Did the Universe Begin?

[pantheory]

14 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

.............................................

If not multiverses, though, we're still facing some type of infinite and eternal space with the alternative models from what I understand. It seems to boil down to which version of infinite and eternal is the right one. But in other versions, repetition wouldn't factor in? 

 

 

Hey Josh, as I said in a posting above, the easiest and most likely answer is that this is the only universe. I believe this would still be a consensus opinion amongst most theorists. Multiverse theory came up as a possibility for several reasons. First,  BB theorists had a problem with the beginning of the universe, originally proposed as a "bag" in the original BB model. Secondly theorists realized there were BB problems of observation called the "flatness" and "horizon" problems. Together these problems could have been considered a fatal flaw in the BB model. To get around these problems a number of theorists, starting with Allen Guth, came up with Inflation theories as to the beginning of the universe. Within the many Inflation theories proposed, most allowed for different variations in a beginning universe, and all allowed for the possibility of more than one universe in its equations. One should realize that this is theoretical physics with no basis at all with known physics or reality, just a group of speculative equations that propose to explain the beginnings of the universe that would result in the universe the way it is observed. Technically they do not qualify as theories at all since they cannot be observed of tested. The reason Inflation is still accepted by most theorists  is because there are no other known proposals to explain the BB beginning. Third, in one version of quantum theory, it appears that there is no particular reason why one side of a coin should result from a coin flip, instead of the other, as well as many other possibilities according their speculations. In this version of quantum theory countless different worlds exist in reality, where all possibilities play out in other universes, rather than just one outcome in our universe. This, however, is not the mainstream interpretation in quantum theory.

 

Forth, Sting Theory was favored for a long time (not much now). It required many unknown dimensions in its equations, and these unknown dimensions allowed for other universes in those dimensions outside of our own.  Five, multiverse theory is interesting to consider for layman and theorists alike to explain the aspects of our universe that theorists cannot presently understand, but this does not mean that one should seriously consider, what many believe to be,  "drastic and unrealistic" solutions to these problems when more likely solutions are known and available. Our universe IMO is a very simple and easy to understand place. Again it is technically incorrect to call "multiverse" ideas a theory unless it could some how be observed or tested. Most believe this could never be done. None of these speculations have been accepted by a consensus of theorists except for an Inflation model of some kind, and none of these are considered science by mainstream science since none could ever be observed or tested. All are complicated, and none incorporate the simplest possibilities.

 

For these reasons above, and others, some have come to believe in the existence of multiverses. But none of this could ever be considered science for the reasons explained in the link above. Science is by far the best explanation of reality, speculation could be considered entertainment for the mind, but should be considered from a skeptical  perspective. The science of it is that there are still a number of details in cosmology that have not as yet been explained, but few believe that speculation should replace science concerning explanations of science. Yes speculation is a part of science; it is the beginnings of an idea before a hypothesis can be proposed for testing.  If it can never be observed or tested, it will forever remain a part of what many consider to be science fiction.

 

"......we're still facing some type of infinite and eternal space" (problem).

 

As I said above, by defining space is the distance that matter and field encompass, simply the distance between matter, there would be no infinite or eternal space problem in standard cosmology since infinite space would be non-existent. It would only exist in Steady-State models, or infinite multiverse models

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

As I said above, by defining space is the distance that matter and field encompass, simply the distance between matter, there would be no infinite or eternal space problem in standard cosmology since infinite space would be non-existent. It would only exist in Steady-State models, or infinite multiverse models

 

Doesn't the observation of flat space infer extremely large to infinite space? 

 

[pantheory]

On 2/6/2018 at 10:01 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Doesn't the observation of flat space infer extremely large to infinite space? 

 

 

Flat space just means that as far as we can tell space does not warp at universe scale observations. Galaxies appear to be evenly distributed. I don't really understand what they are looking for concerning warped space, or how they can tell it from flat space, other than there appears to be no "distortion" of space no matter where they look.  We cannot observe any end to space other than the existence of large voids. But the part of the universe that we can observe is thought to be only a small portion of the total.  Your perception of space as a  infinite size void is probably the preferred definition for theorists like Hawking, but other theorists define it solely as the volume of void which contains all matter, or simply the measurable separation of matter from itself. Maybe this limiting definition is better when trying to understand a finite universe model like the Big Bang. 

