The creation conundrum - General

Good evening all, I don't usually delve into these kind of topics but today I thought I'd make an exception after reading some of the other threads. The answer to what created the universe is actually much simpler than you might first think and there are only three possibilities to choose from. A) The universe created itself from absolute nothingness. B) The universe was created by god and god is eternal. C) The universe has always existsed in one form or another. These really are the only possible answers it can be, it doesn't matter how many layers of creation you peel back, you'll always arrive at one of these three options. Now, let's try to deduce which is more likely... Personally from my point of view and what I've studied so far, absolute nothingness cannot exist. There simply isn't any such thing as absolute nothing. So we move onto option B which is tricky because option B is untestable, unobservable and unfalsifiable in every single aspect so we'll put that to the side for the moment. Now it gets interesting with option C, notice immediately the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Sinse the universe itself is nothing but energy, space and time we can assume that the first law of thermodynamics applies to the universe itself and remember that if energy cannot be created or destoyed, and the universe is energy then we can conclude that the universe cannot be created or destroyed, but only change forms. Now we're starting to get somewhere... We need to fast forward to the [I]end[/I] of time to see how the big bang started. As the universe expands over time, gravity has to support more and more space and what happens when space is so large that gravity cannot support it any longer? Well as the universes temperature asymptotically approaches absolute zero the entire universe will die effectively as things cannot undergo change when their temperature is absolute zero. This is the so called death of the universe but it isn't really the end of the universe, for that we have to look at space-time itself. The universe will carry on expanding even at absolute zero and the gravity still has to carry on supporting the extra space. When the universe gets so large that gravity can no longer support it, the universe will collapse back to a singularity in the fraction of a second. Bare with me... So we've already established that energy cannot be created or destroyed and neither can the universe so what is the logical conclusion for the universe? It will collapse back into a singularity and form another big bang because that energy still has to go somewhere, so where does it go? It creates a new space and time for that energy to escape into which is what we see today (the universe). Let's step back a bit because one of your first questions will be how can something have always existed? Well let's look at this logical statement. toys → humans → universe → god → X → Y → Z → ... → ∞ and so we clearly see that if everything needs to be created by something else, then in fact nothing can exist in the first place. So far so good... but some people will say the chain stops at god, because he is eternal and always existed but is this not the exact same conclusion that we already made with option C? That the universe has always existed? Why must we replace the laws of physics with god at the foundations? If it is possible for god to be eternal and have always existed, why is it not possible for the universe to be eternal and have always existed? After all at least it's backed by physics. So maybe I jumped the gun a bit, I kid the religious people so let's take a step back to see what options we have left.... Option C abides by the first law of thermodynamics and so if the first law of thermodynamics is true (which it is) then that means energy has always existed, if energy has always existed then so has the first law of thermodynamics... ect ect. But I cannot be biased here, I have to use logic in my own reasoning. You might ask but HOW?! How can something have [B][U]always[/U][/B] existed? Well ignoring the previous statement where you're totally fine with god having always existed but not the universe, let's look at this mathematical statement. Consider the set of universes with each element being a subset of that set. S = {1,2,3,4 →...→∞} on the premise that the universe has always existed in one form or another which would obviously mean that there wasn't ever a first universe. Just as ∞ doesn't have an end, -∞ doesn't have a beginning. So we can write our statement as S = {-∞→...→∞} The conclusion? The universe has always existed in one form or another. **When I say the universe has always existed in one for or another I'm not refering to our big bang universe, I'm refering to the energy itself. I'm fully aware that our universe and our time is finite in age. Thanks for reading.

Excellent musings here, sir.

Or it's something so complex that we can't understand. Either way, we don't know.

It IS more complex than we understand right now.

[QUOTE='[BBNH] Jesus;43444038']It IS more complex than we understand right now.[/QUOTE] I disagree. I think no matter how complex or how many layers of creation, magic or whatever else, when we get to the very essence of creation of anything, the answer must be one of those 3 I listed.

