not religion...however

JulesKorngold

@maxx

I agree that there are many different theories about the origin of the universe, and that none of them have been proven definitively. The theory you presented is interesting, and it does make some sense. However, there are also some problems with it.

For example, you say that the conscious energy field used quantum particles to produce the physical universe. But how did this happen? What are the laws of physics that govern this process? And why did this conscious energy field want to create a physical universe in the first place?

These are just some of the questions that need to be answered before this theory can be considered a serious contender.

I don't think the theory you presented is a very good one. It raises more questions than it answers, and it is based on a number of assumptions that are not supported by evidence.

I think it's important to be open to different ideas, but we also need to be critical of those ideas and to demand evidence to support them. Until there is more evidence to support the existence of a conscious energy field, I think it's fair to say that we really don't know how the universe came into being.

maxx

actually i did answer 1 of your question as to why. just read it again. As to how it did so, well science has already shown that electrons and other particles can pop into and out of existence apparently from no where, so these quantum particles that came into existence; produced the energy field as they collected together, and the consciousness arose with these particles, similar in the same way as they do so in our own brains. As to more evidence, there also is no evidence that the big bang was not created. @JulesKorngold

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Superposition

@maxx

I agree that quantum mechanics is a fascinating and complex field of science, and that it has given us some amazing insights into the nature of reality. However, I don't think it's fair to say that science has "shown" that electrons and other particles can pop into and out of existence apparently from nowhere.

What quantum mechanics has shown is that particles can exist in a state of superposition, which means that they can be in multiple states at the same time. This is a very strange and counterintuitive concept, but it is supported by a lot of experimental evidence.

However, superposition is not the same as popping into and out of existence. When a particle is in a superposition, it is still a real particle with a real location. It's just that the particle's location is not well-defined until it is measured.

So, while I agree that quantum mechanics is a fascinating and mind-bending field of science, I don't think it's fair to say that it has shown that electrons and other particles can pop into and out of existence apparently from nowhere.

maxx

let me put it this way; the same process that  however they came into existence, is responsible for this energy. all particles are connected in ways we really do not understand, and it is obvious that produce this energy field, which and since the particles are what eventually leads to consciousness in living things, produces it in this energy field. Tou asked how thye produced the universe, and i answer in the same way as most people believe; through the singularity. There is no reason to believe that before this event, such particles and their energy did not exist. Just like the cells inside the tree, we simply cannot fathom the outside of the universe, and get stuck at the point where the gardener planted the acorn.  @JulesKorngold

John_C_87

Anything to escape justice.....GOD is not a religion, 
God is only most often explained as religion by those who have no legal grounds to represent GOD as an object not faith.

maxx

apparently you did not read my post. @John_C_87

Barnardot

@maxx ;Before the physical universe, there was energy

So when you analize it in the end it comes to the same thing really like who created the energy. And its the same with all the other theories including all the quantum stuff so thats why there has to be a God. So weather you want to believe it or not as your favorite kind of baloney we have to have a starting point. The trouble with all the atheist theories and the one that you bought up is that they are all starting at a starting point that was all ready started any way. So thats why we shouldn't be scarred of working through this by stating God and then elevate to new levels as we find out more things and we can also de elevate and work back woods about where God came from. Then from time to time we can helicopter over the hole thing and decide which thing we need to fine tune to get the clear picture.

John_C_87

@maxx
Three times....

maxx

Then you should answer it correctly.  I never said god was a religion.  @John_C_87

MayCaesar

One can come up with (and countless societies have) a large number of mythologies on the origin of the Universe. I can come up with a dozen of them right now, without getting up from my chair. Fiction is an inherent part of human culture and it serves more purposes than mere entertainment: it embodies certain values, archetypical stories and pieces of wisdom. When reading Crime and Punishment, you are not just reading about some made-up Russian guy killing some made-up Russian lady and experiencing made-up inner turmoil as a consequence - but you are also getting many pieces of wisdom countless generations have contributed to, not the last of which being empirically observed negative consequences of living a life of lies.

There is, however, a clearly defined border between fiction and science. Fiction is not supposed to describe true events, although it is expected to indirectly express certain ideas that are believed to be true. Science is different: in science one seeks the truth, and it is done by a rigorous process of hypothesis testing. Any hypothesis that is not testable is useless from the scientific perspective.

And herein lies the contradiction in your reasoning. You wrote:

maxx said:

Now of course, this is but a theory with no evidence, yet makes more sense than any of the religions we have.

