I don't think the universe can happen.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I think somebody's been smoking too much of the green stuff...

 

 

!

Moderator Note

And I think you should be a little more careful with your posts. Insulting other members is not tolerated here. Please be more mindful of that in the future.

[pears]

Oops sorry! It was intended as a joke not an insult. I apologise if I caused offence to anyone.

Edited August 24, 2013 by pears

[WWLabRat]

I don't think the universe can happen.

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

There's no source of differentiation.

 

To get the discussion back on track, preferably without any troll feeding, I can see a little bit how this would make sense. The fact that the universe does exist in one form or another is an anomaly. There's no reason that it should. Even with the Big Bang, what is there that could have caused matter that was infinitely small and infinitely dense to suddenly start expanding and changing? Sure there are theories as to what may have caused this, but for the time being, they are only theories. Without getting into too much of a metaphysical discussion, the universe wouldn't exist without an outside force. Something had to happen to make time and everything else begin. As it stands, we don't know what this would have been. We don't have the means to measure or properly observe what unknown force started things. Therefore, as it stands, everything before the beginning of the universe is, in my opinion, no longer a matter of science, but rather of religious/spiritual discussion.

[Tridimity]

So great a deal that no energy need be expended in thinking. "Goddidit" Now let's all go to sleep

 

 

Therefore, as it stands, everything before the beginning of the universe is, in my opinion, no longer a matter of science, but rather of religious/spiritual discussion.

 

Religious/spiritual discussion is reserved for supernatural phenomena. Frankly I don't see how phenomena can be 'supernatural'. By definition, such occurences would need to be 'outside of the natural order.' Any 'supernatural' event to be observed using sensory perception would then be a natural event and within the remit of scientific investigation. Our ignorance as to the ultimate origins of the Universe is a testament to our status as primates, whom Evolution has gifted with brains suited to hunting and gathering, on an obscure blue sphere spinning in one corner of the selfsame Universe that we strive to understand.

[WWLabRat]

Religious/spiritual discussion is reserved for supernatural phenomena. Frankly I don't see how phenomena can be 'supernatural'. By definition, such occurences would need to be 'outside of the natural order.' Any 'supernatural' event to be observed using sensory perception would then be a natural event and within the remit of scientific investigation.

 

By that right, you are inadvertently agreeing with what I said. Anything beyond the beginning of the universe isn't measurable or able to be observed using any of the five senses even if those senses have been enhanced (in the case of viewing the full light spectrum, for example). So therefore, it is supernatural and, by extension, of a religious/spiritual nature.

[ACG52]

 

By that right, you are inadvertently agreeing with what I said. Anything beyond the beginning of the universe isn't measurable or able to be observed using any of the five senses even if those senses have been enhanced (in the case of viewing the full light spectrum, for example). So therefore, it is supernatural and, by extension, of a religious/spiritual nature.

You haven't demonstrated in any way that there is anything beyond the beginning of the universe, In fact, by definition, there can't be. So you're simply applying your own unfounded beliefs, based upon your limited senses and experiences with a very small subset of reality.

[Tridimity]

You haven't demonstrated in any way that there is anything beyond the beginning of the universe, In fact, by definition, there can't be. So you're simply applying your own unfounded beliefs, based upon your limited senses and experiences with a very small subset of reality.

 

Agreed, ACG52. WWLabRat, there cannot be anything beyond the beginning of the Universe. If there was an observable event immediately preceding the Big Bang, then it would become part of our working definition of 'Universe' and therefore still exclusively within the remit of Science.

[WWLabRat]

 

To get the discussion back on track, preferably without any troll feeding, I can see a little bit how this would make sense. The fact that the universe does exist in one form or another is an anomaly. There's no reason that it should. Even with the Big Bang, what is there that could have caused matter that was infinitely small and infinitely dense to suddenly start expanding and changing? Sure there are theories as to what may have caused this, but for the time being, they are only theories. Without getting into too much of a metaphysical discussion, the universe wouldn't exist without an outside force. Something had to happen to make time and everything else begin. As it stands, we don't know what this would have been. We don't have the means to measure or properly observe what unknown force started things. Therefore, as it stands, everything before the beginning of the universe is, in my opinion, no longer a matter of science, but rather of religious/spiritual discussion.

