The Universe is not an accident

[Argonavis]

I think the ID thread was seriously OT and should have been moved some time ago, but it did generate a bit of discussion.

Where ID is coming from is to see the creation and evolution as too preposterious to be an accident, so it must have been designed. Both are wrong. Th univese is not an accident. It evoluted following known physical laws without any outside intervention, or at least all the evidence points this way.

The organic chemistry in the interstellar medium, the miller-urey experiment that created amino acids from some fairly basic chemistry would all indicate that the chemistry of life can self assemble and replicate. There is now a substantial body of science on this. Precisely how is still a problem, but it needs a scientific approach of falsifiable hypothesis and experimentation to find this out. Belief will not help.

The diversity of life and the winnowing impact of natural selection directs evolution in certain directions. Again, it is not an accident. Convergent evolution of different species has been proved, and there is documentation of how some species have changed and evolved both during historical times and through the fossil record. That is why creationists spend so much time and money on trying to "disprove" the fossil record. Viruses, with thier short generations, evolve in response to natural selection. Bird Flu, anyone?

The mechanisms of evolution have been observed. It is a very small step to assume that this accounts for our own origins.

[stinky]

I was seriously enjoying the other thread until censorship prevailed again. It was great to hear some different, even if - heated, points of view. (They did this to Galileo too - but were later big enough to apologise).

I think the point you have raised a classic! Bird Flu - evolution at work. As I understand evolution ONLY operates by mutation, the mutations that add an element of survivability carry on. Need, tidy and logical. You could hardly describe Philosophers as an accident! I agree whole heartedly that this occurred through reasonably well understood scientific principles.

There are some fundemantals in science and we are only just starting to understand why they have come about. These times are just to exiting to bury ones head. We know a lot and I'm sure there is even more to know - Luckily we as a species have evolved curiousity!!!

[Rodstar]

You have a lot more faith than I do. I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the universe itself came from if there is no Creator.

[Orion]

Yep...:prey:

[Nic]

Amen.

[stinky]

There may well be, or not. As yet there is no 'test' to find out. It however does not change the validity of sciences explanation of the universe post singularity.

[iceman]

This thread was closed pending moderation.

The moderators have discussed it, and we've decided to re-open the thread. Please ensure discussion is kept on topic, and ensure your replies contain no personal attacks or insults.

[Argonavis]

Well, where did the Creator come from? Is the creator material, or supernatural?

It appears to me that you either accept that the hydrogen, helium and lithium was created in the Big Bang, other elements higher on the periodic table were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars and seeded into space from supernova explosions, and organic chemistry (and the possibility of life) is widespread throughout the cosmos, OR you propose a supernatural explanation for the Universe.

The first explanation accords with known observations and is testable by being falsifiable (ie can be shown to be incorrect through observational evidence and/or experimentation), the second requires a lot of belief that appears contrary to the observational evidence.

Accepting that the Universe arose from a known physical process does not preclude the existence of a God, who would necessarily inhabit a spiritual realm separate from the physical Universe that we inhabit. However this is all speculation. I can speculate that humans are like spiders who know all about their web, but nothing a a bigger reality beyond it. Science cannot test this type of speculation. It will forever stay in the realm of belief and opinion. The history of science has established that the only way to learn about our Universe is through observations and experimentation.

[ving]

true, there are so many holes in both theories that I dont actually have a clear cut opinion... big bang/ creation, I think I'll just flip a coin.
:)
good thread, I hope no one draws blood over it. :)

[avandonk]

If there are holes in a theory then it is up to us to fill them. The century before last science thought that the Sun shone with the energy due to the release of potential energy due to gravitational collapse. They did not know anything of nuclear energy. This also set an upper limit to the age of the Sun. Not billions of years! How far have we come?

In my lifetime Fred Hoyle worked out where the Elements came from. Before the big bang theory this was not even a problem just a minor inconvenience.
By the way Fred should have got the Nobel Prize.

