universe was created and the universe by definition contains everything, then before hte universe was created there could only have been nothing.

 

 

I had a chiken-egg like battle in my mind for thirty years. I tried to imagine infinite nothing at the point of creation, I tried giving nothing a value of one and blowing it up to make it matter. Finally 35-years ago I concluded what works well for me for now...i.e., everything there is, has always been.

Not only can the chicken-egg paradox be solved via evolution, but there's evidence not only that the universe can have a beginning, but that the universe can actually have an end.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[zorro]

Once you arrive at nothing, nothing is infinite and nothing is bounded. Therefor you have no options and you aren't there either to set one in motion.

 

zorro ....

Edited October 16, 2012 by zorro

[pcalton]

I'm using my phone to post making it cumbersome to go back and forth on the post and the post you are referring to is only a quote name

Let's say whatever writing of yours does not involve time. I can't tell as I explained. If you were to go back to your very first post you refer to "Before" is that not a reference to time? Not the word "time" but referring to time before matter.

You repeated at least one other reference to time in or of nothing. I'm not search it down again.

 

 

I did not once use the word time in the previous post.

>>> perhaps not in the above quote (I can't see it). However, you did at least twice refer nothing as having time. If that is not what you mean, let me know.

 

Obviously not if the universe had a beginning and it's here.

 

>>>"Obviously" you believe there was a beginning and I instead believe it has always existed. Some science-minded folks do their measurements and come up with the age of this universe. Hubble himself used his measurements and concluded the universe is 1.4 billions years old. Most of science knew he was wrong but kinda went along with it for awhile. There were geologists who already knew the Earth was older than that. Surprise surprise! He was proven wrong decades later. Hubble, bless his scientific soul, was off by a factor of ten. This is one example why I give proof some credit but also know it could be wrong.

>>>You say it had a beginning because "It's here." I'll agree it's here, not because it had a beginning, because it has always been.

 

 

 

 

I agree, nothing is nothing, until there is something, and nothingness doesn't care about probability, that's why it doesn't try to limit it.

 

>>>Good nothing is nothing....oh no, you added to nothing, something. With that I cannot agree. Nothing with capability to make something ain't a nothing. And you've given nothing the ability to have thoughts and feelings too? Nothing doesn't care, how sad. And, nothing can figure probalities an I take nothing to Vegas? I asking you because this is your nothing, not mine. I ask myself "Has EDXD turned nothing into a noun? Why has EDXD giving nothing all these circumstances? Probably an effort to convince himself that there was a beginning that came out of nothing." I've put some thought into this and have decided that if want a beginning from nothing that's ok. In fact, that nothing may have had an infinitesimal tiny tiny bit of matter that exploded giving us a beginning. Could that have happened to what we know as our universe? Sure! If the theoretical physists want to add more universes, let them.

Just to restate my position... I accept proposes that there was nothing, or nearly nothing, from which stuff came out making what we call our universe.

 

There's already scientific evidence that particles can appear for no external reason in a specific location, then stop existing as well, but even before that, there's still he issue that is the definition of the universe, which is that if the universe was created and the universe by definition contains everything, then before hte universe was created there could only have been nothing.

 

>>>I will argue this no more, you can write it for infinity and you'll never convince me that Everything stated from nothing. However, I'll turn down a few notches for we may proceed. I hereby go with your believe in hopes we can dig ourselves out of this linguistic enigma.

 

>>>I've already mentioned my views on scientic proof, need I give more examples of proofs that have been proven false?

 

Not only can the chicken-egg paradox be solved via evolution, but there's evidence not only that the universe can have a beginning, but that the universe can actually have an end.

 

Mmmm, chicken/egg solved by evolution. EDXD, I wasn't talking about real chickens and real eggs. That was an analogy of my mental quandaries about "nothing" and "everything"

Granted, Darwin beat me to the punch, right or wrong. But, of course, I wasn't referring to chickens.

 

Once you arrive at nothing, nothing is infinite and nothing is bounded. Therefor you have no options and you aren't there either to set one in motion.

 

zorro ....

 

Didn't exactly follow that.

[EquisDeXD]

You mention the concept of "always here", but "always" is a measure of time, and before the universe existed, there was no time to count how long the universe wasn't in existence, therefore the universe can have a beginning yet technically have always existed because the universe was in existence for the exact amount of time that time has existed and therefore has always existed for as long as time has been counting counting existence, which still isn't saying what your saying exactly.

"Nothing with the capability to make something ain't nothing", the conjecture isn't that nothing made anything, it's that things made themselves, which there's already some evidence for anyway. All of nothingness and nonexistence was a single instantaneousity that took 0 time because there was no time to count it, which is why it's hard to grasp. Saying "it was always here" in your terms doesn't in any way shape or form explain how anything is here, the big bang however, does, regardless of if the age isn't always accurately determined. Infinity or endlessness also isn't an amount that anything can count to, things logically couldn't have "always" in your terms existed because intervals of time cannot count to infinity, they can't go "10001,10002, 10003, 10004, infinity" or "-1, -2, -3, -4, -infinity". Infinity isn't even a number, time can go on indefinitely from whatever it started at, it but can't ever attain the value of infinity itself.

Edited October 16, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

Why would someone want to know why the universe is here?

 

Why, I think is a question without scientific validity as an answere. Wanting to know why seems like wanting to know the cause. Then, by knowing cause might help understand the effects. Many science-minded folks have settled with the big bang, but others go beyond or before the big bang with theories of multiple universes in rows or bubbles, in strings, in other deminsions and so forth.

I do find it fascinating to entertain my mind with these ideas. I'm just as fascinated with quantum physics and how the tinest particles may relate to the biggest of masses. Also, nature seems to reval patterns and forms that may also relate to quantum mechanics and astrophysystics. I have studied religious groups learning about the various beliefs, rituals and rules. I have studied and experimented with chemistry and elements but in a very limited way. And, I have researched what could be described as the obscure, on the cutting edge or the complex and not so well known theories, sciences, religions, rituals and not too talked about ideas and practices. Metaphysics, meditations, neuro-linguistics, anthropological linlinguists, Gestalt and various therapeutic modalities to included hypnosis, trance induction, embedded suggestions, cult and other tyes of deprogramming. I have had a few disappointments because my process inputs sometimes processn without my observation, but sometimes even some persons come to me at a later date and let me know they had processed awakening for the good.

I have a wide range of studies and beliefs but find I'm open to ideas that may expand my understandings.

This has been a forum that not been very productive for me and I plan to wander on after only a few other posts.

[EquisDeXD]

Why would someone want to know why the universe is here?

Um, why WOULDNT someone want to know?

 

Why, I think is a question without scientific validity as an answere.

There's no scientific confirmation, but there's scientific evidence.

 

Wanting to know why seems like wanting to know the cause.

Nope because that would mean humans have always existed which means they were alive before they were alive or even before the condisitons for life on this planet were met, which makes no logical sense whatsoever.

 

 

 

Then, by knowing cause might help understand the effects. Many science-minded folks have settled with the big bang, but others go beyond or before the big bang with theories of multiple universes in rows or bubbles, in strings, in other deminsions and so forth.

There's not really anyway to test multiple universes right now, and all those universes or the multi-verse could still have all had the same start.

 

 

This has been a forum that not been very productive for me and I plan to wander on after only a few other posts.

Well, there's scientific evidence that probability is independent from physical existence, and nothing can count to infinity (Except Chuck Norris and Buzz Lightyear), so, how are you open minded again?

Edited October 16, 2012 by EquisDeXD