Creation and so forth

[DudleySmith]

No. That’s not even “an” issue. One issue that does exist is why you are such a shithead troll. Not that it matters.

Don't get all butthurt just because you're not the first stupid stoner to confuse himself trying to ponder 'Deep Thoughts'. Next time just buy a book by Jack Handy.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't get all butthurt just because you're not the first stupid stoner to confuse himself trying to ponder 'Deep Thoughts'. Next time just buy a book by Jack Handy.

Ah, poor Dud. Just because you lack the intellect to grasp any of the matters that had been under discussiondoesn’t mean you must whine. It’s ok, Pooh Pooh.

Your idea of a “deep thought” is to troll poorly and imagine folks enjoy your failed effort at wit. Hint: you’d have to have a wit, first.

Again, go toddle off.

 

[Ringtone]

Again, that seems to beg the question. Where did God come from? To say that He is the Prime Mover is well and good. I think it may even be true. But it still leaves unaddressed “where did God come from?”

One answer is that God is the one entity that has ever been able to exist without causation. That is literally supernatural. But to the (questionable) degree to which I grasp the scientific theories, scientists postulate that because of quantum probability it is possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities that can spring from nothing. Again, by literal definition, that too would be “supernatural.”

It seems to me that it has to be one or the other of those two competing supernatural theories that explains Creation. I default to God mostly because the more we (humans) unravel the mysteries of the Universe, the more we see of amazing “laws” that can describe things we can’t even see. I am of the opinion (belief) that such laws seem to have an intelligence underlying them.

I am also quite content to hear that others disagree. As is their right.

God is eternal.

 

[DudleySmith]

Ah, poor Dud. Just because you lack the intellect to grasp any of the matters that had been under discussiondoesn’t mean you must whine. It’s ok, Pooh Pooh.

Your idea of a “deep thought” is to troll poorly and imagine folks enjoy your failed effort at wit. Hint: you’d have to have a wit, first.

Again, go toddle off.

Jack Handy is your go to guy, seriously; he speaks your language:

 

[BackAgain]

God is eternal.

Hey. I’m not debating that. I have no actual knowledge.

I am curious though. “Eternal” as In “never ending?” Or, “eternal” “as without beginning or ending.” If the latter, the concept of existence without need of creation eludes me.

It looks like either Matter/energy/space/time all came into existence without causation OR God did.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I haven’t retreated to anything magical.

LOL!

 

[BackAgain]

LOL!

Your lack of comprehension is entirely on you.

I do approve of your self aware username.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It looks like either Matter/energy/space/time all came into existence without causation OR God did.

Magical!

 

[BackAgain]

Magical!

Not really. You seem to believe that something can come from absolutely nothing. I find that quite unscientific. Or, to put into your severely limited parlance, “magical.”

 

[BackAgain]

Here’s a question for the ponderous clowns like crumblenuts:

Do you tools believe that you are smarter than the scientist who once said:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with the awareness of — and glimpse into — the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive."

 

[ding]

Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.

matter/energy/space/time exist. Where did all this “stuff” come from? Fair question. Tracing it back with observation and science (particularly physics) we seemingly trace it back to the “Big Bang.” But where did the initial super tiny blob of whatever it was come from?

Our reliance on the rules and laws of science breaks down at that point. We call it by another set of names. We call it “quantum” physics and make reference to how the normal scientific laws are suspended at such a point. Basically, we speak of something that is literally outside the bounds of science. It is LITERALLY super-natural. (Not in the sense of the “divine” or “magic” necessarily; just in the sense of requiring explanation that is above and beyond our understanding of scientific “laws”.).

The geniuses who work in the fields of quantum physics and theoretical physics may be able — in a fashion — to explain how absolute nothing led to the infinitesimal “thing” that went “bang” thereby crating all matter/energy and space itself as well as time. But cannot explain the “why” of it all?

What, exactly, perturbed an absolutely empty void where no energy and no matter existed in no space and outside the parameters of time in order to set the Big Bang and all of creation in the cosmos into motion? Why would absolutely nothing lead to something?

(I placed this post in the science section; but I think it might be logically and fairly placed in a religion section, too.)

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

arxiv.org

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description (see the link I posted) which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[Augustine_]

What, exactly, perturbed an absolutely empty void where no energy and no matter existed in no space and outside the parameters of time in order to set the Big Bang and all of creation in the cosmos into motion? Why would absolutely nothing lead to something?

If you ever find the answer to that, you'll be very famous

 

[ding]

I can accept that something outside of our known universe preceded it. But that leads us to a similar question. Where did that something come from?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is "something" which is eternal and unchanging. For if "something" is changing it cannot be eternal for it has changed. Which in reality means that this "something" must be "no thing." Because "things" like energy and matter are not unchanging and therefore cannot be eternal.

For any given thing there will be a final state of fact. Where it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way even when it was believed otherwise. This is called objective truth or reality or existence. Objective truth is an example of "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging.

So to answer your question where did that something come from? The answer is no where. It has always existed and will always exist. And it isn't a "something," it is "no thing."