[QUOTE=uperkurk;43438037]Consider the set of universes with each element being a subset of that set. S = {1,2,3,4 →...→∞} on the premise that the universe has always existed in one form or another which would obviously mean that there wasn't ever a first universe. Just as ∞ doesn't have an end, -∞ doesn't have a beginning. So we can write our statement as S = {-∞→...→∞} [/QUOTE] The problem with this is that infinity doesn't actually exist in reality. It's simply a theoretical idea used to help bridge the gap where mathematics has trouble using regular algebra.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43445680]The problem with this is that infinity doesn't actually exist in reality. It's simply a theoretical idea used to help bridge the gap where mathematics has trouble using regular algebra.[/QUOTE] that's an awfully definite claim about something no one on earth with the accreditation to make that claim supports definitely.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43445746]that's an awfully definite claim about something no one on earth with the accreditation to make that claim supports definitely.[/QUOTE] Yet you have no problem with the claim that it does exist? (an underpinning assumption of his entire argument) I've seen no real evidence of actual, existing infinities. So I will assume they don't exist, in the same way you assume God doesn't exist since you haven't seen any proof for Him.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43445759]Yet you have no problem with the claim that it does exist?[/QUOTE] I have no problem with the claims that rely on the chance of one, no just like I have no problem with the claim that relies on an infinite and complex creator being a chance, but I certainly see no reason why these things should be claimed in a definite form on either side of the argument yet

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43445770]I have no problem with the claims that rely on the chance of one, no just like I have no problem with the claim that relies on an infinite and complex creator being a chance, but I certainly see no reason why these things should be claimed in a definite form on either side of the argument yet[/QUOTE] The interesting bit is that you argue very strongly against the assumption of a creator, but make no mention of his assumption directly. Literally anything works if you allow any assumption.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43445787]The interesting bit is that you argue very strongly against the assumption of a creator, but make no mention of his assumption.[/QUOTE] what? Nothing we know denies that infinity could exist beyond us somewhere. We don't know everything. This is why I find the solution of a creator unlikely for the time being.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43445787]The interesting bit is that you argue very strongly against the assumption of a creator, but make no mention of his assumption directly. Literally anything works if you allow any assumption.[/QUOTE] What about the line of reasoning of if the universe being created by a god requires that god to exist without cause, why not allow the universe itself to exist without cause? The latter scenario is undeniably simpler, so surely should be the rational belief.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43445787]The interesting bit is that you argue very strongly against the assumption of a creator, but make no mention of his assumption directly. Literally anything works if you allow any assumption.[/QUOTE] I am sure of many reoccurring natural infinities. If there were no gaps/imperfections in any formal system (maths, dna replication for example) we would probably cease to exist. Math becomes self-referential in it's incompleteness and I believe it is this that creates life and self-awareness, Douglas Hofstadter referred to this as a "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop"]Strange Loop[/URL]". If all formal systems were to be perfect any chance of life would have been nil. My opinion is there was a "time" before time in which a probable single imperfect entity had 2 states. The first was/is unmeasurable in space/time terms and instantaneously had to separate due to the imperfections causing the only other state to be an expanding one. I class infinity as a sorft of imperfection because perfection would mean a deterministic end point. Basically, with any implication of perfection, be it a god or an eternal life is the killing blow to any theory of a god or creator. So far no "God" escapes the fact that a perfect being would have to be finite, as perfection is determinate and requires an end point. Because perfection is impossible and subjective, and would take an infinity of time, and a less than perfect god should not be considered a god.

At the moment we are yet to discover a physical infinity because the framework for that to exist in also needs to allow infinite time, and infinite space. We know there are an infinite amount of whole numbers but we cannot express these due to a finite observble universe. We would run out of space to write them down. We also know that there are different sizes of infinity, the infinite set of natural numbers is smaller than the infinite set of real numbers, which in fact is unlistable. Even with infinite time and space you cannot list them all. We can solve infinite sums without any problems... it's not that we don't understand them, it's just that for the moment, we do not have the framework needed in order to physically represent these infinitys. The only way we could do so would be with infinite time and space. In mathematics it's ok to prove something without observation. Take for example Fermats last theorem which states that no a^n+b^n=c^n where n is more than 2. We would need infinite space and time to physically show this is true but you can prove it mathematically in a finite albeit 70+ page proof.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43445680]The problem with this is that infinity doesn't actually exist in reality. It's simply a theoretical idea used to help bridge the gap where mathematics has trouble using regular algebra.[/QUOTE] Current observational evidence suggests that the universe is infinite.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43451960]Current observational evidence suggests that the universe is infinite.[/QUOTE] Do you mean the evidence that galaxies are red which infers they're moving away from us, therefor the universe is expanding?

