Jump to content

Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.


Enric
 Share

Recommended Posts

This Universe is Logic. We can expect something different like this? I think yes. I think we change the subsequent logic every moment. One can think the Universe could be explained in a maths formula, but we don't know everything what this Universe includes. And above all, the infinite things, enemies of maths. For exemple, comes first to my mind the infinite decimals. The formula for Universe can't be exact. Maybe changes every moment for some unknown reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joatmon,

 

Interesting, but earlier in the thread I thought we were working on the definition of universe, as including everything that is. If, a couple hundred thousand years after the big bang, we bumped into something, then that something, has effected our reality for 13.8 billion years, and is thus already a part of this universe. We can't for instance say our great grand father, was a person, other than us. If we are thinking of us, as the human race.

 

Regards, TAR

so a parallel universe, might not be on the map you get at the gas station, but if it somehow is pertinent to us, it already is, and will not "just" become so, when we put it on the map

 

North America was part of the universe, before it appeared on European Globes.

Mt. St. Helen could have erupted and put up an ash cloud that drifted over Europe and affected its weather, while everybody thought the world was flat, and going too far West, would drop you off the edge of the Earth.

 

If "other" universes, ever did, or ever will effect us in any way, then they are part of this one, and therefore not others.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy were not part of the Universe, according to the wisest and most perceptive scientists 200 years ago. Are we living in a "different" universe than we lived in prior the discovery?

If however, the evidence of the link suggests that something other than all time/matter/space/energy that there is, bumped into all time/matter/space/energy when it was young, then the big bang is falsified, as being the event with the characteristic of being a point, at which a singular thing, became the universe.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(About the formula of the Universe, we would must use almost infinite number of infinite decimals. -and perphaps something else- What sort of horror of mathematical formula and finally logic would result? Since this, I think that we move in each moment in a range of parameters, but we change the subsequent logic and the subsequent range of parameters in the future.). Maybe this has no importance, but it's also curious.


Things have their logic. Live matters can change their subsequent range of logic. I think the maths allow this. It's, for me, also another curious thing. It seems made with intention, like the rest of curiousities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

enrich,

 

But made with intention, requires an intender. And then the question of who or what, intentionally made the intender. If an infinite god is logical, then also one can just drop the intention of being God, and require there only be the conditions and situation, always, in which something will emerge.

 

But this would negate the premise that the universe was created at all. It is just a thing that constantly emerges from whatever conditions existed, just before the current conditions emerged.

 

And alone is a precondition, and within the definition of universe.

 

If we are to imagine a greater cosmos, in which there are other universes, then still we would have the question, of whether the cosmos was created alone, unless we posited that there is just one cosmos, or just one "existence", that we are of and in.

 

So yes, I would say the universe is created alone. This is the one that matters to us. The only one. And we can never see the beginning of existence, and will never see the end. Insulated from both, by immense time and space, in both the scales larger than our human scales, and smaller. And nowhere is there that is not within the cosmos, and nobody else is there or here, that comes from somewhere else.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only yes or not. And which answer is more absurd?"

 

The answer can only be absurd. Very absurd. In case of Yes and in case of Not. That's the point for me. I don't know anything more.

 

At least, at the end, I think that this statement has a practical application: I'll never going to do serious nonsenses. In a 50%, the Universe is not created alone. And this is a real 50%. Not a speculation. In case of doubt, ask yourselves the question: More absurd Yes or Not?

 

If only works for this, works fine.

 

Something useful.

Edited by Enric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll would understand, more or less, till certain degree perhaps, the origin of the Universe. Till now, we had understand the great part of that we know, and anticipate somethings that still we don't know with security, and our knowledge are growing and increasing. We only need time -a lot of time, maybe-. And that question, alone or not alone, could remains, more or less. Perhaps. Who knows. Let's try. We are in the good way. For this reason, I don't know if to believe or not to believe in something unknown. It's a sure 50%.

Edited by Enric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Is not an examination of the question itself the first step towards responding to it?