 

So great a deal that no energy need be expended in thinking. "Goddidit" Now let's all go to sleep

 

Religious/spiritual discussion is reserved for supernatural phenomena. Frankly I don't see how phenomena can be 'supernatural'. By definition, such occurences would need to be 'outside of the natural order.' Any 'supernatural' event to be observed using sensory perception would then be a natural event and within the remit of scientific investigation. Our ignorance as to the ultimate origins of the Universe is a testament to our status as primates, whom Evolution has gifted with brains suited to hunting and gathering, on an obscure blue sphere spinning in one corner of the selfsame Universe that we strive to understand.

 

 

You haven't demonstrated in any way that there is anything beyond the beginning of the universe, In fact, by definition, there can't be. So you're simply applying your own unfounded beliefs, based upon your limited senses and experiences with a very small subset of reality.

 

 

 

Agreed, ACG52. WWLabRat, there cannot be anything beyond the beginning of the Universe. If there was an observable event immediately preceding the Big Bang, then it would become part of our working definition of 'Universe' and therefore still exclusively within the remit of Science.

 

Note: I'm taking full quotes into this response, but am focusing on the parts that are in different color for ease of reading.

 

As I had stated in my original post, I will try to avoid getting too much into a metaphysical debate with my response. Obviously everyone has their own perceptions of how the universe came into existence. But do not mistake this to mean that I am emphasizing that no thought has been put towards this and am simply relying a crutch that "Goddidit". To say something like that, in my opinion, is offensive. It makes it seem as if all posts that I have made mean nothing and once again no thought was placed into my words other than the proclamation that a being who is unknowable and unmeasureable created everything and we shouldn't question it.

Yes, supernatural events are observed and reported using our very limited senses. Many things over the years that have been thought to be supernatural in nature are in fact just events that we as a species didn't have quite the understanding yet of what was taking place whether it's Zeus hurling down bolts of lightning or Poseidon capsizing a ship. Our lack of understanding as to what creates these phenomena is what has led to the scientific study of the world around us. It is likely that if we didn't start questioning any of these events, observing them and recording those results we may never have found that those lightning bolts thrown from Zeus was nothing more than an interaction of charged particles.

Which leads into my next point. I know I haven't demonstrated anything beyond the beginning of the universe. My simplest reason for that is: I don't know what could have existed before. But my reasoning for stating that there has to be something before is simply that if time is infinte, it means that it would have no end, and therefore no beginning. That being said, it would stretch infinitely towards the past just as it would to the future. This means that if the Big Bang Theory is correct, not saying that it isn't, but let's face it, scientific theories, as well founded as they may be, have been incorrect before, then something would had to have brought the universe to become infinitely small and dense and in a highly organized, low entropy state. That leaves room to reason that something must have existed before.

And Tridimity, I agree with the second post of yours I quoted. If there was something before the Big Bang, it would be worked into our current understanding of the universe and at that point would become part of Science. Until that time, it has not been measurable and a better definition of the "Before-verse" has not been defined. Therefore, I think it is reasonable enough to assume that as with all things that cannot currently be measured or properly observed by our senses and current level of technology, that it be regarded as a piece of the Religious/Spiritual.

Obviously I would change what I say if we had evidence of what was before (background radiation can tell us only so much), and would be more than willing to adapt my views of the world around me to fit.

I hope this has cleared up any confusion from my previous posts.

[Tridimity]

By that right, you are inadvertently agreeing with what I said. Anything beyond the beginning of the universe isn't measurable or able to be observed using any of the five senses even if those senses have been enhanced (in the case of viewing the full light spectrum, for example). So therefore, it is supernatural and, by extension, of a religious/spiritual nature.

 

 

We do not yet know what preceded the Big Bang. This does not equate to the beginning of the Universe being ‘supernatural’. An event that has occurred in reality, and that would be observable were it not for the lack of technical ability to observe the event, does not a supernatural event make. It is not acceptable to hijack areas of knowledge in which - so far, at least - Science is ignorant and to claim those areas as being of a religious/spiritual nature. Individuals are, of course, free to subscribe to religious doctrine where such matters are concerned, but I do not see how such a choice is useful in promoting the advancement of knowledge regarding the natural world. In fact, I would imagine that the religious position, when used in this way, does more to hold back the progression of knowledge about the natural world. The only advantage of adhering to the religious viewpoint on such as-yet uncharted territories, is to deliver a degree of psychological comfort. Even so, the comfort is of the wishful-thinking kind, and in my opinion is less potent than that comfort provided by knowing with certainty the truth accessible by way of observation and reasoned argument.