Even the Earths central core should have cooled down to equilibrium ie not molten over the last four billion years! The reason that the Earths core is molten is due to the energy released by it's radioactive constituents. The sums have been done.

This again can all be tested and measured and checked by anyone who is interested.

All our questions and all our thinking can only lead to more questions. We are finite the Universe is most probably not.

Bert

[sheeny]

Rodstar, whether you believe in a creator or not is up to you. All the stuff Argo Navis is talking about is testable by scientific method. The creator is not.

What existed before the big bang? Maybe something, maybe nothing. We don't know. It is beyond out ability to detect, and possibly beyond our ability to comprehend. The concept of infinity is not easy to grasp... it has no beginning and no end. We have developed minds that like to think in finite terms: boundaries and "starts" and "ends".

As long as our scientific methods and tools are limited to this side of the big bang we won't know what was the other side (if there was anything). Does that really matter?

Not sure what the initial point of this thread was... it almost seems like I'm looking at the end of a partial thread, so I don't know what if anything went before... (bit like the big bang really!:whistle: ), but I agree with Argo Navis' points - well expressed in a nut shell.

I will confess to being an atheist, if it is relevant, but please don't let me or anyone else tell you what to believe. I am happy to accept the scientific method as a sound, repeatable way to develop knowledge. I am also happy to accept the limitations of our (and particularly MY) knowledge.

I find joy in learning... and intellectual exploration.

Al.

[Dennis]

If no thing existed “before” the Big Bang
Where did “it” come from ?
What did “it” come into ?
Who was there to see “it” ?
Who was there to know “it” ?

If everything that is, “came” from the Big Bang
Then the mind, intellect, reasoning, scientific method, thoughts and analysis
Arrived “after” the Big Bang
Can these finite instruments ever understand what “came” before them ?

If the Universe is infinite
It must have always been so
It can not have begun
Because then there would have been a “time” when “it” was not
Therefore “it” would be limited by its beginning
And it’s ending
Therefore not infinite.

Just some ramblings……

Cheers

Dennis

[avandonk]

Reply to Sheeny
How dare you be a better atheist than me! I am shocked. I know I am bordering on the agnostic, but that is no reason to feel superior!

Just joking!

Folks this cannot be about blind faith. It is about Science. I am the first to admit we do not know everything. But this is the best we have.

Of course there is no ultimate correct answer (like 42) the reason is the question is still indeterminate.
We still don't know what the question is! We have to work that out slowly and carefully. Look at all the past disasters!


Bert

[RB]

I agree with Rod.

[janoskiss]

As Argo pointed out already, invoking a creator just shifts the question of the existence of the world onto the at least equally difficult problem of the existence of the creator. It solves nothing as far as I'm concerned. I can paraphrase Rod here: I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the Creator itself came from...

Edit: I mis-stated the name of the poster I was attempting to mis-quote. :ashamed: It was Argonavis, but I said "Astroman"

[avandonk]

You are quite correct janoskiss. We can not put back our ignorance back to something mythical. That is not satisfactory to me.

It could be the way of the world at the moment as nobody in supposed control knows what really went on!

Sorry folks, you are responsible for your ultimate path in life.

Bert

[Argonavis]

Ving - I don't know of any holes in the Big Bang theory. All the evidence, the expansion of the Universe, the cosmic background radiation, the composition of the Universe (75% hydrogen, 25% helium - just as the theory predicted) all indicate that this event is irrefutable and actually happened some 13 billion years ago. There is some argument about the inflationary epoch, but even this is generally accepted scenario by cosmologists. What holes were you thinking of?

And there really is no other scientific theory of how the Universe came to be and accounts for the observational evidence. Sure, there are a lot of people out there that seemingly cannot accept that the Universe has a beginning and an end. I once received a letter from a gentleman telling me about the "evergreen" universe. He is not alone in thinking that the accepted and tested story of our origins, built up painstakingly over the last 60 years, is wrong. However, none appear to provide evidence for an alternative. Nor is anyone prepared to put in the hard yards to gather evidence for any alternative view. Most likely, because such evidence does not exist. If there was, I am sure the 10,000 plus members of the American Astronomical Association would be happy to change their mind.