 

  • The thread question is unscientific....seems to surreptitiously presume that the universe must have been created by...whatever. One might as well ask why a creator would only make one universe (as if one would serve to cure his/her/its loneliness)!
  • The question is semantically vague...does not define the use of the term "universe," inevitably leading to confusion about the distinction between a physical and a putative metaphysical "uni-verse," a term which, in and of itself implies that it is all alone or at one by definition.
  • The question is quasi-scientific, e.g., does not satisfy requirements such as 'measurability', verifiation, or falsification.
  • The question is not very philosophical...parades religious speculation (and a specific religious one at that) as nonreligious philosophy.
  • The question ignores current developments...e.g., the alleged mathematical underpinning for the concept of a multiverse, or the non-time speculations of Hawking re the singularity, or recent speculation about the development of the universe "ex nihilo" (to use what might be referred to as effete-archaic terminology) by virtue of some sort of perturbation of a pre-space/time field, perhaps in relation to indeterminacy effects...Higgs Boson. I stress the scientific approach because I think that it has become a logical development of the Enlightenment period that science (e.g., quantum theory) seems to provide the most productive venue for tackling even the most vague ontological questions...so that modern philosophy, I would suggest, should bow down and either take the role of speculative science (e.g., as a means to facilitating science through the use of lateral/critical thinking, or else the role of idle speculation about scientific information....perhaps a way of 'shooting the breeze' (aka a pastime) or else to speculate about the socio-ethical ramifications of scientific developments.

No one says that such questions need be entirely empirical, but I don't think that, apart from armchair philosophizing, there is much point in hopping on a merry-go-round which is not much more than an invitation for all and sundry to expound their pet philosophies on questions of cosmology and ontology, with no end in sight.....a road to nowhere.

 

 

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

Discussions like these are scientific and philosophical. Evidence is important, and speculation about multiverses is just as unscientific as any other grasp of "all reality" that we imagine we can generate within our limited minds, or on a sheet of paper, or within a formula or computer model.

 

The fact remains that the universe is more long lived than any of us singularly and larger than any of us can even make an analogy for.

 

Our investigations of the universe are all done from this little rock, and have mostly been done in the last 4000 years. A blip of time in a vast history of universal events, viewed from a single stance on and around the planet Earth.

 

We are not even aware yet, of a super Nova that happened 20 thousand years ago on the other side of our galaxy's core. Because light is slow, getting around such a vast place as ours.

 

To think you can contain the whole thing, in one mind, or the minds and libraries of the 100 billion humans that have been alive on this Earth, is somewhat presumptuous.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one says that such questions need be entirely empirical, but I don't think that, apart from armchair philosophizing, there is much point in hopping on a merry-go-round which is not much more than an invitation for all and sundry to expound their pet philosophies on questions of cosmology and ontology, with no end in sight.....a road to nowhere

 

Pretty much standard for "philosophy" on forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange

 

I certainly don't mean to discourage the sort of "idle speculation" typical of philosophical discussions, though I have certainly seen threads go on for ages that have only led to confusions and resentment because people were going off at cross purposes on their own tangents.

 

Tar

I hope you don't think that I am suggesting that science has or could have all the answers about the universe. However, I was under the assumption (given that the URL of this forum contains the words "science forums") that the emphasis was on reason. I don't think that we can assume that all explanations are equally reasonable or scientific (as if all animals in the barnyard are created equal), as you seem to suggest. It seems to me that there is more reasonable evidence that the universe is several billion years old than there is for it being a few thousand...but again, some may argue that this is just my opinion. Similarly, I think that the evidence provided in recent years for the existence of a multiverse has more credibility, in a scientific sense, than, say, the idea that everything is resting on some giant turtle's back (and other myth-based explanations for the origin/state of the universe). Here are a few examples:

 

"there should be other universes where the [fundamental] laws [of physics] are in different phases from our own—which would affect seemingly fundamental values that we observe here in our universe, like the cosmological constant. “In that situation you’ll have a patchwork of regions, some in this phase, some in others,” says Matthew Kleban, a theoretical physicist at New York University. http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/july-2015/is-this-the-only-universe

 

"One reason that more physicists are taking the idea of the multiverse seriously is that certain such models could help resolve a significant challenge in string theory." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141110-multiverse-collisions-may-dot-the-sky/

 

"The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing." http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

 

"As pointed out by the Institute press release, this research isn't setting out to prove whether or not the multiverse exists, it's merely identifying possible observational cues that we could look out for. And this pulls extra-universal studies into a scientific endeavor rather than leaving it in a metaphysical funk." from "Scientists model the universe to find proof the multiverse."