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/httpblogsscientificamericancomdegrees-of-freedom20110725what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/

[LogicalFallacy]

Article from Live Science

 

Our Universe Isn't As Special As We'd Like to Believe

https://www.livescience.com/61734-weak-force-alien-universe.html?utm_source=notification 

 

Here is the paper the article is based off

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06081v1.pdf

 

Haven't had time to read through - just posting as its relevant and popped up in my feed.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Interesting thread.  A subject in which I have recently become interested.  I just joined the site, and have yet to read all the posts on this thread, but plan to start following along.  I just wanted to throw something out that has me scratching my head.  Hope it is not too far off subject.

 

I'm now agnostic and no longer believe the bible to be the word of God, but find it interesting that the progression of development in the biblical "creation" story, basically aligns with evolutionary theory.  Is just a coincidence??  

[LogicalFallacy]

4 minutes ago, Weezer said:

I'm now agnostic and no longer believe the bible to be the word of God, but find it interesting that the progression of development in the biblical "creation" story, basically aligns with evolutionary theory.  Is just a coincidence??  

 

There's a specific term for this, I forget what it is, and possibly related to cognitive bias, but essentially you are taking something and attempting to fit it into an old framework. You can probably take a number of ancient works and "basically align" them with a number of things.

 

Considering the first two chapters contradict their own progression of creation I'm not sure you could say it aligns with any reasonable confidence. Light before sun, earth before sun etc Plants growing in the dark. In chapter 2 we have man created from dust before other animals (Note in 2 God makes stuff from dust of the earth, in Chapter 1 he speaks it into being... also chapter 2 is older than chapter 1) You could say that life started in the oceans first as in Genesis 1, but then it has birds, then beasts and if my evolutionary understanding is correct, birds evolved from dinosaurs meaning there where lots of beasts first. So yeah it basically aligns in the same way horoscopes basically align with life events. "You are working hard to a achieve a goal"... well yeah.  

[mymistake]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

I'm now agnostic and no longer believe the bible to be the word of God, but find it interesting that the progression of development in the biblical "creation" story, basically aligns with evolutionary theory.  Is just a coincidence??  

 

It doesn't align.  Any similarity between the two is a coincidence.  Basically both occur over time and in both accounts plants come before animals.  That is all they have in common.  Creation happened for six days and creation ended with humans.  Evolution has happened for as long as life has been on this planet and continues even now.  Everything alive right now is part of the current trend which will lead to whatever will develop next.  In the creation story once plants were created God was done with them but we would not recognize the plants that existed before animals developed.  Plants have continued to diversify and change the whole time.

[pantheory]

10 hours ago, Weezer said:

Interesting thread.  A subject in which I have recently become interested.  I just joined the site, and have yet to read all the posts on this thread, but plan to start following along.  I just wanted to throw something out that has me scratching my head.  Hope it is not too far off subject.

 

I'm now agnostic and no longer believe the bible to be the word of God, but find it interesting that the progression of development in the biblical "creation" story, basically aligns with evolutionary theory.  Is just a coincidence??  

 

Only 4 postings, WOW!  Welcome to ExChris forum. We do have this science forum here for you to help stay up on the latest and greatest, so to speak. Also throw in topics, questions, and comments as you have, concerning science vs. religion. The literal creation story is one of the most ridiculous stories in the bible. Changing your words a little, instead of saying "progression of development" one could use the word "evolution."  Your statement above would then become: I "find it interesting that the evolution of the creation story, basically aligns with evolution theory As you imply, this is not a coincidence. Even some Christians look for logic and a belief that they think is defensible.

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Article from Live Science

 

Our Universe Isn't As Special As We'd Like to Believe

https://www.livescience.com/61734-weak-force-alien-universe.html?utm_source=notification 

 

Here is the paper the article is based off

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06081v1.pdf

 

Haven't had time to read through - just posting as its relevant and popped up in my feed.

 

I pretty much agree with their conclusion stating the universe is not a unique place, but their argument is based upon other possible universes. As you probably know, I am a theorist in cosmology and have written papers contrary to the Big Bang theory and its proposals of Inflation, dark energy, and dark matter. These are research papers which took years for me to write with an associate. 

 

I concur that our universe is not special, from my research and related conclusions. First of all  I ascribe to the theory that there is only one universe, and this is it. Secondly because from the perspective of the papers that I have written, the constants of nature cannot vary, contrary to present mainstream opinions in science. Instead these constants are interdependent since they all exist within the realm of a all pervasive background field. A similar type field used to be called an aether, today they call it the zero point field, the Higgs field, quantum foam, dark matter, dark energy, etc. Through this atmosphere-like field all constants such as alpha, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the fine structure constant, as well as lesser known ones, all interact and therefore are interdependent. In this theory all these so called constants of nature cannot vary one from the other. So, accordingly, there could only be our universe and none with different constants in it.