How does it make any sense if it is a theory with no evidence? We are not even talking about the absence of hard evidence allowing us to test this particular hypothesis; we are talking about the absence of any observations that would lead one to even start thinking in this direction. What does it mean for energy to be conscious and what in our current physical theories could possibly be improved from the assumption that it is? Suppose energy can be conscious; so what? What does it change? If the answer is "nothing", then there is nothing to talk about, really.

It seems to me that you are committing the popular error of substituting ignorance with false knowledge. You wrote:

maxx said:

As for the atheist point of view who simply state that science traced back the universe to its singularity, all they are saying is that they really do not know. Here is an analogy to explain this. A master gardener planted an acorn, and after it sprouted and began growing into a tree, inside the tree billions of cells were produced. The inside of this tree was there universe; they could not perceive out side of it, therefore many cells refused to believe there was anything else. Many cells began to believe that their universe did not come about by chance, and so created many misguided religions. Other cells, said that there was no creator, no gardener, for their science traced the universe back to when It(the acorn) began, that there simply is no evidence of a gardener. so once again, when atheists say there is no creator, because of no evidence of one, what they should actually say is they really do not know. 

First, it is quite different to say that talking about something prior to the Big Bang makes no sense as we can only conceive of our space-time and nothing outside of it, than to say that there was something before the Big Bang, but we do not know what. But second, indeed, a lot of processes happening in the primordial Universe are not very well known at the moment... An atheist understanding it would simply say, "There are a lot of gaps in our knowledge, so let us work on patching them up without making far-fetched assumptions". Any alternative to this involves making assumptions that cannot be verified in practice, or, even worse, can and turn out to be false.

Someone who claims to have explained the origins of the Universe does not know more than atheists do; they just pretend that they do. One can take a huge old book of fictional stories and say, "Study this for years, and you will start understanding all of this eventually!" Nice little trick, but demonstrably wrong, for truth cannot be derived from fiction. It works the other way around: fiction is written with some grain of truth taken as a basis and wrapping it in a shell of made-up worlds, events and characters. One can write a book similar to the Bible based on their knowledge, but one cannot derive knowledge from such a book.

---

All that said, you may wonder, "Why do physicists even grapple with the question of the origins of the Universe?" And the answer is because it helps them simplify their theories and unify them. All these theoretician-magicians exploring the possibility of the space-time having fundamentally 6 dimensions, for instance, ultimately are seeking to describe as much as possible in as few concepts and equations as possible. "How" the Universe came to be is not nearly as interesting as what it would mean for our present.

And those physicists do not come up with random ideas. The 6-dimensional manifold theory was a product of a few theoreticians noticing some interesting patterns in certain equations, patterns that appear somewhat similar to certain equations in topology. Those are not products of fantasizing minds, but of original insights on existing hard data.

It is quite different from me coming up with some wild theory and spouting it. "Our Universe was born as a result of an infinitely large turtle copulating with an infinitely small elephant!" Okay, and... what is the basis for it, exactly, other than the need of my bored mind to come up with something catchy? No serious scientist would spend more than a second thinking about this theory before moving on to something more tangible.

John_C_87

@maxx

Since when is a lie the correct way to answer a question?

maxx

Yes there are a lot of gaps in our knowledge. There is no evidenceof anything out there, yet that simplymeans we do not know. Like you said, we simply cannot conceive of what was behind the big bang, especially when everyone says that there could not have been anything before that, simply becayse there waa no soace nor time. We do not know that. Saying there is no evidence of anything before it, simply means we do not yethave the knowledge.  Can you offer proof that there was nothing before that singularity? Of course not. We simply do not know
 And for instance,  take the idea of a simulation,  the creators may have simply produced the universe as is. From the singularity,  to its expansion.i liked the earlier theory simply because of the idea that quantum particles seem to be behind the universe behavior and creation
. Like you said, there are many ideasout there, and just tossing them aside simply because you don't like them is not reasonable.  Humans are too minute, both in stature and knowledge to even see the actual universe as it is , mainly because we are inside of it. Just like an atom inside a tree, our knowledge stops, as soon as we get back to the acorn . @MayCaesar

John_C_87

"Yes there are a lot of gaps in our knowledge. There is no evidenceof anything out there, yet that simplymeans we do not know"
And what you know is dictated by legilsated unconsitutional law via ....

This article documents the variation in strength of education clauses in state constitutions across the United States. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject of education, but every state constitution includes language that mandates the establishment of a public education system

Education Clauses in State Constitutions Across the United States | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (minneapolisfed.org)

MayCaesar

@maxx

A prerequisite to serious consideration of any idea is presence of certain observations that would make this idea being true compelling and it being false uncompelling. If this prerequisite is not satisfied, then I am not really tossing the idea aside - rather, I never stop to pick it up in the first place. There is infinity of ideas out there, while the number of ideas that are true is finite or, at least, reducible to a finite set.