 

http://mashable.com/2014/07/22/multiverse-discovery-method/#VDAejVuZdkqt

 

In any case, I certainly have not suggested that humans do or will ever know everything about this universe....such a statement would be easy to dismiss, as you did in your last post. No, I am not claiming that at all. Yes, we are only a blip in the history of the known universe, and yes, we don't and can't know everything; and yes, no one has witnessed the Big Bang with their eyes, or the formation of our planet....but what does that prove? Are you implying that scientific theories about the Big Bang and the unfolding of our universe are no better than any other myth simply because we don't have direct empirical evidence...but only mathematical models and logical theories? If that is your claim, then we should perhaps just ignore any scientific theories or explanations or theories that we can't prove with our own eyes (which after all, have only been around for a speck of time in the overall scheme of things), especially if they are about really, really big spaces and really, really, long periods of time.


Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

No, I think scientific investigation and the sharing of our findings about reality with each other is central to both our survival and our happiness.

 

My complaint is that a "superior" viewpoint of our condition, including the guess that there should be other areas of space that work with different physical laws is interesting and speculative and could be the case, but we already have stuff going on very locally, like on the other side of our galaxy, that we can not see because of the dust and that we cannot see for 50 thousand years because of the distance. We are already well insulated by time and space from these events, and they are events already solidly happening in "our" universe. The need for other universes to be the case, to give us a reality that we are even more insulated from, that has no bearing on anything that is liable to happen to us or any other human...ever, is rather pointless.

 

You discounted the ramblings of us mere humans as defining a road to nowhere. As if you have a grasp of a better plan.

 

I don't mind scientific investigations. We live based on the results of such. What I mind is the pretense that knowing an equation gives you a better grasp of what is happening 75000 lys from here, than the grasp of those events that anybody else on the planet has. There simply are no such equ5ations. Light takes 75 thousand years to get here from events, happening right now, 75 thousand lys away. You can not see it. I can not see it. Makes no difference if you have a more powerful telescope than I do, or a better computer model of how that area of space should have developed in the last 75 thousand years. Neither of us will ever be able to verify our guesses within the next 100 years.

 

The universe is already way beyond our grasp. Why is it "better" to have even a weaker hold on what really is, than we already have.

 

If your multiverse intersects with this one in a way that matters or will ever matter or that ever did matter to this one...then its a part of this one. If not, then its just a mental game you play and has no more scientific interest than the length of a unicorn's horn would have.

 

Regards TAR

if you would by chance discover how to change a quark's phase 12.5 degrees and cause a chain reaction that would change all connected matter to something else in an instant...destroying the Earth...I would suggest keeping it to yourself and not experimenting thusly

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that non-scientific discussions are roads to nowhere...My point rather was that it is good to clarify one's intention when posting a discussion in order to prevent posters from "arguing" at cross purposes, since they have a different interpretation of the question. For example, in the site "researchgate" individuals who post a new topic often state their topic question succinctly and then tack on a paragraph that gives a little background to the question and the reason that the person is posting the question. This helps respondents to be "on the same page."

 

I am no fanatic about the scientific viewpoint. Depending one one's situation and purpose, it is often best to use a variety of methods/methodologies when responding to a question or problem, e.g., scientific, phenomenological, casual descriptive, philosophically speculative, etc., etc. My quotes, however, were given to contest your comment that mathematical-physics-based speculation about a multiverse or the universe is no more scientific (and perhaps valid, or edifying) than any other attempt to grasp 'all reality'. Though not always, a scientific approach certainly has, imho, the edge in a number of areas when it comes to discussing reality. A meterologists explanation about the existence of wind has more credibility, in my book, than a 5-year-old's explanation that the trees occasionally get in a lively mood and shake their branches and leaves, as Piaget recorded a child as expounding. It's certainly not true that there is no scientific basis for speculation about a multiverse. In any case, scientists are not generally, I suggest, the arrogant academic isolationists that some characterize them as being. Einstein, as one example in thousands, freely drew inspiration from the philosophers Hume and Kant.

