Creation and so forth

[Wuwei]

It can be known through logic. There are only two options; the universe began or the universe has always existed. By inspection we can eliminate the universe always existing (SLoT). We can also eliminate the universe being created from pre-existing matter by inspection (SLoT). Which leaves us with the only possible logical explanation. That the universe was spontaneously created from nothing. There's even an elegant mathematical description 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.

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator...

arxiv.org

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

Using statistical mechanics in a well behaved system to define entropy is one thing.

Assuming anything about entropy in an extreme non-equilibrium condition at a singularity followed by inflation of an expanding space is quite a different thing.

I don't think we can eliminate anything on the basis of entropy. What happens at time zero plus or minus a few picoseconds is unknown.
.

 

[ding]

Using statistical mechanics in a well behaved system to define entropy is one thing.

Assuming anything about entropy in an extreme non-equilibrium condition at a singularity followed by inflation of an expanding space is quite a different thing.

I don't think we can eliminate anything on the basis of entropy. What happens at time zero plus or minus a few picoseconds is unknown.
.

I think you are over complicating it. Do you believe in perpetual motion or do you believe that the SLoT precludes perpetual motion from happening? Do you believe that the universe can heat up again without any energy being added or do you believe that the SLoT precludes the universe from heating up again without any energy being added?

 

[Wuwei]

I think you are over complicating it. Do you believe in perpetual motion or do you believe that the SLoT precludes perpetual motion from happening?

If you are talking about a perpetual motion machine sitting on a patent attorney's desk, the answer is clear. However it simply is complex near a singularity.

Do you believe that the universe can heat up again without any energy being added or do you believe that the SLoT precludes the universe from heating up again without any energy being added?

If you are talking about the universe with a substantial volume, then it seems that you are talking about the first law, and "Heat up again" makes no sense.

I assume you are talking about an oscillating universe. In that case you would presumably have a singularity of implosion. I don't even know how you would define entropy at the singularity.

.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The so-called Laws of Thermodynamics presume a "closed system" -- so ding says "Presto! Magic! The Universe is a closed system! Never mind that it keeps growing bigger and bigger as our telescopes get better and better..

Nope, ding somehow knows exactly how much light has radiated from all those stars in those seemingly limitless, solid walls of new galaxies that no one's ever seen before.. Ding! Same circularly reasoned, braindead spam pasta, different year!

 

[ding]

If you are talking about a perpetual motion machine sitting on a patent attorney's desk, the answer is clear. However it simply is complex near a singularity.

If you are talking about the universe with a substantial volume, then it seems that you are talking about the first law, and "Heat up again" makes no sense.

I assume you are talking about an oscillating universe. In that case you would presumably have a singularity of implosion. I don't even know how you would define entropy at the singularity.

.

Yes, I am talking about why an oscillating universe which had no beginning is impossible. I thought that was obvious. My bad.

 

[ding]

The so-called Laws of Thermodynamics presume a "closed system" -- so ding says "Presto! Magic! The Universe is a closed system! Never mind that it keeps growing bigger and bigger as our telescopes get better and better..

Nope, ding somehow knows exactly how much light has radiated from all those stars in those seemingly limitless, solid walls of new galaxies that no one's ever seen before.. Ding! Same braindead spam pasta, different year!

ummmm... ding knows what created the signature of the cosmic background radiation. Something you keep avoiding discussing.

ding also knows that nothing becomes more ordered unless work is put into it.

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator...

arxiv.org

 

[BackAgain]

With respect to the universe being created from pre-existing matter or from nothing, what difference would that make?

As a practical matter to my life today? Not much. But you never know. If that question can ever be answered, it could lead to amazing new science or maybe ways of thinking.

I’m still unclear though. If it came from absolutely nothing, there would have been literally nothing to get the ball rolling. If it came from something, then on the assumption that no thing can be it’s own cause, the question is still: where did that stuff come from?

some people point to all the radiation in the universe as the thing that always existed. But then … where did that come from?

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[ding]

As a practical matter to my life today? Not much. But you never know. If that question can ever be answered, it could lead to amazing new science or maybe ways of thinking.

I’m still unclear though. If it came from absolutely nothing, there would have been literally nothing to get the ball rolling. If it came from something, then on the assumption that no thing can be it’s own cause, the question is still: where did that stuff come from?

some people point to all the radiation in the universe as the thing that always existed. But then … where did that come from?

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I explained to you where the radiation came from in post #39. And no, it did not always exist.

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.

 

[ding]

Your enjoyment of your remaining life will take a turn for the better when you ditch your sour disposition.

 

[BackAgain]

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

I explained to you where the radiation came from in post #39. And no, it did not always exist.

I enjoy this thread. I do not have enough information to reach any conclusion which I can support. Even if there’s something I find I inately appealing about the notion of a mind which pre-existed all else, I confess I’m still wondering: Where could such a “mind” come from, in the first place?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Fun video, weepy. Smell some coffee. Waking up might help you cheer up

 

[ding]

I enjoy this thread. I do not have enough information to reach any conclusion which I can support. Even if there’s something I find I inately appealing about the notion of a mind which pre-existed all else, I confess I’m still wondering: Where could such a “mind” come from, in the first place?

I addressed that in post #33.

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]

Fun video, weepy. Smell some coffee. Waking up might help you cheer up

Way ahead of you. I just got back from the driving range.

 

[Grumblenuts]

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present {blaa, blaa, blaa} So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.

Quantum wanton condoms! More interesting and compelling? That it wasn't created from nothing. That there's no call or need to pretend FLoT BS can possibly apply to an obviously open system. That no braindead, circular reasoned crap need apply whatsoever. Try enlisting in the space / counterspace recycling program for a happy change.

 

[ding]

Quantum wanton condoms! More interesting and compelling? That it wasn't created from nothing. That there's no call or need to pretend FLoT BS can possibly apply to an obviously open system. That no braindead, circular reasoned crap need apply whatsoever. Try enlisting in the space / counterspace recycling program for a happy change.

<ahem>

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator...

arxiv.org

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[Grumblenuts]

<ahem>

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator...

arxiv.org

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

Spam, spam, spam, driving range, and spam!

 

[ding]

Spam, spam, spam, driving range, and spam!

<ahem>

 

[Grumblenuts]

And more spam!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Will he ever offer anything new?