[QUOTE=James0roll;43452128]Do you mean the evidence that galaxies are red which infers they're moving away from us, therefor the universe is expanding?[/QUOTE] No, the evidence that the universe is very nearly homogeneous and isotropic at cosmological distance scales, and appears to be flat to within a very small margin of error, and this implies that the universe is infinite.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43451960]Current observational evidence suggests that the universe is infinite.[/QUOTE] Distance isn't a thing, it's simply a measurement. It doesn't consist of anything. So it seems what you're actually saying is that there is an infinite lack of things, which doesn't seem very useful at all.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43452265]No, the evidence that the universe is very nearly homogeneous and isotropic at cosmological distance scales, and appears to be flat to within a very small margin of error, and this implies that the universe is infinite.[/QUOTE] I don't really see how that follows, regularity does not imply infinity. But again perhaps I am mis-understanding.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43452265]No, the evidence that the universe is very nearly homogeneous and isotropic at cosmological distance scales, and appears to be flat to within a very small margin of error, and this implies that the universe is infinite.[/QUOTE] Also, why does that imply that it is without bounds? I can see how it allows for an infinite size, but I don't see how it implies it.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43451960]Current observational evidence suggests that the universe is infinite.[/QUOTE] Wrong. Current observational evidence suggests that the universe is bigger than we have the ability to observe at the moment. No evidence exists to suggest that the universe is either finite or infinite. We simply don't know.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43452644]Distance isn't a thing, it's simply a measurement. It doesn't consist of anything. So it seems what you're actually saying is that there is an infinite lack of things, which doesn't seem very useful at all.[/QUOTE] Is spacetime not a thing now? We can observe its effects. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43452680]I don't really see how that follows, regularity does not imply infinity. But again perhaps I am mis-understanding.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;43452685]Also, why does that imply that it is without bounds? I can see how it allows for an infinite size, but I don't see how it implies it.[/QUOTE] If spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic (actually, only [I]nearly[/I] homogeneous and isotropic, it doesn't need to be exact) at very large distance scales, there is only one cosmology that follows from general relativity: the FLRW model. That gives three possible geometries for spacetime: flat, spherical, or hyperbolic. The flat geometry and hyperbolic geometries are infinite. The spherical one is not. The fact that our universe appears to be flat is evidence that space is infinite. [QUOTE='[BBNH] Jesus;43452779']Wrong. Current observational evidence suggests that the universe is bigger than we have the ability to observe at the moment. No evidence exists to suggest that the universe is either finite or infinite. We simply don't know.[/QUOTE] No, sorry. It's not wrong: [url]http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html[/url] Yes, obviously it says we don't know for sure but I did not say "current observational evidence proves beyond any doubt..." etc.

Science is 99.6% certain that the universe is flat. Not flat as in 2D obviously because we live in a 3D world but it means that the observable universe has no horizon or curve which indicates that it's flat. A flat universe does not have a boundary either which again supports the evidence that the universe is infinite and flat. This means that no matter how far you travel in the x direction you'll never come back to where you started from. We honestly do not know if the universe is infinite or not, but if we're using the observable universe as a guide then it would seem that the entire universe is infinite. It's important to remember though that infinity can get larger so option C in my OP is still a valid argument. I understand that infinity isn't a number so it doesn't make much sense to say that ∞+1 = ∞ but it is true in the sense that an object can be infinite in size at any given moment in time, measure it again later and it will still be infinite but it would just be larger. It's hard to explain but I hope you understand :P People often ask what is the universe expanding into? Well if the universe is everything that there is, then it doesn't need to expand into something, because it is everything so it can be infinite in size at every given moment but still get larger. After all that's what infinity means, to get larger without limit.

[QUOTE=uperkurk;43453490]I understand that infinity isn't a number so it doesn't make much sense to say that ∞+1 = ∞[/QUOTE] The extended real number system makes infinity a number and makes it perfectly valid to say that ∞+1 = ∞.