 

I take your point as to the multiverse being so empirically inaccessible, at least to the lay person, that it seems laughable (or whatever) to spend much time thinking about it....but so was the theory of relativity. But I don't agree that the theory can't have an impact on the thinking of human beings. It is a cliche that scientific discoveries have increasingly removed humans, in the minds of many, from their place as the pinnacle and center of the universe to a lesser place. Thus, astrologers pointed out, to the chagrin of the Church, that the earth was not the center of our planetary system (thought at one point to be the entire universe), and evolutionists suggested that humans were not made in the blink of an eye as a distinct group of beings superior superior and distinct from animals, and Freud (and in our own time people such as David Buss, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Pinker) suggest that people, like other animals, do indeed share the sort of instincts that other animals have, etc. Similarly, the discovery of other beings on other planets, with an intelligence equal or superior to those of earthlings would be be a blow to those who consider humans to be the one and only chosen group of the Creator of the universe. Even the prospect of there being other universes, each with their own Big Bang perhaps, and each or some with planets capable of sustaining life, and some that actually have life, and some that might have intelligent beings, is a daunting prospect to many. So yes, like many scientific discoveries, there are social ramifications to concepts, such as the existence of a multiverse, that scientists put forth.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

I also draw some ideas concerning what it is we talk about, from Kant. He was a very smart and thoughtful guy.

f

I already know Moses' god is a figurative thing and not an actual person in an empirical sense.

 

I need not be further humbled to know this fact.

 

What ever we have is a plus. We have grabbed life and form and structure from a universe otherwise headed toward entropy.

That is evidence enough to claim a special place in the universe. A victory...just to live.

 

I need not be further humbled to grasp the reality of existence. Its big, its long lived. We are in it, and of it.

 

Equally true of a dolt and a genius, a man and a bird.

 

Is the universe created alone, yes or not?

 

A multiverse is still something that would have to exist within the cosmos. Within the set of universes you are considering. It makes us no bigger or smaller than we were before the consideration.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar...

 

I have no idea what you mean about being humbled by the idea that Moses was a figurative character or whatever? I did not mention Moses.

 

I do disagree that the thoughts that physicists have about the possibility of a multiverse are no more scientific than any other theory or speculation, as per my earlier quotes. Indeed, the fact that we are minute creatures in the universe in terms of spatial dimensions and time periods in no way diminishes the credibility and magnitude of what humans have achieved with their tiny brains.... Sure, there is much of the universe that we can't even directly experience because light has not reached us yet, but that is not a huge issue. Einstein arrived at his correct predictions, ones that predicted black holes and, in a way, the Big Bang, without recourse to much data per se, in the quiet of his bedroom using pencil and paper. In short, scientists predict and explain using the process of dynamic extrapolation. Indeed, one of Einstein's main tenets is that the laws of the universe apply everywhere. Penrose says on page 686 of the "Road to Reality" that all physicists since Galileo agree about this. For example, what was true in the past will be true in the future in the sense that it can be largely predicted from current developments: "theories say 'if the world was like such-and-such at one time then it will be like so-and-so in the future.'" Similarly, we don't see the Big Bang happening, but we extrapolate and deduce from information such as the uniform Microwave Background.

 

I don't follow the comment that a multiverse would have to exist within the cosmos. It seems to me that our universe would exist as one of many universes within a huge field that includes all of them....we call this field and the universes it contains, the multiverse. Calling it the cosmos, I think, just adds semantic confusion.

 

I agree that the the idea of the existence of other universes makes us no bigger or smaller than we were before, as you say. However, what I stated was that in many people's mind the concept that other universes might exist make us seem smaller in some people's minds, just as, in many people's mind, the existence of Beings as intelligent or more intelligent than us, or even life on other planets, would seem to make us smaller. However, such a discussion would take us into the realm of religion, as many religious people don't think God created any life forms other than humans (such as Adam and Eve.)

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

Well OK.

 

But if the laws of physics apply everywhere...except in those other portions of space where the cosmological constant is different, and the phase of reality is other than what is extant in "this" universe, as would be required by the multiverse scenario, then the laws of physics do not apply everywhere...just in those areas of space where they do.

 

A circular argument. The universe, as suggested in this thread, is the place that holds everything there is. If there is something else, another area of space that does not fall into the "same everywhere" definition of our universe, then the question would be, are those other areas of space to be considered members of the set of all that is, or not.

