Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[fromderinside]

See the last part of my answer above.

 

[Learner]

I see it, I get you I suppose sometimes its just nice to talk ... talk about anything you find interesting.

 

[Learner]

Every single "evidence" that the video cites is with reference to physical brains made up of matter. The video does NOT make the claim that consciousness can exist independent of a material substrate. Go back and watch it again, and pay attention this time.

It's fascinating that all woo claims begin by failing to make this simple, straightforward and obvious connection.

What is obvious, is failing to connect the correct "argument" above, to the right person(s).

(post #198)

 

[fromderinside]

... the logical symmetry that drives it.

The problem is with Logic. It's rationality rather than material query, which is why I introduced objective hypothesis which should actually be stated as objective material hypothesis.

 

[Swammerdami]

Why? Why why?

Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'

Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

. . .

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Every single "evidence" that the video cites is with reference to physical brains made up of matter. The video does NOT make the claim that consciousness can exist independent of a material substrate. Go back and watch it again, and pay attention this time.

It's fascinating that all woo claims begin by failing to make this simple, straightforward and obvious connection.

What is obvious, is failing to connect the correct "argument" above, to the right person(s).

(post #198)

So, I understand that you are accepting that non-materialism - whatever that is in your understanding - always proceeds from materialism. And that the discussion about non-materialism is an academic/intellectual exercise comparable to a discussion of angels on pinheads. I'm cool with that, it's your basic mysticism.

 

[Learner]

What is obvious, is failing to connect the correct "argument" above, to the right person(s).

(post #198)

So, I understand that you are accepting that non-materialism - whatever that is in your understanding - always proceeds from materialism. And that the discussion about non-materialism is an academic/intellectual exercise comparable to a discussion of angels on pinheads. I'm cool with that, it's your basic mysticism.

Depends.... if you actually understand at all, the plain and simple context, differentiating Solid, Structural, Observable, Able-to-touch, Physical Matter from non-solid, non-physical, non-structural, invisible forces and energies. Hey if you need to catagorize with materialsim, then I don't mind and cool with that too - I'll notice those 'technical' tricks, should there be any going on (I've always thought Atheists would make good Lawyers ).

So it's quite simple really: Something from Something as opposed to atheistic belief, "something from nothing."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What is obvious, is failing to connect the correct "argument" above, to the right person(s).

(post #198)

So, I understand that you are accepting that non-materialism - whatever that is in your understanding - always proceeds from materialism. And that the discussion about non-materialism is an academic/intellectual exercise comparable to a discussion of angels on pinheads. I'm cool with that, it's your basic mysticism.

Depends.... if you actually understand at all, the plain and simple context, differentiating Solid, Structural, Observable, Able-to-touch, Physical Matter from non-solid, non-physical, non-structural, invisible forces and energies. Hey if you need to catagorize with materialsim, then I don't mind and cool with that too - I'll notice those 'technical' tricks, should there be any going on (I've always thought Atheists would make good Lawyers ).

So it's quite simple really: Something from Something as opposed to atheistic belief, "something from nothing."

So you are saying there are things non physical? Like what?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... in regards to the universe or creator, which came first?

Physical things do physical stuff. No need to consider a creator.

Since physical things do physical stuff there is no need to specify a beginning since physical things do physical stuff.

We know there is physical stuff. The presence of physical stuff is sufficient for physical things to take place.

Some people may just like to curiously know, discuss or debate about the possibilty.

Or come up with false dilemmas to help justify their arbitrary solution to said dilemmas.

The question isn't "Why did the universe begin?" We have no evidence to suggest there is a beginning of the universe. The question is "Why is the universe?" This question is less satisfying for theists, especially theists with agendas, because the same question can then be transitioned to their agenda... "Why is their god?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Depends.... if you actually understand at all, the plain and simple context, differentiating Solid, Structural, Observable, Able-to-touch, Physical Matter from non-solid, non-physical, non-structural, invisible forces and energies. Hey if you need to catagorize with materialsim, then I don't mind and cool with that too - I'll notice those 'technical' tricks, should there be any going on (I've always thought Atheists would make good Lawyers ).

So it's quite simple really: Something from Something as opposed to atheistic belief, "something from nothing."

So you are saying there are things non physical? Like what?

Based on their statement, a fart would qualify. Non-solid, non-physical, invisible, but deadly.

 

[FinBack]

For me personally. I do not believe the ( whole ) Universe had a beginning. I think it's always been here and it always will be. (Space time is infinite and had no beginning and will have no end.)

OUR little universe could have been 'Created' by a super massive black hole 13.2 Billion years ago.. What we call today the 'Big Bang'. And there will be an infinite number of universes within universes.

The CMB, entropy etc fit in with our Current observable universe.

Sadly we will never be able to see 'outside' our universe to prove my theory but i will die believing in it.

 

[Swammerdami]

...
OUR little universe could have been 'Created' by a super massive black hole 13.2 Billion years ago.. What we call today the 'Big Bang'. And there will be an infinite number of universes within universes.

The CMB, entropy etc fit in with our Current observable universe.

Sadly we will never be able to see 'outside' our universe to prove my theory but i will die believing in it.

This viewpoint, with an infinite series of universes fitted together like a Russian doll, is not too dissimilar to the Penrose idea that started the whole thread! The two main differences are:
(a) Penrose, an expert on black holes and general relativity, views "our universe" as created in an "entropy death" after super massive black holes have evaporated;
(b) Penrose believes it MAY be possible to "see" the prior universe via faint patterns in the CMB.

 

[skepticalbip]

...
OUR little universe could have been 'Created' by a super massive black hole 13.2 Billion years ago.. What we call today the 'Big Bang'. And there will be an infinite number of universes within universes.

The CMB, entropy etc fit in with our Current observable universe.

Sadly we will never be able to see 'outside' our universe to prove my theory but i will die believing in it.

This viewpoint, with an infinite series of universes fitted together like a Russian doll, is not too dissimilar to the Penrose idea that started the whole thread! The two main differences are:
(a) Penrose, an expert on black holes and general relativity, views "our universe" as created in an "entropy death" after super massive black holes have evaporated;
(b) Penrose believes it MAY be possible to "see" the prior universe via faint patterns in the CMB.

It seems to me that the similarity would be only that the two view the universe is eternal.

My understanding of the Penrose CCC is that the universe is continually expanding and that black holes are only temporary as they will eventually evaporate. That the universe will eventually reach a condition of maximum entropy, 'smoothness', or uniformity. As this is the condition of the early universe shown in the CMB, applying conformal geometry means that the 'end' of the expansion is indistinguishable from what is commonly seen as the 'beginning' in the BB theory. It is a compelling cosmological model and I see the math but have qualms about the physics.

The nested black hole model also proposes an eternal universe but suggests that what would be seen as an expanding universe from within one of the 'black hole universes' would actually be an ever collapsing of space time. This is also a compelling cosmological model but again I have qualms about the physics.

 

[Swammerdami]

Rather than simply "an eternal universe," both Penrose and FinBack see "an infinite series of universes fitted together like a Russian doll." It was that similarity that caught my eye.

 

[steve_bank]

Anything that is causally connected known or unknown to us is the Universe, creation, whatever you label it.

I used to imagine it as a gooey pile of fecal matter, but I evolved my thinking. I am pretty sure it is like a Winsor knot necktie, but that may change base on new evidence.

 

[DBT]

Yet the biggest black hole explosion ever recorded does not appear to have created a bubble universe:

''The biggest cosmic explosion on record has been detected – an event so powerful that it punched a dent the size of 15 Milky Ways in the surrounding space. The eruption is thought to have originated at a supermassive black hole in the Ophiuchus galaxy cluster, which is about 390m light years from Earth''

Perhaps a greater event is necessary, something to destabilize the singularity itself?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Depends.... if you actually understand at all, the plain and simple context, differentiating Solid, Structural, Observable, Able-to-touch, Physical Matter from non-solid, non-physical, non-structural, invisible forces and energies. Hey if you need to catagorize with materialsim, then I don't mind and cool with that too - I'll notice those 'technical' tricks, should there be any going on (I've always thought Atheists would make good Lawyers ).

So it's quite simple really: Something from Something as opposed to atheistic belief, "something from nothing."

So you are saying there are things non physical? Like what?

Bumpity bump bump...

Hoping Learner tells me what he means by non-physical. I can't see the water molecules floating around in front of me but I take them to be physical.

What say you, Learner?

 

[Jarhyn]

Depends.... if you actually understand at all, the plain and simple context, differentiating Solid, Structural, Observable, Able-to-touch, Physical Matter from non-solid, non-physical, non-structural, invisible forces and energies. Hey if you need to catagorize with materialsim, then I don't mind and cool with that too - I'll notice those 'technical' tricks, should there be any going on (I've always thought Atheists would make good Lawyers ).

So it's quite simple really: Something from Something as opposed to atheistic belief, "something from nothing."

So you are saying there are things non physical? Like what?

Bumpity bump bump...

Hoping Learner tells me what he means by non-physical. I can't see the water molecules floating around in front of me but I take them to be physical.

What say you, Learner?

I mean shit, even neutrinos are physical, even DARK MATTER is physical, even though we don't know what it is, even though it's interactions are weak as shit.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Bumpity bump bump...

Hoping Learner tells me what he means by non-physical. I can't see the water molecules floating around in front of me but I take them to be physical.

What say you, Learner?

I mean shit, even neutrinos are physical, even DARK MATTER is physical, even though we don't know what it is, even though it's interactions are weak as shit.

Right. I mean we can use a beam of light to push things. So I don't know what he means. If he responds at least I'll know. How would one even go about detecting and measuring something that is non-physical? It would be impossible I would think, and axiomatically so. Non physical would be the same as non-real.

Waiting...

 

[bilby]

Yet the biggest black hole explosion ever recorded does not appear to have created a bubble universe:

How could we tell, from outside the event horizon?

''The biggest cosmic explosion on record has been detected – an event so powerful that it punched a dent the size of 15 Milky Ways in the surrounding space. The eruption is thought to have originated at a supermassive black hole in the Ophiuchus galaxy cluster, which is about 390m light years from Earth''

Perhaps a greater event is necessary, something to destabilize the singularity itself?

Or perhaps there's someone inside that black hole right now, making a similar claim about the absence of bubble universes in the black holes he can see...