[QUOTE=uperkurk;43453490] After all that's what infinity means, to get larger without limit.[/QUOTE] I understand most of what you said. But just a few comments; It's funny that you say we see no curve and therefore it must be flat, because that was the reasoning for people who thought the earth was flat, then they got better instruments, and they found the curve. Secondly, I don't know if the definition of infinity is to get larger without limit. It may be one characteristic, but as I understand it infinity, by definition, cannot be measured numerically. You cannot say that at T1 infinity = X. [quote="Google 'Infinity'"]Mathematics a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).[/quote] Thus for this reason if the universe can be measured, then it is not infinite. You may be able to say it is expanding outwards, but you cannot say that it is infinite at any given point in time. This further breaks down if we examine the concept of regressive events. If we are to go back in time, it cannot conceivably go on forever in time.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43453659]I understand most of what you said. But just a few comments; It's funny that you say we see no curve and therefore it must be flat, because that was the reasoning for people who thought the earth was flat, then they got better instruments, and they found the curve. [/quote] No one is saying there is no chance that the universe is not quite flat, but we know it appears to be, and the margin of error is very, very small. We're not going to say it's finite just because we're not 100% absolutely positive. You can't be certain regardless. Evidence suggests the universe is infinite so that's the assumption we work under. Even if the universe is not flat, it could still be infinite. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43453659]Thus for this reason if the universe can be measured, then it is not infinite. You may be able to say it is expanding outwards, but you cannot say that it is infinite at any given point in time. [/QUOTE] What do you mean by "measured?" Why can we say it is expanding but we can't say it is infinite? Experimental evidence points to the fact that it is both. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43453659]This further breaks down if we examine the concept of regressive events. If we are to go back in time, it cannot conceivably go on forever in time.[/QUOTE] Why should that be the case?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43453767] What do you mean by "measured?" Why can we say it is expanding but we can't say it is infinite? Experimental evidence points to the fact that it is both. [/quote] I was mostly going off of uperkurk's post about the observable universe. That is to say, if you could draw a line from one end to the other, and see how many lightyears it is. Then do it again after a certain amount of time. The difference between them is numerical and thus cannot be truly representative of an infinite body. If something is expanding outwards, that is just a description of it's motion. A balloon expands, but we do not say that it is infinite. It has finite measurements at specific times. Just because the directions go out forever does not mean that that the universe as such is infinite. It is simply an element of Cartesian 3d grids. Perhaps our use of the word universe differs from eachother. [quote] Why should that be the case? [/QUOTE] In our models we can show what happens, what probably will happen and what probably happened. At no point in this do we find an act of causation for the system. That is to say, although our equations work well, the number 7 never caused anything to happen. As we go further back in time, and coupled with the circumstantial evidence of the universe exapanding (Which in reverse would be compacting), we find the there must be a catalyst, a fundamental first domino that can give rise to the entire system. the only way to evade this is to not have the element of cause and effect, that is to say change. In a system where there is change, you must always have a starting point for it to be intelligible. That is to say, without a primary point of reference one cannot act upon any equation. In order for E=mc^2 you first need E or m, otherwise it is a blank statement.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43454030]I was mostly going off of uperkurk's post about the observable universe. [/QUOTE] Sinse we cannot observe the entire universe we simply cannot know if it is infinite or not. What we can do however is look at the universe which we can see and our observable universe suggests zero curvature. If you take a sphere and enlarge it, you'll notice the curve gets shorter but there will always be a curve. Only once the sphere is infinite in size does the curve become 0. There may well be a curve to the observable universe but it's SO small that we do not have the instruments to detect it's curvature.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43454030]I was mostly going off of uperkurk's post about the observable universe. That is to say, if you could draw a line from one end to the other, and see how many lightyears it is. Then do it again after a certain amount of time. The difference between them is numerical and thus cannot be truly representative of an infinite body.[/quote] But since we don't think the universe is finite, we don't think we can measure a line from one end of the universe to the other and get a finite answer. ("one end to the other" wouldn't even have meaning) We can, however, draw a line, between two arbitrary points, measure it, and measure it again later to see that the distance has increased. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43454030]If something is expanding outwards, that is just a description of it's motion. A balloon expands, but we do not say that it is infinite. It has finite measurements at specific times.[/quote] Sure, but the fact that a balloon expands and is finite does not mean that anything which expands is finite. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43454030]Just because the directions go out forever does not mean that that the universe as such is infinite. It is simply an element of Cartesian 3d grids. Perhaps our use of the word universe differs from eachother.[/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by this. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43454030]In our models we can show what happens, what probably will happen and what probably happened. At no point in this do we find an act of causation for the system. That is to say, although our equations work well, the number 7 never caused anything to happen. As we go further back in time, and coupled with the circumstantial evidence of the universe exapanding (Which in reverse would be compacting), we find the there must be a catalyst, a fundamental first domino that can give rise to the entire system. the only way to evade this is to not have the element of cause and effect, that is to say change. In a system where there is change, you must always have a starting point for it to be intelligible. That is to say, without a primary point of reference one cannot act upon any equation. In order for E=mc^2 you first need E or m, otherwise it is a blank statement.[/QUOTE] I'm not getting how any of this relates to "it cannot conceivably go on forever in time."

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43454030] Just because the directions go out forever does not mean that that the universe as such is infinite. It is simply an element of Cartesian 3d grids. Perhaps our use of the word universe differs from eachother. [/QUOTE] if it's directions go out forever, that literally does mean it is infinite.