 

If the universe is created alone, then there is only one. If there are other universes, then it would be good to know two things. What separates the one from the next. And who or what can experience them both, or even who or what can experience them all.

 

Here is where I mention the size of our place, to stress the insulation of our experience, from the actuality of distant events. Our imaginations can interpolate, but our senses can not verify or interact with things more than a few lys away.

 

And I will hold out on the consideration that the multiverse is scientifically required. I think it depends entirely on what your definition of "this" universe, is. If the definition of any "other" universe you can come up with, includes any relationship to, or any comparison to this one, then I would argue, it is another aspect of this one.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar,

Einstein's point was that the laws hold everywhere within our universe. Black holes, of course, provide something of an exception, but the phenomena can be predicted from other laws, which is what Einstein did.

 

It is a good point that other universe's may have a different "constant." The idea of such a constant seems to be coming back into vogue to explain such things as the inflation rate of the universe and the role of dark matter. Personally I don't buy the idea that the reason our universe is so well tuned for creating life (the anthropic principle) is that the laws and constants and other things such as the rate of initial inflation is hugely different for each universe, and we just got lucky, because there are umpteen others that have a different constant and can't support life. According to this line of reasoning, there is life in this universe because, like Goldilocks's porridge, our universe is just right and many if not most of the others are duds, e.g., too hot or too cold.....much like earth has good enough well-tuned conditions that sustain life. while the other planets don't, (except perhaps for Mars which might have conditions, perhaps to sustain primitive forms of life). But this is only one theory among many about what a multiverse might be like.

 

According to the naturalness theory (proposed by Einstein), laws can explain everything, and our universe developed naturally from these laws. The idea is that the Higgs-Boson has conditions that 'cause' the universe to develop in a very fine-tuned manner, perhaps one that is fine-tuned enough to always create life. The naturalness theory suggests that it is inevitable that these laws imply the existence of the Higgs-Boson. However, it seems that this theory is not widely accepted either, at least until the LHC finds other particles that are supposed to exist along with the Higgs-Boson. If they can't be found, we are back to the idea of the mulitverse, and it being just a matter of chance before constants are right for a finely enough universe to arise that can support life.

 

Perhaps, if the naturalness theory and the Higgs-Boson are found to be reasonable, we might conjecture that every universe could start in the same way as ours. In this scenario, the elements would be the same in any universe, starting with Hydrogen and building up in a logical and inevitable manner. More than one famous scientist and philosopher has suggested that even if there were a God who created the universe, he/she would have no choice except to follow the laws of quantum physics. If we apply the naturalness theory, I don't see why we can't speculate that many universes would "pop" out of the background "blanket" from which universes appear, and that many of these universes would be fined-tuned enough to sustain life forms.

In any case, the laws seem to have seem inevitable or ineluctable. It is similar to the idea that even God, if he/she exists, needed to take billions of years to help create or oversee the development of a planet such as ours ,and then millions of years to oversee the evolution of life forms before something resembling modern humans even walk the planet. That is, even God had to do things in accordance with natural laws, he/she couldn't just blink an eye and create animals, and people, and people in a couple of seconds or 24 hours.

 

I don't know that any scientist has stated that the existence of a multiverse is unquestionably something that is required by the laws of physics...At this point, many scientists are just saying that it seems as if it is reasonable to think that other universes exist, just like people said that it was reasonable to think that the earth might not be the center of the solar system, or that humans and apes had a common ancestor, or that black holes must exist, or that the universe started with a tremendous explosion. All these things were once outside of our ability to provide much (empirical) sensory evidence for, but now these things are considered facts. Indeed, no one can actually "see" or "hear" a Black Hole, as light, etc. cannot escape it. We just know they're there.

 

It doesn't matter that our senses can only deal with things in our immediate surroundings or a few light years away (though some stars are millions of light years away and we still interact, or at least appreciate and are affected by them). Much of what science knows and uses to understand and predict things in the universe are beyond what our immediate senses can detect, e.g., the age of the earth.

 

The circular argument to which you refer is really just a semantic one. When it comes to such a discussion, physicists aren't caught up in this dead end criticism of the idea of a multiverse. Presumably, each universe would have its own big bang. (We don't know, according to present mainstream theory, just how big the universe will get at its present rate of expansion). That means that each universe would have its own space and time dimensions. Perhaps some might be said to be larger or older than others.