 

The question then arises, why is the background field the way that we see it? Couldn't it have been different? The answer to that question is yet another non-mainstream theory. The simple answer is simply 'no'. There accordingly could only ever have been one "simple" universe, and this is it.

 

I quick note on the topic of this thread, this universe had a beginning but there is no such thing as a time before that, according to the model that I ascribe to. This IMO is the simplest and easiest to understand possibility.

 

Mark would have had a lot to say about these postings, with many links, being a supporter of multiverses.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

It doesn't align.  Any similarity between the two is a coincidence.

 

Aligns was a poor choice of words on my part.  The progressions are at least somewhat.similar.  I no longer get into splitting hairs over definitions.  Left that back in the Church of Christ.   My mind is simply open to all possibilities.  Is it possible that at least part of what we have on earth was transplanted from another more advanced galaxie or universe?  Maybe everything didn't develope here.  And is it possible some early writer had "advanced" knowledge Picked up from somewhere, and put it into a parable??  Just throwing out some thoughts. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Maybe earth is an experiment, or project, from some alien "energy"??

[Joshpantera]

On 2/14/2018 at 2:53 PM, Weezer said:

 

Aligns was a poor choice of words on my part.  The progressions are at least somewhat.similar.  I no longer get into splitting hairs over definitions.  Left that back in the Church of Christ.   My mind is simply open to all possibilities.  Is it possible that at least part of what we have on earth was transplanted from another more advanced galaxie or universe?  Maybe everything didn't develope here.  And is it possible some early writer had "advanced" knowledge Picked up from somewhere, and put it into a parable??  Just throwing out some thoughts. 

 

Thanks for Joining, Weezer. Welcome to the site. 

 

You're having a lot of thoughts and ideas that I know I've had and have heard some others express as well. These are natural thoughts and ideas when leaving behind christianity and looking for answers. Actually, what got me into splitting hairs and analyzing Genesis was exactly what you're talking about. For a moment I thought that it loosely mirrored evolution. Just off the top of my head I saw life emerging from the sea to land in a general sense and started wondering if maybe this was some sort of code or symbolism that told us the truth. 

 

Now upon thinking that, I dove in and started reading the creation account as literal as possible. When I did that, I quickly realized that the order is actually completely wrong. Light is created and 3 days take place before the sun, moon, and stars. Grass is growing before the sun, moon, and stars. So the days are not literal, the order of creation is not literal, and if we're temped to say it's symbolic for a time period longer than days, then we face the glaring problem of thousands to millions of years going by before the creation of sun, moon, and stars on the fourth symbolic "day." Conservative and liberal interpretations go out the window, just like that. 

 

Maybe ancient aliens theory?

 

This one goes even quicker. How did life emerge off of some alien planet in order to be transferred here to earth? It simply pushes the question back one step further instead of answering it. At some point life emerging on it's own, naturally, is a necessary conclusion either which way we turn. And that's essentially what this thread describes. But we do so in much further detail. We're starting with Genesis 1:1 and the very assertion of a fixed beginning. There doesn't seem to be one. In fact, for a variety of reasons there probably can't be one. 

 

This isn't to say that life may not exist out there, or that there aren't any advanced galaxies. But the life in those areas would have had to naturally emerge in some way. There could be a mix of naturally emerging and then being transferred around too, I don't see how that could be ruled out. But at the same time at least some life would have to spontaneously emerge in order to be transferred. These are some of the thoughts that many ex christians have had about the issues of special creation, evolution, and things like alien theories. They are commonly discussed. 

[mymistake]

18 hours ago, Weezer said:

Maybe earth is an experiment, or project, from some alien "energy"??

 

 

For years I've wanted to write a science fiction novel with that premise.  It's a fun idea.  Ideas can be fun.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

For years I've wanted to write a science fiction novel with that premise.  It's a fun idea.  Ideas can be fun.

 

The same though occurred to me, but I'm not creative enough, patient enough, or knowledgeable enough to do one.  GO FOR IT! 

 

Star Trek has been one of my favorite TV series.  I enjoy thinking about all the possibilities "out there."

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 But at the same time at least some life would have to spontaneously emerge in order to be transferred.