 

[ding]

The universe has never been "a perfect vacuum" nor sprung from nothing. When matter gets sucked into a black hole, which genuinely is an (imperfect) vacuum, it can be transformed into energy and sunk into counterspace among other things depending on circumstances. Space has one but dimension, space, which has spatial attributes such as "3D" coordinates, but time is space's simplest and most logical method of measuring A to B over vast distances. Counterspace, having no dimensions, can't be observed or measured and so exists everywhere at once. "Magnetic" repulsion emerges from counterspace. Any gravitational pressure not transformed into heat sinks into counterspace. It's not really all that abstract and makes sense. Just not what we were all taught.

Does time even really exist? Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations work equally well in reverse as they do going forward in time. Yet we have never witnessed time moving backwards. I think the most we can say about time is that it is a convenient was to mark the expansion of the universe.

 

[BackAgain]

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

arxiv.org

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description (see the link I posted) which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Not being a scientist much less a theoretical physicist, I can’t answer that. Instead, I Just ask some questions.

In a closed universe, where did the matter come from initially?

As I have always understood it, science actually tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (although we know they can be changed in form from one to the other). So, in a closed universe, where did the matter/energy stuff come from?

I made reference earlier to the “probability” conjecture of such things spontaneously coming into existence. But I’m not sure if the spontaneous event can itself occur without some causation. So, if space/time can be curved by gravity, but gravity is dependent upon matter, then there had to be some matter to do that curving in the first place.

Again, I’m not disputing you. I don’t know. I leave that pretending to know thing to the likes of crumblenuts. But I do think that those of us who can’t handle the math of some eloquent mathematical description are at a loss to “see” how these questions don’t apply.

I have been accused here of “demanding answers.” That’s a false accusation. But, this doesn’t mean I waive a right to ask more questions in the hope of maybe gaining greater understanding.

 

[ding]

One answer is that God is the one entity that has ever been able to exist without causation. That is literally supernatural.

It's because of the first cause conundrum, that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) IS the most logical explanation. And the one most supported by our observations of nature itself. But is "it" supernatural? Technically our reality is the alternate reality. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose. I doubt that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as supernatural. I suspect that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as quite natural.

But to the (questionable) degree to which I grasp the scientific theories, scientists postulate that because of quantum probability it is possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities that can spring from nothing. Again, by literal definition, that too would be “supernatural.”

Is it possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities that can spring from nothing? Only if a "mistake" is made as there was in the creation of our universe. If not for that "mistake" our universe should have been filled with nothing but radiation.

 

[BackAgain]

It's because of the first cause conundrum, that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) IS the most logical explanation. And the one most supported by our observations of nature itself. But is "it" supernatural? Technically our reality is the alternate reality. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose. I doubt that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as supernatural. I suspect that God or spirit or mind or consciousness (or whatever name anyone wants to give it) sees "itself" as quite natural.

Is it possible that matter/energy/space/time are the entities that can spring from nothing? Only if a "mistake" is made as there was in the creation of our universe. If not for that "mistake" our universe should have been filled with nothing but radiation.

Ok. To clarify: I used “supernatural” to signify ONLY the notion of being outside of what we see as the natural laws of science. Outside. Above. Beyond.

I’ve also read that our normal accepted views of natural laws of science seem to breakdown in the quantum realm. An example of that is “quantum entanglement” which is a phenomenon that has already been replicated in some advanced scientific experiments. That stuff is astounding to me.

I forgot who, but somebody once observed that to a primitive society, our modern technology might appear to be “magic.” My guesswork leads me to speculate that just as quantum-level physics seems to violate our natural “laws” of science, maybe the laws of science we recognize also don’t apply in the physics of creation.. Maybe for the very same reasons?

 

[BackAgain]

Here’s a question for the ponderous clowns like crumblenuts:

Do you tools believe that you are smarter than the scientist who once said:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with the awareness of — and glimpse into — the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive."

Just to flesh this post out:

The quote is from no less a physicist that Albert Einstein, himself. — An Ideal of Service to Our Fellow Man

 

[ding]

Not being a scientist much less a theoretical physicist, I can’t answer that. Instead, I Just ask some questions.

In a closed universe, where did the matter come from initially?

I'll walk you though it. You will be dangerous by the end of the tour.

The short answer to this question is from a quantum tunneling event and it was created from nothing.

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation The three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

Through experiments we have observed paired particles popping into existence and annihilating themselves leaving only radiation. They always pop into existence as symmetrical pairs. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang - the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun - resulting in an enormous compression of material and a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered the cosmic background radiation - a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.


Are you familiar with paired production and the cosmic background radiation? You can read these links later.

​

Pair production - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Cosmic background radiation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

As I have always understood it, science actually tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (although we know they can be changed in form from one to the other). So, in a closed universe, where did the matter/energy stuff come from?

Yeah, I was in the same position until I started studying this stuff. How can the universe being created from nothing not violate the law of conservation? It's because the net energy of the universe is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity. So matter can be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation because the net energy of the universe ever changes.

Here's a short video of a world renowned cosmologist who explains it.



The short answer to your question of where did the matter/energy stuff come from is that it was literally created from nothing; as in there was no pre-existing matter that was used in the creation of the universe. Which is totally consistent with the Judaeo-Christian worldview of creatio ex nihlo.

Creatio ex nihilo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org