[ Post made via Android ]
deschainXIX wrote:...aimless, rambling ideas suggested....
I could say the same about literature pushing the Deity proposal.
Anyway, that video is my current view. (We are the universe perceiving itself). Although it still doesn't answer why there is something and not nothing, it makes the most sense to me, as crazy as it sounds.
If a Deity created it, I would ask the same question to it. Who are you? What are you're theories on reality? How did you, (something), come from nothing?
I doubt they themselves would be able to answer it either!
I'm gullible, DeschainXIX. I actually didn't notice any sarcasm in your reply and my response is exactly as I left it. I thought you were actually, seriously pious. But realize now after reading other replies from you, and of course that one about how sarcasm can be hard to detect in forums because there is no tone, cadence, or body language, that I was wrong. D'oh! (But it goes to show how I actually use very polite language and my own sarcasm too when trying to point out how my 'belief' is more valid than an other's 'belief'.
Based on what I know about our universe, I believe that our universe didn't simply pop into being from nothing, that doesn't entirely make sense for me. Unless, we start getting Platonic, and the universe arose out of a war, a war of concepts that clash and contradict with each other until a form of some sort exists, but needs other forms and matter to support change, and the big bang sorta just happens.
....see what I did there? What is the difference between abstraction, and reality? Is there even such a thing as abstraction or platonism? In our view this is meerly a discussion, it is either right or wrong or some shit.
But from an objective view, the particles don't care about our definition of abstraction. The space is relative. Its almost imaginary, but trapped within its own imagination. Which is why I believe there are non-intersecting, independent universes of every single possible formation that is conceptually possible. Those that aren't conceptually possible and contradict sorta cease to exist, or exist briefly in their own space.
Ok, I don't actually believe anything that I just wrote, it sorta just flowed on as a consequence of what I first started writing and you can sometimes get away with saying this shit in stoner/acid conversations
It's like trying to think about thought itself. It's a paradox. It is so contradictory all the time and loops around like somersaults in your head.
Read back a bit and I shared a link to YouTube that expresses everything and although it doesn't answer the question, i feel sane after watching it.
Jack Reacher wrote:Based on what I know about our universe, I believe that our universe didn't simply pop into being from nothing, that doesn't entirely make sense for me.
Something doesn't have to make sense to you to be real or true. I think you were already aware of this when you said: "But from an objective view, the particles don't care about our definition of abstraction." What we discover about nature is often counterintuitive. Take quantum theory, for example: it works but we don't fully understand it.
I have a commendable book by Lawrence Krauss on this subject. "A Universe from Nothing." Although Krauss doesn't claim with absolute certainty that such was the case in the beginning, he eloquently explains why it is plausible and likely in tandem with scientific observations. The latest elucidations from physics and cosmology appear to point to a universe that did come from nothing and that nothing isn't exactly what we thought it was. Brian Cox also pointed out that in quantum mechanics nothing is something and simple beginnings beget complexity because the potential for expansion is great.
If we observe our universe today, what do we see? Expansion that appears to get faster and faster the further you look. There is this mysterious dark energy that repels everything, overpowering gravity, and it's not even stretching space, it appears that new space is constantly being generated.
I wouldn't be so rash as to rule out the "something-from-nothing" theory just because it appears counterintuitive. The question can also be rephrased like this: How is there something rather than nothing? And a simple answer to that would be: because, in quantum physics, nothing is highly unstable.
And then there is the anthropic principle reply: there is something because if there was nothing we wouldn't be here to ask the question in the first place...
And yeah im not using my lack of understanding of how something can come from nothing as an argument, just showing my position of where my mind is on the matter.
So why is it that in quantum physics "nothing" is highly unstable? In a way it makes sense, I can see how a state of nothing can exist, but only in its own universe so to speak. A state where nothing exists, time is pointless. There is nothing to measure time in, so nothing only exists momentarily. Once you add time, you need things to measure that time, so things sorta fluctuate in and out of existence.
Thats sorta my intuitive understanding.
Also the anthropic principle you posed shows how there is something, but doesn't say anything about whether something came from nothing. For all we know, the amount of energy and matter and whatnot has always been constant... forever.
Also I really like your quote/analogy on the person cleaning their house and how the universe expands and such, its really quite interesting.
(think about that...)
It has something to do with the perspective of existence. I can't put my finger on it now, but I feel it's a good open ended question for us lucid dreamers to ponder
I like to watch others mentally squirm.
I'll let you guys writhe for a while...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 0 guests