 

Only recently, since leaving religion, has it seriously crossed my mind that "life", spirit, energy, "god", consciousness, what ever you want to call it, in some form or another, may have always existed.  HA!  I definitely don't think it would be the biblical version.  But it is really hard to wrap my mind around the concept.  But then, logically, I can see how consciousness could create matter, easier than matter "spontaneously" becoming consciousness.  Just a thought. 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

The same though occurred to me, but I'm not creative enough, patient enough, or knowledgeable enough to do one.  GO FOR IT! 

 

Star Trek has been one of my favorite TV series.  I enjoy thinking about all the possibilities "out there."

 

 

Only recently, since leaving religion, has it seriously crossed my mind that "life", spirit, energy, "god", consciousness, what ever you want to call it, in some form or another, may have always existed.  HA!  I definitely don't think it would be the biblical version.  But it is really hard to wrap my mind around the concept.  But then, logically, I can see how consciousness could create matter, easier than matter "spontaneously" becoming consciousness.  Just a thought. 

 

The leading current discussion on consciousness is here: 

 

 

 

And it would have ramifications on the idea of a beginning, time and space, and matter. It's a lot to take in. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Thanks.  With all I have going it may take a few days to get around to looking at it.

[ContraBardus]

On 2/15/2018 at 9:49 AM, mymistake said:

 

 

For years I've wanted to write a science fiction novel with that premise.  It's a fun idea.  Ideas can be fun.

 

It's been done, quite a bit actually.

 

Not saying you shouldn't, just pointing out that it's nothing new.

 

The first example that pops to mind for me would be Douglas Adams and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, though I'm fairly sure it was an old idea even at that point.

 

In regard to writing fiction, it's not the originality of the premise, but the creativity in how you present it.

[disillusioned]

On 21/02/2018 at 5:08 PM, ContraBardus said:

 

It's been done, quite a bit actually.

 

Not saying you shouldn't, just pointing out that it's nothing new.

 

The first example that pops to mind for me would be Douglas Adams and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, though I'm fairly sure it was an old idea even at that point.

 

In regard to writing fiction, it's not the originality of the premise, but the creativity in how you present it.

 

Seconding this. Probably my favourite TV series of all time is the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica. I love everything about that series, but there are parts of it that are downright tropey. And I just don't care. "All of this has happened before, and it will happen again". And that doesn't mean that the next time won't be awesome.

[mymistake]

4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Seconding this. Probably my favourite TV series of all time is the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica. I love everything about that series, but there are parts of it that are downright tropey. And I just don't care. "All of this has happened before, and it will happen again". And that doesn't mean that the next time won't be awesome.

 

Well I was intentionally being vague.  I don't think it has been done the way I would do it.  And the reason I won't go forward on the project is that I would have to publish that out of my own pocket.  There is no way any publishing company would touch a massive pile of blasphemy.  I would make Bill Maher look like a saint.

 

But the pitch would be the genre is comedy-satire.  It would be a mix of about 5% science fiction, 35% historical fiction and 60% social commentary with a primary focus on what is wrong with established religions.  And it would be a direct swipe at the Bible so Christians would want to burn it.  I would want to do it right, leather bound, fancy paper, perfect binding.  But I have to put my kids through college first so until that day my pet project will have to stay as a wish.  

 

[ContraBardus]

On 2/22/2018 at 11:11 PM, mymistake said:

 

Well I was intentionally being vague.  I don't think it has been done the way I would do it.  And the reason I won't go forward on the project is that I would have to publish that out of my own pocket.  There is no way any publishing company would touch a massive pile of blasphemy.  I would make Bill Maher look like a saint.

 

But the pitch would be the genre is comedy-satire.  It would be a mix of about 5% science fiction, 35% historical fiction and 60% social commentary with a primary focus on what is wrong with established religions.  And it would be a direct swipe at the Bible so Christians would want to burn it.  I would want to do it right, leather bound, fancy paper, perfect binding.  But I have to put my kids through college first so until that day my pet project will have to stay as a wish.  

 

 

Have you ever read Hitchiker's Guide? That's basically what it is, with less historical fiction and focus on religion specifically. It's not exactly religion friendly either.

 

If not, you really should.

 

I wouldn't say that regarding getting published either.

 

Might actually be easier as a satire to get published. Stuff like that gets published all the time.

 

If the Satanic Verses can get a publisher I don't see why your book wouldn't be able to find one.

 

There are plenty of secularist and even Atheist publishers out there.

 

I mean, sure, you're not going to get published with Zondervan or Moody, but there are plenty of publishers out there who will publish whatever they think will sell. Even Mein Kampf gets reprinted to this day.