 

According to Hawking, there is nothing that resembles space/time, as we know it, that existed before the Big Bang. According to this line of reasoning, I think, there would be no space between universes as space/time only exists within each universe. As I understand it, a reasonable metaphor for a multiverse would be a blanket that is filled with dots of different sizes here and there, each representing a separate universe. One theory is that these dots sometimes collide...but that is just conjecture. So one might ask what separates the universes except for space. Well, if other universes exist, then the answer might be some sort of "field" that we don't understand yet, and no doubt, the answer would be counter-intuitive, as many things in physics are today. But there is no reason to assume that one universe would gobble up the other to create one super-huge universe. So, I don't agree with you that other universes would have to be an "aspect of this one," as you put it. Each would most likely, as I understand what scientists are saying, have its own space/time dimensions which would not overlap or impinge on others.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

Well OK, but is there only one "blanket" from which universes pop? That is, is the blanket created alone, or not?

 

Set theory wise, is there a set which contains all universes? And if so can that master set, which includes all universes that ever were and all universes ever possible past present future here there outside or inside, bigger or smaller...even ones not definable in terms of space and time...be considered having been created alone?

 

Regards, TAR

Is there just one reality, outside of which there is only non-existence?

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar

Good questions. By the way, I had to edit part of my last post, which is still rather rambling, in order to clarify my point that

 

1) our universe (and perhaps other universes) developed in accordance with basic natural laws that could not be any other way, and that might be so very fine-tuned (for some obscure reason) that the universe is always favorable to creating life forms, as reflected by the pristine nature of the original conditions at the Big Bang, e.g., the Higgs Boson

 

OR

 

2) Our universe developed rather haphazardly as one of many universes, some of which have constants that will be favorable to sustaining life and some that won't.

 

Either way, arguably, there could be other universes. It's just that the latter view seems more wasteful....it's similar, I think, to the idea that there are a lot of other planets and solar-systems that don't quite have the right conditions for sustaining life , so they just drift along, as if their existence is rather pointless, except to just be reminders of God's or the universe's mistakes....mistakes that had to be made before God or the universe got it right....and made humans...the "quintessence of dust" as Hamlet described us as he pondered whether it were better 'to be or not to be'.

 

If there is no space/time outside of any given universe, then the concept of a blanket that serves as a backdrop to the universes is just a metaphor that reminds us that the universes are separate and do not overlap...Therefore, the question as to whether or not there are other blankets does not arise....universes just pop out of nothing (aka ex nihilo) as if Being arises out of Nothingness in accordance with some fundamental law of opposites (aka yin-yang principle). If there is "Nothingness," then "Being" must arise to complement it. Certainly it is difficult to imagine complete Nothingness....with no universes, no space, no time.....literally nothing.

 

What could be more pristine than the "Nothingness" from which a universe pops? From a secular point of view, such a pristine squeezing, if you like, of Being (aka 'a universe') out of Nothingness (aka, the metaphorical blanket), it seems to me (albeit a layperson) implies that the laws by which a universe develops are the same every time a new universe pops into existence (rather explosively at that!). Each universe would (pretty much) start off the same way...this idea supports version #1 above. In any case, it would seem likely that the laws would be the same or with little variation from one universe to the next....same dice...just tossed each time in a slightly different manner. According to version #1, there is always a winner (i.e., life eventually exists in each universe). According to version #2, the dice have to be thrown before we have a universe that can support life.

 

Not to be anti-religious, but a religious approach comes up with entirely different scenarios.....typically, there is one (or more) Creator(s) who has a specific purpose for making a universe, so the chances here, it seem logical, are that he/she will only make one, in order to fulfill the one purpose he/she has in mind. In the religious approach there doesn't seem to be much need to make a bunch of other planets, much less other solar systems, galaxies, or universes. Hence, Western religion originally thought there was only one place (planet earth), but then some observed that there were other planets, so the religion compromised and said, 'Ok, well, our planet must be the center of these other planets.' But of course, this idea was discredited, and eventually other solar systems and then galaxies were discovered....with some scientists now saying 'we are even less alone, because there may be other universes.'