[mickoking]

The problem is that the Universe exist's it must have got here some how God of no God? I am a firm believer in the big bang but the nagging problem (for me anyway) is what caused the big bang? and if this is the only universe and time started with the big bang, how did all the matter in the universe get here?

I have thought quite hard about these questions and these are some of my personal conclusions,

1, there are other universes, possably infinite universes.

2, Looking as the universes as a collective (not individually) time has no beginning and no end.

3, There are more than 4 dimensions.

Cheers :drink:

[janoskiss]

Just briefly... sort-of

Argo, there are plenty of "holes" in the "Big Bang" model. The most relevant one for this discussion is that it does not go back as far as the "Bang" itself.

Micko, if more universes exist that just proves we do not understand the universe we live in. As far as I am concerned, by definition, the Universe contains everything... (stars, planets, black holes, "extra dimensions", God or gods, EVERYTHING).

[ving]

oh ok, i am not a scientist, cosmologist or in any way religous. My knowledge of the topic is extremely limited but I actually have problems with the pre-big bang. my understanding is that there was nothing before the big bang, so what caused it? I dont believe that someone created the elements for the BB but I am struggling with how these element came into being from what is supposed to be nothing.... maybe someone can explain this.

like i said, my knowledge is near 0 :)

[ving]

oh, and if the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into? some say nothingness... i have problems coming to grips with nothing too... if say it was a vacuum then even a vacuum is something. I'd call the area outside our universe empty space rather than nothing :)

[Dennis]

Hi Ving,

Like you (and no doubt many others) I am having some difficulties with the “meaning” of an infinite universe. Not the mathematical concept, but the analogies and explanations used to help me peel away my layers of ignorance.

If infinite is taken to mean timeless and unbounded, that is, without a beginning and without an end, as well as not having any edges, then there can not be any differentiation within infinity. There can be no inside or outside, before or after, here or there, past or future. There can be no “thing” as all things have edges, colours, shapes, energy, characteristics, attributes etc which are bounded or finite, so we can recognize them, measure them, investigate them, describe how they operate, etc.

As far as I understand it, there can only be “one” infinity, not two or more. If there were two or more, then there must be an interface where one “ends” and the second one “begins”. If infinity is unbounded, it cannot begin or end; it can not have any edges; “it” must have always just “been”, everywhere and "outside" of time.

What seems to satisfy my (albeit limited) understanding of infinite, is as follows:

“it” can be the only “thing"; there cannot be two or more.
"it" must be unbounded or everywhere
“it” must have always been everywhere, as it cannot have arrived from somewhere else or arisen from some other event, or been made from other ingredients.
“it” must never have changed otherwise it has attributes and is therefore finite
“it” cannot be grasped in a formula, thought, theory, etc because “it” has no edges or handles with which we can hold it.

We cannot “think” for ever. Our minds are limited. Through the sciences, studies of the mind, exploration etc we will continue to stumble upon and reveal what has always been there, just waiting to be discovered. But as our faculties and tools are but a sub-system of a larger system, of an even larger system ad infinitum, can we ever understand or “know” that “ultimate” system?

Cheers

Dennis

[Argonavis]

You still haven't advised what these "holes" are. I don't know of any. It's a well tested and accepted theory.

The sequence of events back to a very small fraction of a second before the big bang have been identified. As particle acceletators get better (ie more and more powerful) it is possible to go back to what happened to to the particles at the big bang, and who knows, possibly before. I would not say that it is not possible.

[avandonk]

We can now know everything that happened essentially to a fraction of a second after the event we call the big bang. Before that we have no information as time and space did not exist in our Universe prior to this event.
It is analogous to the event horizon of a black hole past which we cannot retrieve information. Beyond this event horizon our physics no longer hold.
So extrapolation fails.
It is a matter of conjecture that all the four known forces become indistinguishable from each other.
A vacuum even when perfect is seething with particles that spontaneously come into existance and then dissapear again. This can be measured see Casimir Effect. Dielectric of a vacuum. How can a perfect vacuum have a dielectric effect when there are no charged particles present?
Space and time have a texture related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle it is not continuously smooth.
Gravity's origins is the major unknown and it is hoped that finding the Higgs Boson with particle accelerators now under construction will solve this problem. If it is not found at the energy predicted then our current model is wrong and would have to be modified or totally rethought.

All that matters is more structures more experiments....

Bert

[sheeny]

You are a cruel man, Bert.:sad: First it was the tooth fairy...:sad: then the easter bunny...:sad: then Santa...:sad: and now your telling me 42!!!???:sad: I can't accept it... 42 has to be... it's just that the question and the answer are mutually exclusive... if they are known in the same universe at the same time, the universe is instantly replaced with something even more bazaar and unintelligible (and it's been argued this may have already happened!)...

FTWDK - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy :)

Al.

[mickoking]

Space was created with our Universe so it is meaningless to ask what is beyond the 'edge' of space. It is my understanding that the universe and with it space are expanding. Not into a pre existing void or into some other type of space but just 'expanding'. But, there maybe other dimensions and that may make it easier to understand (maybe).

[ving]

surely it would have to expand into something micko, it doesnt make sense for a nothing to exist.... try explaining a nothing...

time: they say that before the big bang time didnt exist.... nor does that make sense. its kinda like saying "if a tree falls in a forrest and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound". time would exist regardless of life or matter, it's just hard for us to measure so we deny its existence
;)

[mickoking]

Yeah, the universe is hard to fathom but so is quantum physics and that is scientifically valid. To make the universe even more interesting you can also throw in Consciousness into the fray ;)

[janoskiss]

Like I said before, it does not go as far back as the Bang itself. It might go back as far as a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the bang, but before that our current understanding of physics breaks down completely. That first zillionth of a second may sound insignificant, but as far as the Big Bang model is concerned it is an eternity. To put it in a different context, a lot more happened in the first second than in the rest of the time since the passage of the first second, and we have no clue about that crucial first tiny fraction of a second which would contain an eternity. I prefer to switch coordinates, time -> log(time), and then negative infinity is at the Big Bang. That's the way I think about it (same as absolute temperature: 0 kelvin is minus infinity in my mind).

For those who still can't get past the idea of linear Galilean time (and space) and ask "But what happened before the Big Bang?", you would be equally justified to ask "What was God doing before he created the world?".

[acropolite]

I can't really buy the big bang theory, there are too many other theories taylored towards furthering the concept that everything began as nothing. Neither can I accept creation, I simply don't believe there is or was a greater entity that created all we are, see and feel. I'm happy to just be and to look at nature in awe, but I do like to contemplate theory and relate it to logic, which unfortunately is why some theories simply aren't plausible to me. That's my theory on it anyway...:P

[ving]

:lol:
ok, my brian has shut ddown now :P

[Lester]

G'day chaps,

Can't explain the big bang. When I was much younger someone said to me that space went on for ever. That posed the question to me what comes after that. The human mind cannot grasp, understand or visualise for ever. So to satisfy my mind I said to my self, after the for ever comes the brick wall. And surprisingly that answered my question for some time; untill the thought came, what comes after the brick wall?

So now I have my beliefs that give me piece of mind, but I don't for one instant expect to understand fully how it all begun, or will end?

Isn't it great that we can all have different thoughts and voice them in a piecefull manner on IIS.

[janoskiss]

Cars too can go around a race track for ever without end. But that does not mean the race track is infinite. :P

[acropolite]

Good point Steve, just as a blood cell circulates endlessly without ever knowing the environment outside our circulatory system.

[stinky]

Don't worry about a 'beginning' point causing problems with infinity. Two points are required in a linear system to creat a finite. A beginning and an end. Secondly as we look back to a 'beginning' we can speculate close to the beginning in time. Now devide that time in half an infinite number of times - and you still don't get to a 'beginning'.

