Evidence that universe created itself

[ding]

The as·ter·isk is traditionally used to conceptually connect two things that in print are separated.
Your disconnected asterisk is a puzzle.

And while I both welcome and vehemently endorse your mention of natural law, I'm not aware of any definitive scientific tie of big bang to known physics. Nothing is not an explosive.

It is when there are 1 billion anti-matter particles for every 1 billion and 1 matter particles.

 

[sear]

your coffee table isn't a false vacuum.

And the nothing the big bang exploded in was "a false vacuum"?

What's the difference between a "false vacuum" and a real vacuum"? Bissell vs Hoover?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The as·ter·isk is traditionally used to conceptually connect two things that in print are separated.

Those two things being your post and mine.

You should be aware. It has been posted to you in this thread: the theoretical demonstration of quantum fluctuation in empty space being able to give rise to a universe.

And scientists dont insist there was nothing before the big bang. The big bang is strictly a period of rapid inflation from an earlier state.

 

[ding]

This is "hot" - because energy is not able to be created or to be destroyed within the universe (while an outside not exists). So if energy is not able to be created - howelse is it able to be "here" although the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be nil?

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 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.

 

[sear]

With God all things are possible.

Indeed, substitute "fantasy" for "god", and the assertion applies equally. What proof is there of any supernatural anything?

 

[ding]

And the nothing the big bang exploded in was "a false vacuum"?

What's the difference between a "false vacuum" and a real vacuum"? Bissell vs Hoover?

Yes. The universe began as a false vacuum; a runaway false vacuum.

 

[james bond]

Yet you religious nutsacks had your little iron age handbook for 1000s of years, and scientists still had to do all the work of learning these things quite in spite of you crusading fools. You dicks literally sat and pointed and laughed until you had no choice but to accept what scientists have learned. You are a salient example of this childish, idiotic behavior. The world has accepted evolution as fact...yet here we are, waiting for the last YEC jackasses to die off.

YEC will be here forever. Better to die a natural death of old age than to be burned by global fire and suffer. The worst is seeing your spiritually perfect self be destroyed in the lake of fire. I think Newton was right and it will come around 2060 since you think the atheists have taken over.

 

[ding]

Indeed, substitute "fantasy" for "god", and the assertion applies equally. What proof is there of any supernatural anything?

If we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I believe your problem lies in your fairy tale perception of God. If you had a non-fairy tale perception of God, this might make more sense to you.

 

[sear]

And scientists dont insist there was nothing before the big bang. The big bang is strictly a period of rapid inflation from an earlier state.

No need.
No astronomer or astrophysicist I've ever read has referred to matter, energy, or other that a human has observed, that isn't a direct descendant of BB.
It's not like there was some flotsam & jizzum wafting though the nothingness, and suddenly BB blasted it to the recesses.

Though BB is a practical scientific consensus, there may be some differences regarding particular details. No authority on the subject I've ever read has identified two separate groups of matter / energy. Big Bang is the only game in town.

 

[ding]

Indeed, substitute "fantasy" for "god", and the assertion applies equally. What proof is there of any supernatural anything?

Unless you believe it's just a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, everything is proof of God.

 

[sear]

If we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I believe your problem lies in your fairy tale perception of God. If you had a non-fairy tale perception of God, this might make more sense to you.

a) I'm not disputing your assertions. But in all my lay research of it I don't recall any recognized authority or author making such claims.

b) You have no practical grasp of my perception of gods. Please do not presume me. It can only lead you astray. If you want to know my position, all you need do is ask.

 

[sear]

Unless you believe it's just a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, everything is proof of God.

Even if so, meaningless without a specific definition of "god". I don't recall one in this thread.

 

[ding]

The big bang is strictly a period of rapid inflation from an earlier state.

Can you describe this earlier state and explain how it was responsible for the cosmic background radiation?

Because the only explanation I have ever heard for the cosmic background radiation is from paired production annihilation (the kind of annihilations that occur in a false vacuum). The current belief is that it was a massively disproportionate amount of paired production annihilation relative to the remaining matter. For every one particle of matter in the universe there were 1 billion annihilations of matter and anti-matter paired particle annihilations. And all of this occurred in the space of a single proton. At least that's what Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equation shows.

 

[ding]

a) I'm not disputing your assertions. But in all my lay research of it I don't recall any recognized authority or author making such claims.

b) You have no practical grasp of my perception of gods. Please do not presume me. It can only lead you astray. If you want to know my position, all you need do is ask.

Here is the paper which has the elegant equations I mentioned in my post.

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

Here is short video of a world renowned cosmologist discussing what I wrote.

 

[ding]

You have no practical grasp of my perception of gods. Please do not presume me. It can only lead you astray. If you want to know my position, all you need do is ask.

If I got that wrong, I apologize.

Please share with me your perception of God.

 

[ding]

Even if so, meaningless without a specific definition of "god". I don't recall one in this thread.

So you have no perception of God that you can use?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That 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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not like there was some flotsam & jizzum wafting though the nothingness, and suddenly BB blasted it to the recesses.

Actually yes, that is precisely what big bang theory is. There existed stuff, that we cannot ever observe more than 10E-33 s before the big bang and the big bang happened to it. The stuff expanded rapidly.

 

[sealybobo]

Cosmic background radiation is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing.

You don't understand what that means.

 

[ding]

You don't understand what that means.

How do you know that?

 

[ding]

sear

To follow up on God is mind here is an excerpt from George Wald, a Noble Laureate discussing mind and matter.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe