Testing Creation

[DrmDoc]

Greetings All,

How about some healthy speculation?  The idea that something—meaning our universe—can arise from nothing is ludicrous, unprovable and, by no stretch of science, math, or imagination will I ever be convinced otherwise.  That is because within a true vacuum—devoid of all energy or energetic interference—nothing can or will be created regardless of how advanced our science may eventually become.

I know this is a rehash of a subject we’ve had in this forum many times before and maybe there’s nothing new in anything I have said or will say.  However, with your continued indulgence, consider what would be required to test the idea that the whole of a universe can spontaneously arise within a true vacuum.

Testing the idea of spontaneous creation within a true vacuum would require an ability to create a space impervious to all known and presently unknown sources of energy, which is impossible.  Such a space cannot be created because the energy or substance required to contain that vacuum is a contaminant and we would not be able to prove that our results were not produced by elements leeching from our containment vessel. We would not be able to prove that our containment had no influence on our results. The only things we would probably be able to prove by such experiments are how creation requires certain energetic infusions and how our creationed results can be produced through experiments devised by knowledgeable beings such as us.

Scaling up, we know that our universe could not and did not arise from a true vacuum and that it required energy to emerge.  This begs the question—from where did that energy come?  From where that that unified energetic pinpoint, which gave rise to the Big Bang, emerge?  Although it is likely that our universe’s energy emerged from a source without a beginning and has always existed, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that our universe is merely the product of an experiment crafted by supremely knowledgeable beings curious about the origins of their universe?  I welcome your thoughts.

[StringJunky]

The pre-Planck Universe was not a space to be filled. Until you put objects in it spatial distance didn't exist probably nor did time.

[DrmDoc]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The pre-Planck Universe was not a space to be filled. Until you put objects in it spatial distance didn't exist probably nor did time.

Yes, I understand there was nothing pre-Planck until the emergence of space and time.  In retrospect, "vacuum" is definitely not the most apt description of the point before planck.  Nevertheless, proving that something can sponteneously burst from nothing is unprovable. We will never be able to experimentally recreate those pre-Planck condition that spontaneously led to the emergence of our universe. The only thing we will ever be able to prove is that our universe arose from "something" perennially preexisting.  Although we may further know the precise nature of that preexisting "something", we will never be able to experimentally prove our universe arose from something that wasn't always there--something referencing the pre-Planck state of our universe.  

I know researchers have experimentally observes particle poping in and out of existence seemingly from nowhere, but what they've observe was always enveloped in preexisting conditions they created that arguably contributed to what they observed. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by DrmDoc

[StringJunky]

From what I undestand, not much, experiments, like LIGO, detect gravitational waves, which may allow scientists to infer things they can't measure directly.

[DrmDoc]

As I reconsider my perspective, I'm now of the opinion that spacetime may have existed pre-Planck.  Although spacetime did not exist for our universe pre-Planck, the possibly that our universe expanded into some preexisting spacetime condition is suggested to me by vacuum fluctuations.  These particles appear experimentally but never under conditions not eveloped by the spacetime of our universe.  Do we truly know what's out there beyond the rim of our universe? 

I should put these old bones to rest now and will pick this up again tomorrow if interest persist.

 

[MJ kihara]

4 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

The idea that something—meaning our universe—can arise from nothing is ludicrous, unprovable and, by no stretch of science, math, or imagination will I ever be convinced otherwise. 

Why are you using the word 'nothing'?

From that word what idea/concept do you want us to have/communicate to us?

[Intoscience]

I think part of the problem with trying to conceptualise this, is the issue of trying to imagine "pre" space-time. Even the idea of before makes no sense because this infers a time pre time, which in itself is paradoxical. 

It could be that space and possibly time had no beginning and that both are infinite. 

Our idea that the observable universe had a beginning at the "big bang"  on relativity and observations gave rise  to the notion of - "pre" space-time or what we commonly call the primordial singularity. Though recent observations made by JWT of large distant galaxies may question the accuracy of the big bang model.  

[Genady]

I think that billions of neurons are just not enough and a brain with trillions or more neurons is required to conceptualize this.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Greetings All,

How about some healthy speculation?  The idea that something—meaning our universe—can arise from nothing is ludicrous, unprovable and, by no stretch of science, math, or imagination will I ever be convinced otherwise.  That is because within a true vacuum—devoid of all energy or energetic interference—nothing can or will be created regardless of how advanced our science may eventually become.

I know this is a rehash of a subject we’ve had in this forum many times before and maybe there’s nothing new in anything I have said or will say.  However, with your continued indulgence, consider what would be required to test the idea that the whole of a universe can spontaneously arise within a true vacuum.

Testing the idea of spontaneous creation within a true vacuum would require an ability to create a space impervious to all known and presently unknown sources of energy, which is impossible.  Such a space cannot be created because the energy or substance required to contain that vacuum is a contaminant and we would not be able to prove that our results were not produced by elements leeching from our containment vessel. We would not be able to prove that our containment had no influence on our results. The only things we would probably be able to prove by such experiments are how creation requires certain energetic infusions and how our creationed results can be produced through experiments devised by knowledgeable beings such as us.

Scaling up, we know that our universe could not and did not arise from a true vacuum and that it required energy to emerge.  This begs the question—from where did that energy come?  From where that that unified energetic pinpoint, which gave rise to the Big Bang, emerge?  Although it is likely that our universe’s energy emerged from a source without a beginning and has always existed, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that our universe is merely the product of an experiment crafted by supremely knowledgeable beings curious about the origins of their universe?  I welcome your thoughts.

It would be nice to know, or would it?

"If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stare's back"

[Genady]

I also think that because of the aforementioned conceptualization issues, mathematics is the only valid language to describe that.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

I also think that because of the aforementioned conceptualization issues, mathematics is the only valid language to describe that.

While it's true that math has come closest to it, it's also true that, as yet, it hasn't got it on the nose; I wonder how math would describe/conceptualise a game of charades?

Sorry, couldn't resist... 🙄

Edited May 4, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

While it's true that math has come closest to it, it's also true that, as yet, it hasn't got it on the nose; I wonder how math would describe/conceptualise a game of charades?

Sorry, couldn't resist... 🙄

You do not need to apologize because I have no idea what you are talking about.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

You do not need to apologize because I have no idea what you are talking about.

While today it's the lingua franca, it's perfectly possible that the person who solves it, would consider our current language to be double Dutch... 

IOW Math doesn't/can't solve everything.

Edited May 4, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

While today it's the lingua franca, it's perfectly possible that the person who solves it, would consider our current language to be double Dutch... 

IOW Math doesn't/can't solve everything.

So?

- I was not talking about solving.

- I was not talking about "everything."

- Math evolves.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

So?

- I was not talking about solving.

- I was not talking about "everything."

- Math evolves.

Hence the apology. 🙄

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Hence the apology. 🙄

Accepted.

[MJ kihara]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Though recent observations made by JWT of large distant galaxies may question the accuracy of the big bang model.  

It doesn't dispute big bang...it may question the model in a manner that perhaps needs readjustments or modifications of the model.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

- Math evolves.

It evolves from where to where?
or it has always been like that only that our understanding of it evolves.

What about from pure reasoning it might be that we are mathematical objects such that by reasoning we are doing math without even being aware of it.

 

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

It evolves from where to where?

From past to future.

 

16 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

our understanding of it evolves

Whose?

 

17 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

What about from pure reasoning it might be that we are mathematical objects such that by reasoning we are doing math without even being aware of it.

What about it? I am not familiar with this terminology.

[MJ kihara]

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

From past to future.

I mean math...did it have a past? does it have a future? My understanding is that math is math..only that it can be correct or wrong.

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

Whose?

Humans, development in mathematics have been gradual as new discoveries are made...I think the same will continue into the future.

[Genady]

The questions,

1 minute ago, MJ kihara said:

math...did it have a past? does it have a future?

have been answered:

 

1 minute ago, MJ kihara said:

development in mathematics have been gradual as new discoveries are made...I think the same will continue into the future.

 

[MJ kihara]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

The questions,

have been answered:

🤔 mmmm..I mean math is always there only that human keep discovering aspects of it...like the π, it was always there as we were elvoving to become the modern human who can discover and comprehend it.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stare's back"

Which is better staring or probing?
it might be containing alot of information that our brain is unable to handle and process all of it.

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

🤔 mmmm..I mean math is always there only that human keep discovering aspects of it...like the π, it was always there as we were elvoving to become the modern human who can discover and comprehend it.

Isn't it trivial?

[MJ kihara]

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

Isn't it trivial?

Am not getting it...any achievement in mathematics is not trivial.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, MJ kihara said:

Am not getting it...any achievement in mathematics is not trivial.

Achievements in mathematics are not trivial.

This statement:

24 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

the π, it was always there as we were elvoving to become the modern human who can discover and comprehend it

is trivial.

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

is trivial.

It's complicated,how do someone think about creation?  At this rate everything is questionable even existence itself including reality like for instance we are communicating in this forum.