Why the universe is here

[pcalton]

Um, why WOULDNT someone want to know?

>>>Of course, curiosity can get the best of us. Your idea that the universe appeared from nothing. I cannot accept that answer unless we treat the universe to finite, and for me that is an idea that cannot be. Your answered your question and you don't accept my answeres.

 

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

 

Confirmations, evidence, proof as I've stated before, means very little to me. Historically, the scientific method of proof has been faulty.

 

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.

 

>>> EDXD, you jump to a conclusion that is yours. Your ideas are so absolute, black and white, you offer no wiggle room and I suggest your vessel is full. Jump to the conclusion that my ideas can only mean humans have always existed and alive before they are alive and before life was possible on Earth. When you jump you really jump to BIG conclusions. Your method of thinking doesn't seem seem to invite cohesion. It seems quite the opposite. You have made to you mind and you are sticking to it. Why is the universe here? You had already answered it when you asked it. You have demonstrated a desire to bait others, draw them in and try to methodically cram your ideas down their throats. It is likely you will die of old age still clinging to your scaled down version of reality.

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.

You've wrote about proofs and evidences to support your ideas but have not provided those proofs for others to study. I can't offer proofs because that would be considered hijacking, of which I have no desire.

 

This is just a guess... Many bibles start off with... "In the beginning." That statement, the idea of it, is likely the foundation of which you've built you ideas about the universe, maybe about God as well.

 

 

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?

[pcalton]

Where is that "Scientific Evidence?"

Probabilty of what?

[EquisDeXD]

You "can't" accept it? So you in denial about it's possibility? Your answers are illogical, and as I said, something didn't "come from" nothing, something created itself.

Evidence and proof means little to you? Who do you think you are? You think your better than the whole of humanity's science? You think you know more than all the scientists in the world? You don't even have anything that could constitute as evidence, and now I know why.

"Why is the universe here? You had already answered it when you asked it. You have demonstrated a desire to bait others,"

No, I demonstrate a desire to see if my theory can withstand scientific or logical analysis through peer review, which you obviously aren't helping with.

" I can't offer proofs because that would be considered hijacking, of which I have no desire. " No it would be considered not blowing smoke up someone's a** if you have at least evidence or justification for your beliefs.

""In the beginning." That statement, the idea of it, is likely the foundation of which you've built you ideas about the universe, maybe about God as well. " I'm almost the opposite of religions, but it doesn't mean that everything a religion has to offer is automatically false just because the statements happen to be asserted within a religion. Sure, there was a beginning. Did god have anything to do with it? I Doubt it.

 

"Where is that "Scientific Evidence?"<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">Probabilty of what? "

For one, there's virtual particles which are particles that seemingly pop into and out of existence which the mechanics of has been tested with the predicted Casmir Effect, and two, there's the statistical analysis of matter in which events are not actually causally connected because every result of matter's every measured location is a random outcome. Matter inherently is improbable, and there's a few scientists who also argue "nothing is unstable", the first of which who comes to mind is Frank Wilczek.

[EquisDeXD]

You "can't" accept it? So you in denial about it's possibility? Your answers are illogical, and as I said, something didn't "come from" nothing, something created itself because all things that exist have non-zero probability of existing.

Evidence and proof means little to you? Who do you think you are? You think your better than the whole of humanity's science? You think you know more than all the scientists in the world? You don't even have anything that could constitute as evidence, and now I know why.

"Why is the universe here? You had already answered it when you asked it. You have demonstrated a desire to bait others,"

No, I demonstrate a desire to see if my theory can withstand scientific or logical analysis through peer review, which you obviously aren't helping with.

" I can't offer proofs because that would be considered hijacking, of which I have no desire. " No it would be considered not blowing smoke up someone's a** if you have at least evidence or justification for your beliefs.

""In the beginning." That statement, the idea of it, is likely the foundation of which you've built you ideas about the universe, maybe about God as well. " I'm an atheist, but it doesn't mean that everything a religion has to offer is automatically false just because the statements happen to be asserted within a religion. Sure, there was a beginning. Did god have anything to do with it? I Doubt it.

 

"Where is that "Scientific Evidence?" Probabilty of what? "

For one, there's virtual particles which are particles that seemingly pop into and out of existence which the mechanics of has been tested with the predicted Casmir Effect, and two, there's the statistical analysis of matter in which events are not actually causally connected because every result of matter's every measured location is a random outcome. Matter inherently is improbable, and there's a few scientists who also argue "nothing is unstable", the first of which who comes to mind is Frank Wilczek.

Edited October 16, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

Wallow in your own rant.

[EquisDeXD]

Wallow in your own rant.

 

Or you can just be open minded about the flaws in your beliefs.

Edited October 17, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

"Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists..."

I'll try again to explain. Again, I have had ideas like yours myself. The idea of something from nothing seemed to explain a beginning.

I'm not sure we even have the same definitions for terms. I'm not sure the who, what, when, where the forum turned to a forum of insults.

I'm not not here for insulting goings-on.

If I have offended you I apologize.

Please, stop yourself from referring to my mind being open or closed if we/you/me can be courteous and respectful with each other I would enjoy continuing.

 

As I mentioned, I once believed that first there was nothing. That was 35-years ago. At that time, my thinking shifted and I concluded that Nothing was impossible. I understand that you disagree. I can't think of anything you have written that I haven't already considered over the past 35-years. I studied and discussed the Casimir effect. However, his vaccume was man-made containing waves/fields.

 

Something that I've been thinking about... Nothing as you propose, was it big or small? Was it a void?

[EquisDeXD]

"Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists..."

I'll try again to explain. Again, I have had ideas like yours myself. The idea of something from nothing seemed to explain a beginning.

I'm not sure we even have the same definitions for terms. I'm not sure the who, what, when, where the forum turned to a forum of insults.

I'm not not here for insulting goings-on.

If I have offended you I apologize.

Please, stop yourself from referring to my mind being open or closed if we/you/me can be courteous and respectful with each other I would enjoy continuing.

 

As I mentioned, I once believed that first there was nothing. That was 35-years ago. At that time, my thinking shifted and I concluded that Nothing was impossible. I understand that you disagree. I can't think of anything you have written that I haven't already considered over the past 35-years. I studied and discussed the Casimir effect. However, his vaccume was man-made containing waves/fields.

 

Something that I've been thinking about... Nothing as you propose, was it big or small? Was it a void?

I don't think your understanding that it's not nothing that creates something, it things that create themselves, which is why nothing could have theoretically existed. Before the existence of the universe there was no time or space, no dimensions, so the void could not occupy physical distance, making it infinitely small just like the predicted size of the of the universe before the big bang, assuming we can retrace the red-shift that far back in time.

[pcalton]

I don't think your understanding that it's not nothing that creates something, it things that create themselves, which is why nothing could have theoretically existed. Before the existence of the universe there was no time or space, no dimensions, so the void could not occupy physical distance, making it infinitely small just like the predicted size of the of the universe before the big bang, assuming we can retrace the red-shift that far back in time.

 

>>>Explaining scientific stuff sometimes put my brain in a twist. Your first sentence have quadruple negatives, but I still followed it and agree. Theoric nothing is where I started 30-years ago and concluded then that stuff had no option but to pop into existence. We seemed so far apart while all along we have similar theories.

My theory goes on... Existence is not optional. "Why is the Universe here?" Because it had to be, it is, and it is here. Or, it's here because this where it popped into existence.

Furthermore, all particles popped with intrinsic properties, of which could explain a theory of everything.

 

I don't think your understanding that it's not nothing that creates something, it things that create themselves, which is why nothing could have theoretically existed. Before the existence of the universe there was no time or space, no dimensions, so the void could not occupy physical distance, making it infinitely small just like the predicted size of the of the universe before the big bang, assuming we can retrace the red-shift that far back in time.

 

>>>Explaining scientific stuff sometimes put my brain in a twist. Your first sentence have quadruple negatives, but I still followed it and agree. Theoric nothing is where I started 30-years ago and concluded then that stuff had no option but to pop into existence. We seemed so far apart while all along we have similar theories.

My theory goes on... Existence is not optional. "Why is the Universe here?" Because it had to be, it is, and it is here. Or, it's here because this where it popped into existence.

Furthermore, all particles popped with intrinsic properties, of which could explain a theory of everything.

 

I don't think your understanding that it's not nothing that creates something, it things that create themselves, which is why nothing could have theoretically existed. Before the existence of the universe there was no time or space, no dimensions, so the void could not occupy physical distance, making it infinitely small just like the predicted size of the of the universe before the big bang, assuming we can retrace the red-shift that far back in time.

 

>>>Explaining scientific stuff sometimes put my brain in a twist. Your first sentence have quadruple negatives, but I still followed it and agree. Theoric nothing is where I started 30-years ago and concluded then that stuff had no option but to pop into existence. We seemed so far apart while all along we have similar theories.

My theory goes on... Existence is not optional. "Why is the Universe here?" Because it had to be, it is, and it is here. Or, it's here because this where it popped into existence.

Furthermore, all particles popped with intrinsic properties, of which could explain a theory of everything.

[zorro]

I'm using my phone .....................

 

Didn't exactly follow that.

 

I am simply saying that I agree with most of what you say.

The Universe didn't come from nothing by a nothing first event. It was created from nothing.

Even if nothing is unbounded or bounded.

zorro.....

Edited October 17, 2012 by zorro

[EquisDeXD]

The Universe didn't come from nothing by a nothing first event. It was created from nothing.

 

That statement seems to contradict itself. Care to fix it up?