For instance, if someone tells me that a good use of that $10k in my savings bank account is to get a mortgage on a rental property, then I will certainly consider this idea: it maps onto what I already know about the market, it makes sense to me as a renter myself, and it is hard for me to envision a world in which increasing my net worth this way would be difficult/impossible.
On the other hand, if someone tells me that a good use of that $10k in my savings bank account is to buy a glider and set it on fire, so the Fire God can bestow his blessing on me, then I will spend exactly zero seconds seriously considering it. Why, what has changed? Connectivity to reality: I have never had any reasons to consider possibility of existence of the "Fire God", so this reasoning does not align with my experience at all and is worth dismissing.

When someone proposes an idea of how the Universe came to be, that idea better explain something that its absence would compromise. The idea of a spontaneous quantum fluctuation producing this Universe is nice in that it aligns well with our general understanding of quantum physics, does not produce any predictions that are demonstrably false, and potentially explains certain properties of the observable Universe.
The idea of us living in a simulation also has a certain appeal: after all, virtually every well organized system we have around us has been produces by intelligent effort, and we have already ourselves built a lot of virtual worlds, so might ourselves easily live in one. This idea still is testable under certain additional assumptions - for instance, if the simulation is not perfect, if there are "bugs" in it, then we can attempt looking for these bugs. Or we can try to find some events that constitute an explicit intervention of the beings running this simulation. However, all of this is already quite far-fetched.
The idea of energy itself having consciousness, when we do not even know what consciousness is? That feels too out there to me. It is like all these people who ring the bells about the upcoming AI takeover, even as the current language processing models have a hard time understanding elementary school-level mathematics... Talking about things that are so far away from anything we are dealing with in our lives right here, right now seems like a waste of time to me.

maxx

Again,  im not saying there is some god on a throne somewhere.  However,  regardless,  no matter how you look at it, one is faced with 2 scenarios.  Be it some sort of creator or not, something either had to always been there in some form or other, or something was created out of nothing
 . Whhy is there something rather than nothing? I was read  that nothing collapsed upon itsel, creating gravity that led to the bang.  Silly isnt it. Again,  something always there in some form or the other or from nothing. Yet here you are believing in one or the other with out science backing either possibilities up. We simply do not know. What is the difference between believing that somehow, a type of creator produced the universe for its own benefit with out evidence,  and believing that the universe either came from nothing or was always in existence in some form with out evidence?  Here you are in steadfast belief that the universe came from nothing or always existed in some form, with out explaining how. Now how is that different than an actual creator, no. Not some magic sky daddy. But an actual enity beyond what we call soace and time that produced the universe? Just because you dont like the idea? Why is it not plausible?@MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

In your argument you are making an implicit assumption that certain properties of the Universe must have been present "before" its inception. Yet this assumption is not based on any observable evidence. Let me be more clear. You wrote:

maxx said:

Be it some sort of creator or not, something either had to always been there in some form or other, or something was created out of nothing

Notice how in both sentences in bold you used past tense: "had to always been there" and "was created". Here is the rub though: past tense can only be used to describe events that happened in the past, and the past itself, in turn, is only defined on a specific timeline. And since the timeline we are living in is intrinsically attached to our spacetime, the only past you can reasonably talk about is the one contained in this spacetime.

The problem is, you are trying to talk about something that happened before the Universe, and thus the spacetime in it, existed. Do you see how it does not make sense? The timeline does not extent back past the moment the Universe appeared, therefore talking about a time sequence of those events is meaningless. 

It is not a matter of "not knowing the past". What we actually do not know is how the existence of the Universe fits into a larger set of physics laws governing reality - in fact, one could say that the Universe is all there is and exhausts reality. But "how" the Universe formed is likely a question that is in principle unanswerable, and any answer one could come up with would make no sense even in theory, let alone in practice. The only way it can make any sense is if our current understanding is somehow fundamentally wrong and the Big Bang theory is false - however, given the overwhelming amount of evidence in its support, this seems to be extremely unlikely. Even if we live in a simulation, that simulation was designed in such a way as to perfectly replicate a real world in which the Big Bang theory holds, and if that is the case, then what difference does it make whether this is a simulation or not?

Lastly, as, unfortunately, is always the case in discussions with you, I have to refute a couple of accusations based on your lazy reading of my arguments.

maxx said:

Yet here you are believing in one or the other with out science backing either possibilities up... 