Then it gets really strange - all the time that you cut in half - take the remainder and add them together - result - an infinite amount of time!

Head bent yet?

[janoskiss]

The tortoise and Achilles, stinky?

[Nuri]

One of the issues I can't grasp is the expansion thing. Edwin Hubble proved that galaxies were physically moving away from each other at an increasing speed. Reversing the direction of the galaxies should lead us to the point where they all meet - the Big Bang, right? Well, cosmologists would say "no, the Big Band happenned everywhere simultaneously..." ...ummm, say again? :)

[avandonk]

Sorry Sheeny it is 42-5 = 37 see here
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7720
This is the proof we need! No it's not it's just an asterism is it not? Or is it a sign writ large (very small from here)?

Bert

[janoskiss]

There is no contradiction there, Nuri, if we can just get that false notion of everything happening in an infinite flat three-dimensional Euclidian space out of our heads. :)

The 4-D space-time of general relativity (in which we live and navigate spacecrafts and satellites by) can fold back on itself and be finite, and it can be shrunk to an arbitrarily small measure (a point in the limiting case). We cannot visualise this because our senses and brains are tuned to think of objects being embedded in three (flat, i.e., not curved) spatial dimensions. But that is just the naive view dictated by our immediate everyday experience, which breaks down when we carefully examine the heavens, i.e. on cosmological length scales. The flat space picture does not work over astronomical distances any more than a flat Earth does across continents.

[avandonk]

What we see now is the result. At the start the Universe was smaller than an elementary particle and the inhomogeneities we see now due to quantum uncertainty. We think. The fact that the microwave background radiation temperature is the same to one part in many thousands means at one time everything was essentially in the same place. There has not been enough time passed for information to get from one side to the other of even the known Universe even at the speed of light.
Of course the big bang happened everywhere at once because there is no 'outside' as time and space only existed once the Universe started.
It is a bit like where your lap goes when you stand up,it no longer exists.

I am sure that in the future our ideas will seem 'quaint' but at the moment it is the best we have:confused: .
I still have a very open mind to all of this but only if a premise is testable.

Bert

[Nuri]

Even still... the galaxies are physically moving away from each other in a three dimesional space, right? If so, why can't we (with our limited 3 dimensional brains) calculate a single point of origin by backtracking from their physical direction?

[Dennis]

Hi Nuri

I understand that Isaac Newton believed that Space and Time were like a permanent backdrop, or stage setting and on that stage, life took place. Prior to relativity, it seems that we thought Space and Time were a constant and did not change no matter what happened to the actors on the stage.

So, it was acceptable to believe that you could gather all the matter in the Universe and place it in a corner somewhere, and Space would still be there, like an immutable backdrop, completely unaffected, in which we could make measurements.

However, it now seems that Space, Time, Matter, Energy, etc all "arrived" with the Big Bang, and that Space and Time are not an absolute, unchanging reference frame against which we can make the measurements that you suggest. If we are moving with a constant speed, or are accelerating or are in proximity to a large gravitational "mass"; then all these affect Space and Time for us.

Oh well, that's my 2c worth - I'm sure someone will correct me if I have misled you.

Cheers

Dennis

[avandonk]

Because no matter where you are, you are at, what looks to you like the center. In other words there is no center and no edge or boundary.

Bert

[stinky]

Baloon theory... paint dots on the surface of a balloon and inflate. You will find that the dots get further apart from each other and all at the same rate. No one dot is the centre

[Argonavis]

The evidence is that all the galaxies are moving away from each other (except galaxies in clusters) but the theory is that it is not the galaxies that are moving, rather it is space time which is expanding with the galaxies embedded in it. Rolling the film backward, we have space time compressed into a smaller and smaller volume.

[Argonavis]

Dennis
I would like to complement you on this very thought provoking response.

[mickoking]

Space is expanding and it is dragging the galaxies (generally) with it. The Big Bang happened everywhere coz space was created with the BB. If the BB didn't happen in a pre existing space there can be no centre ;)

[Starkler]

I personally have no problem with the concept of space and time being infinite.