 

Ultimately, of course, we have, as you point out, virtually no way of detecting other universes with our senses, perhaps by definition, since another universe would be outside our space/time dimensions. But hey, we can't see the Big Bang, but we can deduce it from things such as the background microwave radiation still bouncing around, as if the original firecracker is still ringing in our ears.

 

But I think the concept that there are other solar systems, and other galaxies and perhaps even other universes, has philosophical/religious significance. If it can be shown that the anthropic principal is valid and ineluctable, so that we can say with conviction that it is inevitable the universe (or 'a universe') will eventually (though it may take billions of years) come into existence that can give rise to and sustain life forms, then we have the basis for some sort of secular religion, so to speak. If it can be shown that it is inevitable that one (or more) universes will create, not only life forms, but intelligent beings (such as humans), then this basis is even more secure. Finally, if it can be shown that the various levels of consciousness that seem to develop parallel to the development of physical life forms all live on after the demise of their particular, physical life forms (e.g., via reincarnation), well then, we really do have some sort of "natural religion," one that is not hugely different from a sort of Buddhistic type of neo-Deism, except that there is no "Creator" per se (who created the universe and just walked away because it, like a clock he had wound, could run on its own). The notion of a Creator, in this view, becomes 'de trop'....Nature just gives birth to existence, and life forms, and consciousness on its own...In this view, Nature is its own midwife.

 

This is just philosophical musing, of course, and I am not advocating anything. I just don't agree that it doesn't matter (to our culture) whether other universes exist or not. I think that the idea of their being other universes, when contrasted with present religious notions, seems to suggest, I think, that Nature is self-sufficient unto itself...but yet, is capable of producing the apparent miracle of life. What ethical ramifications such a world view might imply is a whole different discussion.


Keep in mind that the mainstream view of modern physics is that the universe metaphorically curves back on itself. A simplistic description is that if one hit a baseball hard enough in one direction and it went in a straight line it would eventually come back and hit one on the back of the head. The point is that the universe can start off as something smaller than a pinhead, and expand to its present state....but at all times there is something (or rather Nothing) surrounding it. I guess it seems that another universe would have to expand into ours, but the thought of two universes (each the size of a dot, then a golf ball, then a basketball, etc.) , not overlapping because they each have their own space/time, is no more counter-intuitive than a universe having a size but no edges.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

I am thinking reality is a big place. Scale, both time and space-wise allows for focal points to exist, way different than yours or mine.

 

In the one sense, basing anything in terms of us, is almost certain to be shortsighted, because we are limited to only one perspective.

 

On the other hand, we are experiencing the place exactly as it is presenting itself to us, are in and of it, and can see all the way to the moments of the first scattering.

 

We are actually in a pretty good spot to witness the whole thing, while being rather insulated, by scale, and the speed of light, from the most of the place.

 

However, I am thinking, for all intents and purposes, one reality is quite sufficient. One universe. Our universe is more than we will ever need. Or ever know.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I thought someone might be interested in the philosophical aspects of this issue. You seem to be saying that, as far as you're concerned, it doesn't matter whether there are other universes, which

makes me wonder why you bothered to respond to this particular question in the first place. Also, one wonders whether you care about things closer to home, e.g., whether their are intelligent beings on other planets in

the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

All I am saying is that if another universe matters to us, then it is part of this one, not a separate consideration.

 

And if it does not matter to us, then its fine that it exists, but it has no bearing on our existence, nor our mentality. Nothing we can witness nor control nor consider part of our history or future. Not meaningful.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

For instance, in one of the men in black movies, a cat wore a universe on her collar. Was that another universe, or a subcomponent of this one?