Here you are in steadfast belief that the universe came from nothing or always existed in some form, with out explaining how.

I am not "believing" anything in this respect. I am simply explaining what I see as a proper way to approach this question and choose interesting hypotheses out of the sea of all hypotheses people propose. I have never in my life expressed the "belief that the Universe came from nothing or always existed in some form". In fact, what I have been saying this whole time is that it might not make sense to talk about where the Universe "came" from, even assuming finiteness of its existence.

maxx said:

Just because you dont like the idea? Why is it not plausible?

My argument in no way involved my personal taste and what ideas I like. I have explained why certain ideas are not worth considering, and I used logic in my explanation that is applicable to any intelligent being, regardless of what it likes or does not like.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

lol.... You do not give up, that is for sure. Spacetime is a mathematical error created by the well-educated. First there is a post decimal issue with time as time is a decimal or fraction translated to ratio. So as fact there is no such thing as 0.016.01 hundredths of a second as described by Einstein’s spacetime. Second, Einstein never passed grade school and did not understand the difference between natural numbers which have no zero and irrational or rational numbers that do have zero. Okay, you got me Einstein did not make the error himself, but he did not correct the issue which is and was obvious. Even now. We are not even getting into the corrections made of Pi by inverse and regular calculus a tool of Newtons. Though Einstein was more than willing to take gravity out of Isaac's Newtons equation of gravity and insert it as a part of result suggested by his tensor.

John_C_87

The Universe is not technically formed, it is an undefined mathematical area.

maxx

I understand that OUR spacetime only goes back to the big bang. It us you whom simply disregards the udea that there can not be any other points beyond that. We do not know, and claims about the idea other spacetimes not existing is based upon nothing more than ignorance.  The universe can justvas easily be a tiny particle among many. Why not? Every thing ekse us but a particle if something else, i see no reason,  it can not be part if a larger whole, with different sets of laws and physics,  simply because of the idea that space abd time can only exist in the universe thar we inhabit. @MayCaesar

John_C_87

@maxx

Spacetime is a mathematical delusion created by poor basic mathematical principles as they are applied to more complicated forms of algebra, geometry , and calculus.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I understand that OUR spacetime only goes back to the big bang. It us you whom simply disregards the udea that there can not be any other points beyond that. We do not know, and claims about the idea other spacetimes not existing is based upon nothing more than ignorance.  The universe can justvas easily be a tiny particle among many. Why not? Every thing ekse us but a particle if something else, i see no reason,  it can not be part if a larger whole, with different sets of laws and physics,  simply because of the idea that space abd time can only exist in the universe thar we inhabit. @MayCaesar

No, it is not that "we do not know": it is that it makes no sense to talk about that. It makes no more sense to talk about the time "before the Big Bang" than it is to talk about cold heat. It is not "ignorance", but understanding of impossibility of something. Saying that there exist no real numbers x for which 1 + x = x is not a statement of ignorance, but knowledge.

You have this strange habit of just rejecting logic with no further explanation than, "How do you know?" I am explaining to you exactly how I know something, and you, as if nothing happened, just say once again, "But you do not know". Ever heard the expression that it is helpful to have an open mind, but not so open than the brain falls out? I would meditate on this expression a bit if I were you.

John_C_87

Saying that there exist no real numbers x for which 1 + x = x is not a statement of ignorance, but knowledge.

However it is a statement of ignorance and here is why. 1 + x = x move to the right of expression x + 1 = x, move these terms to left (x) becomes x + 1 - x = 0, move 1 to the right of expression and it becomes x -x + 1 = 0, eliminate simular terms, (1 - 1) * x + 1 = 0, since zero is a facture it should be written as 0 + 1 = 0, remove exstraneous 0 and it becomes 1 = 0. Because there are natural numbers used in time converted from fraction or decimal if you prefer to ratio, and natural numbers in the tools compass for navigation,plus drawling. Without idetifing x as a type natural number we do not know if certian sum can be negative to be moved across expressions. Thus, part one to spacetime by gednerated by Einstien's thoery of gedneral reltivity which is written specifically to be only theory, E = Mc ^ 2, forAs we write the conclusion of the field equation as mathementic law by simply stating known facts of mathematics like this MayCaesar. (G ≈ Mc ^ 2).

This is excluding that mathematic argument Pi in calculus is a circles circumference always drawn as a triangles Hypotenuse side using calculus, and inverse calculus, becomes alienated to make it almost impossible to be held as irrational value.