I see no need to beleive that the big bang was the start of time and space. Matter could of existed in previous times, contracting into a space, causing the big bang and being flung outwards again?
Is there any problem with this model ?

[Lester]

Title= the universe is not an accident.

So! Who pushed the button for the big BIG BOOOOOOM?
Some will say mother nature her self
others will call him God (who ever their God or god is)
One thing is for sure It wasn't the Coyote

I am certain that whoever pushed the button is a whole lot more sivillized than us.:wink2: :drink: :prey: :prey2:

[janoskiss]

Lester, What have you against the Cosmic Coyote? :tasdevil: ... or tassie devil ;)

Let's face it people, we have no clue of what's going on. It is only our mortality that gives some of us the sense of urgency of having to figure it all out before "it's too late", but I personally do not believe I need to do that. I think the Universe, of which I am an integral part, is smart enough to look after itself. :D I was stardust a long time before I was ever born and I can't recall any problems there. :P

[avandonk]

If particles can spontaneously appear many times a second why can't a whole universe appear?
This is not about who is correct it is about what really goes on. When I first had a glimmering of an understanding of Quantum Theory I was still perplexed. Chaos theory then really got me thinking. We live in an indeterminate Universe, there is no such thing as predeterminism or fate!
It is up to all of us to do the best we can for ourselves and everybody else.
We are all responsible for our own future. All the actions we take now will have ripples through the next (pick your time period here) century. I am still trying to work it all out.

Meanwhile I have been a Guru to really rich stupid people and my future is assured as long as they don't find out!

Bert

[Lester]

No I have nothing against the coyote; but from hours of cartoon watching he never caught the road runner, so no chance of causing the Big BOOM except to blow him self up. Come to think of it he never died; now there's imortality.... No No please convince me that the coyote (COYOTE) DIDN'T push the button! Perhaps the universe and us are an accident!:doh:

[janoskiss]

Lester, it was the other Coyote, the one in the Simpsons that appears to Homer in an "insanity pepper" induced hallucination. :P

If there is a "Go" button there must be a "Stop" or "Delete" :scared: button as well...

[Lester]

Thanks Steve,

I'll sleep like a top tonight. All I need to do now is find the delete button, just to undo a few things, you know what it is like. :drink: No that delete button,wears off after a while.

I want the permanant fix never to return delete button.:confuse3: Now where could that be hidden. This is just like the young ones going on a Easter egg hunt.

[stinky]

Good point - Our understanding in QP does permit this to happen and is part of the "universe" we understand. It does, though rely on the universe being here for it to happen. There is, as yet, no test for matter/energy creation outside of our universe.

[GTB_an_Owl]

How long are you lot going to go on with this “chicken or the egg” thing?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/ /><o:p></o:p> </P><P><FONT face=Which reminds me – I have this “good egg” story.
<o:p></o:p>
One Sunday, many “moons” ago, Mrs God say’s to Mr God – “Dear, I feel like eggs for breakfast”.
So of goes Mr God out into the bush in search of a couple of Emu eggs (like, the ‘Gods’ are Australian – right?)
He gets lucky and off he goes back to the kitchen with his Emu eggs.
“How am I going to cook these” he thinks to himself.
Brainwave! – just wrap em in some foil and put em in the microwave he reckons.
Ah! – so here comes the bit that interests us astronomers.
We all know what happens – right!
Foil in the microwave – ****** “Big Bang”.
So I reckon, all we can see up there with our scopes is all that egg floating around in the microwave.
Wadda ya reckon?
<o:p></o:p>
On a more Sirius note.
I think all astronomers should form a group with a more “Evangelistic” approach, and start recruiting as many people as we can to look to the heavens and try and solve its many mysteries.
When we can no longer fit them and their telescopes in our backyards, (and with all the donations we can ring out of them), I know where we can get a lot of buildings we can readily convert into Observatories.