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to insist that another universe can't exist, because, given the definition of the word "universe" as something all inclusive, our universe must include any other universe that might be found. But I addressed this line of reasoning earlier by noting that it is just an example of metaphysical semantics gone awry. When discussing the possibility of another universe or universes (e.g., multiverse scenario), one needs, imho,to refer to what actual knowledge our civilization has of the situation, as do physicists, based on decades of collecting empirical evidence and using scientific reasoning.
People such as A.J. Ayer and Popper have likened such abstract, metaphysical reasoning as your claim that our universe would include all possible universes to the sort of reasoning that was done in the Middle Ages. People would ask metaphysical questions such as "what would happen if an immovable tree was struck by an unstoppable ball," or ask religious questions such as "Can God know whether a person will decide be saved or not because he is omniscient and can therefore see everything in the future, even though the person has free will to choose to be saved or not." Like your comment that there can only be one universe, these are the sorts of questions and statements that seem to make sense when on paper, but are seen to be meaningless when they are actually applied to reality.
To just say in passing, then, as if sitting on a bar stool on a rainy afternoon (without alluding to any of the advances in knowledge about this subject made over the last 100 years) that "another universe just can't possibly exist because it would become part of ours" is just putting a string of words together that has no basis in terms of any sort of modern research.
So I don't think that either of us has demonstrated to any reasonable degree that different universes could exist or that they could not. And I really wasn't trying to say that anyone could or ever will be able to prove that they exist, much less show you a picture of one. However, I did point out that a number of very competent physicists today think that it is quite possible that there are one or more other universes, and that they may be able to further develop mathematical arguments to support such a belief, much like the mathematical evidence that had been collected to suggest that Black Holes existed, even before astronomers started to identify them in the sky without being able to actually see them (since no light escapes them). Of course, I understand your point that we can't, unlike Black Holes, ever be able to point and say, there lies another universe in the direction in which I am pointing.

 

I do agree with you that the existence of another world makes no difference to me, or you, or anyone else, in terms of what I have for breakfast, or whether I go college, or what kind of car I buy. But I was not trying to discuss how the existence of a world might affect anyone personally when it comes to this and other ordinary, day to day situations. Rather, my point was that evidence for the existence of another universe, or even the existence of life on other planets in our own universe, has important cultural, philosophical, and, above all, religious ramifications about the origin of life and about such questions as to whether the Bible (and many other religious texts) is accurate in suggesting that humans are the only living, significantly intelligent creatures in the universe, just as the Copernican revolution or the theory of evolution has had important ramifications. After all, the very question of this discussion implies, rather religiously, that our universe was created, presumably by some one.

 

Would you agree with my main point that the discovery of another universe would affect people's thinking......or wait!!.......... let me ask a related but more straightforward question about whether or not we are alone:

 

If we humans found out that there were intelligent living creatures on another planet in a nearby galaxy as intelligent as ourselves, do you think that such a discovery would have a significant impact on many peoples religious beliefs?....Discuss.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

I think there could be other lifeforms, other places in our galaxy, the same way that there could be, and are sulfur based lifeforms by the deep ocean vents.

 

Not dependent on us, not directly connected to us in the evolutionary chain.

 

Perhaps DNA and RNA and mitochondria can exist other places in the solar system and give rise to organisms that "fit" the environment of the planet on which they evolve. Could easily look completely different than life here. As there is a great variety of life forms here, given one environment, with a certain range of pressure and temperature and elemental mix and so forth, certain chains of evolution would occur that would not have to follow our pattern...or be in a particular stage.

 

The idea of stage is important too in this discussion of life elsewhere. For instance, lets say it takes a billion years to develop life that senses and responds to its environment from random complex chemical chains. Now imagine a place, in other galaxy, another world capable of such evolution, but located in another galaxy 1 billion lys from here. Right now, their spot is 13.8 billion years old, and has had time for a couple generations of stars and the production of heavier elements. But should we get a message from these creatures, announcing their existence, they will have sent the message a billion years before we got it. If we got it yesterday, their spot was only 12.8 billion years old when they sent it, and then we would know that such message sending life could have developed a billion years before we did, but that this particular group is either now extinct, having to have survived 1 billion years in the same condition, to still be extant, or that message sending group has evolved for 1 billion years, and is now some other type of creature, having lost some functions and apparatus, and gained others...including the possibility of various self created technologies.

 

So what religious considerations would be addressed with the reception of the message from these folks. We can not do anything for them, and they cannot do anything for us. They no longer exist, in our universe, as they did when they sent the message. However some other message receiving creatures a billion lys in the opposite direction will receive their message in the year 14.8 billion BB and they will have been dead for 2 billion years.

 

So my point is that "are we alone" is a sticky question. If you are the last man on Earth, and you find a letter in a bottle...are you not still alone?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.