Jump to content

Could the universe have a design?


PrimalMinister

Recommended Posts

The theory of everything could state that the universe has a design without being designed. For example, if the universe is immortal, eternal, then there is no need for a creator as it was not created. But its possible that it could still have a design.

The universe has always been more sophisticated than us, I think we are only just beginning to realise how sophisticated it is. Young universe scientists kind of live in this bubble where they are under the impression that they are quite possibly the first life to ever ponder these problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

What does that even mean? If there is no designer, how can one with a straight face say it was designed?

I know nobody has asked you this yet, but... What does that even mean? If there is no designer, how can one with a straight face say it was designed?

15 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Are you saying that it is impossible for the universe to have a design

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

Are you saying that it is impossible for the universe to have a design and it is a mere accident for sure?

The definition of 'design' implies a designer. Your question makes no sense. It is like asking "What would happen if we found a bottle of beer that didn't have a bottle?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a framework for a theory of everything , it solves unanswered questions about physics, namely 'why' reality is mathematical. Scientists have had a lot of success with the idea that reality is mathematical but interestingly, why it is mathematical still eludes them. This gives me an interesting perspective. The framework clearly, self evidently, describes a universe that has a design, without a designer in sight. It does not need nor does it support the christian/islamic idea of God, in fact the framework will be the final coffin in the slow death of these religions.

But it will also interestingly prove that despite claims to objectivity, scientists have their beliefs. There is a chance I am not correct, its only a framework, but after 15 years its likely I have realised out how the universe works on the most fundamental level.

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The definition of 'design' implies a designer. Your question makes no sense. It is like asking "What would happen if we found a bottle of beer that didn't have a bottle?"

Design: purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object. My framework describes a universe with a purpose, therefore a design. But there is no sign of a designer/creator because the universe is immortal, eternal therefore you can only talk metaphorically about beginnings, ultimatly there was no beginning, therefore no creator/designer. So its possible for the universe to have a design without a designer.

Edited by PrimalMinister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Design: purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object.

Well planning is out of the question as that implies a planner.
But OK, the universe could have a purpose.
Why didn't you just frame the question that way, and save yourself some grief.

I suppose if we ever find the universe to have a purpose, the reaction would depend on what that purpose is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

I suppose if we ever find the universe to have a purpose, the reaction would depend on what that purpose is.

Well in my framework its quite simple, it exists for life, for life to experience its wonders. Its just that the circle of life is a bit more, and only a bit more, sophisticated than the picture currently painted by science. I mean is it really a surprise we are here, in a universe that is both infinite in extent and age, everything that could have possibly happened has happened, and because its infinite, everything that can and has happened, has happened an infinite amount of times, nothing is new. Young universe scientists have this restricted view that they are the first to ponder these problems but in an infinite universe there must surely be, even if it is a low amount, an infinite amount of life. Furthermore, at least some of this life, its had an infinite amount of time, has evolved up to the maximum level of sophistication the universe can support, reaching the metaphorical end of the universe, the completion of knowledge.

So is it any surprise that it is for life? Look at what we can do and where we are going futurewise. That we by chance evolved is nonsense, human beings existed as potential (their design) before we existed actually. Even if you believe the young universe human beings, all life, all technology we have created, existed as potential the moment the universe was created. We should not be surprised that the universe is for life.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess that means there is definitely no designer or planner, or at best, an extremely bad designer given the outcome.
The universe seems like a very large waste of space for the trivial smatterings of life here and there.
Very bad universal urban planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well in my framework its quite simple, it exists for life, for life to experience its wonders. Its just that the circle of life is a bit more, and only a bit more, sophisticated than the picture currently painted by science. I mean is it really a surprise we are here, in a universe that is both infinite in extent and age, everything that could have possibly happened has happened, and because its infinite, everything that can and has happened, has happened an infinite amount of times, nothing is new. Young universe scientists have this restricted view that they are the first to ponder these problems but in an infinite universe there must surely be, even if it is a low amount, an infinite amount of life. Furthermore, at least some of this life, its had an infinite amount of time, has evolved up to the maximum level of sophistication the universe can support, reaching the metaphorical end of the universe, the completion of knowledge.

So is it any surprise that it is for life? Look at what we can do and where we are going futurewise. That we by chance evolved is nonsense, human beings existed as potential (their design) before we existed actually. Even if you believe the young universe human beings, all life, all technology we have created, existed as potential the moment the universe was created. We should not be surprised that the universe is for life.

Your framework doesn't seem to be self consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

The universe seems like a very large waste of space for the trivial smatterings of life here and there.

Trivial smatterings of life is not what this framework predicts, in fact life is the main show and is a bit more, not a lot more, sophisticated than the picture current science describes. The physics bit is a bit of an anticlimax because it basically describes a virtual reality machine of infinite size composed entirely of tiny generic polymorphic machines that generate reality. I think its what David Bohm was trying to get to with his holomovement The universe and reality are not the same thing, the universe is real, reality is virtual.

 

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your framework doesn't seem to be self consistent.

I don't believe the big bang happened, it stinks, inflation, dark matter and so on are just the modern version of circles within circles, added to make the theory work and not because of some underlying reason. Its a mystery as to why reality is mathemathical but 'why' is a bit philosophical, consequently the question unanswered by physics is how the universe gets reality to conform to mathemathics.

17 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

So, another speculative theory framed (hidden) as a question.

Aren't most theories speculative. I am interested in what scientists would think of a theory of everything that describes a universe with a design (but no designer/creator).

 

Edited by PrimalMinister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

In the same way as a surveyor gets the territory to fit his map.

In his book A universe from nothing Laurance Krauss admits he doesn't why it is mathemathical, and you have not explained it with that sentence. You are welcome to expand.

Edited by PrimalMinister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

What would happen if the theory of everything that physicts are looking for proved the universe had a design (but no designer). How do you think scientists would react?

I think the reaction would be:
-"It is an unscientific concept" or
-"Ok, let's find the flaws"

Isn't it hard to find a rigorous model of a "design" vs "undesigned" universe, "designed with no designer" and a model of "purpose" vs "no purpose"? And with out such models, how can observations be made to test the models and their predictions? If there is no model or observations then I suppose the reaction will be that the concept is unscientific.

 

edit: For a shorter and more effective answer, see @Strange's above

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ghideon
@x-post w strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

It is an unscientific concept

What exactly is the scientific concept of the universe at the moment, that it is a meaningless accident?

 

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

What does “have a design “ mean?

How would you measure or test this?

To have a purpose, to be for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well in my framework its quite simple, it exists for life

What objective, measurable evidence do you have for this?

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

What exactly is the scientific concept of the universe at the moment, that it is a meaningless accident?

We can make measurements, build models and test them. 

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

To have a purpose, to be for life.

How would you make measurements, build models and test this idea?

Also “design” does not mean “suitable for life” in any dictionary I know. Soo you need a better word. 

How about: “is the universe suitable for life?”

Answer: “yes”

Can we close the thread now?

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I don't believe the big bang happened, it stinks, inflation, dark matter and so on are just the modern version of circles within circles, added to make the theory work and not because of some underlying reason.

And yet, despite your dislike, it created a universe suitable for life (or “designed” as you call it). So the Big Bang must have been part of this “design”, like it or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

We can make measurements, build models and test them. 

Actually, you can do more than that. You can look at the problems physics hasn't solved and come up with solutions. Interestingly enough it turns out you can't explain why reality is mathematical with an equation.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

What objective, measurable evidence do you have for this?

About as much as scientists have for dark matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.