 

 

But do not mistake this to mean that I am emphasizing that no thought has been put towards this and am simply relying a crutch that "Goddidit". To say something like that, in my opinion, is offensive.

 

 

The fact is that some people ascribe the order observable in nature to the workings of an omnipotent being whom defies the Laws of nature, hence, ‘Goddidit’. We are all equally able to access the natural evidence that surrounds us every day. What I fail to understand, is why some people choose to take this evidence as proof of the existence of a deity, whereas others interpret the evidence for what it is - information about the natural world – and accept the temporary barriers to our knowledge represented by technological deficiencies, without enlisting the doctrine of a Creator. Such theists study the natural world using a scientific approach and yet somehow fail to extend the scientific approach when it comes to areas about which Science is temporarily silent (such as the beginning of the Universe); instead, they advocate the concept of a Creator – flying in the face of Occam’s razor. Why? Why do they believe that there needs to be a reason for existence? The fact that the Truth is interpreted by some as being offensive does not make it less true. Should we shield the over-sensitive types from the fact that the sky is blue?

 

Yes, supernatural events are observed and reported using our very limited senses. Many things over the years that have been thought to be supernatural in nature are in fact just events that we as a species didn't have quite the understanding yet of what was taking place whether it's Zeus hurling down bolts of lightning or Poseidon capsizing a ship. Our lack of understanding as to what creates these phenomena is what has led to the scientific study of the world around us. It is likely that if we didn't start questioning any of these events, observing them and recording those results we may never have found that those lightning bolts thrown from Zeus was nothing more than an interaction of charged particles.

 

 

Correct, this is how Philosophy has advanced historically. However, just because the path to enlightenment in the past involved a stepwise progression from observation through to questioning and superstition, then on to more questioning and finally to a scientific approach, does not mean to say that we must dogmatically follow all of the steps in the routine in order to understand the natural world. To do so would make us no less stupid than Skinner’s superstitious pigeons, performing arbitrary routines in the hope of securing knowledge, due to a learned association between superstition and ultimate knowledge. While our previous superstitious approaches are interesting from a historical perspective, they have been superseded by the scientific approach – to revert would be to needlessly stall our intellectual advancement.

 

Therefore, I think it is reasonable enough to assume that as with all things that cannot currently be measured or properly observed by our senses and current level of technology, that it be regarded as a piece of the Religious/Spiritual.

 

 

As previously stated, just because there are natural phenomena about which contemporary Science is ignorant does not mean to say that that will always be the case. Science is an ongoing human endeavour to understand the Universe – which does not happen overnight! In the meantime, it is not helpful to attempt to plug the uncharted territory with religious superstitions, anymore than it was helpful to ascribe the aetiology of various (bacterial and viral) pathologies to ‘evil spirits’ in times pre-dating microscopy.

[Ceasium]

I will give you a simple explanation that might make you think out of the box.

 

1.) (Amount of energy 1 - amount of energy 1 = no energy at all) 1-1=0

 

2.) Now comes the reasoning, lets say the whole universe is energy one, just imagine there is another universe, somewhere beyond the borders of ours. Lets say that it has energy -1, and that if both universes meet, they will annihilate each other, leaving no spare energy.

 

3.) Now you can come to the conclusion that we can exist without the help of an external force, and the law of conservation of energy isn't broken either.

[Euler's Identity]

1. We live in a universe that does not require explanation. As someone that has never seen anywhere else, why do you assume that anything else exists or the universe needs an explanation for its existence? The world needs no justification for it to exist and doesn't have to make sense to anyone. When we talk about the universe we are speaking in terms of everything that exists, has existed, and ever will, therefore anything that existed "before" the universe, existed IN the universe

[The Believer]

I don't think the universe can happen.

 

 

But unfortunately for you, it has already happened before you could think.

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

I guess it has the right to be nonsensical

There's no source of differentiation.

 

differentiation? Well I am not quite sure about that, but is there any chance that you are talking about calculas?

Edited October 27, 2013 by The Believer

[Tridimity]

differentiation? Well I am not quite sure about that, but is there any chance that you are talking about calculas?

 

 

Or the specification of cell type?