" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos 111 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  prologos

  jgnat, with due respect I did not bring life's origin into it, it must have been the link that was provided, I disavowed to have any issue with the idea that life could have started as a lucky break, I believe it could be even replicable in a lab one day with another lucky break. but:

  "--the universe made itself--" but HOW? did it do that?

  following raw's good points,

  Many authors and theoriticians, in one way or another realize that to explain the start of the material universe

  there has to be a pre-condition, energy, potential, time even, that became focussed in this particularly glorious way. and

  bootstrapping you can do only ONE FOOT AT A TIME, or you would not have a foot to standon.
• 

  J. Hofer

  we don't know if there ever was nothing. for all we know nothing does not exist.
• 

  jgnat

  Prologos, your very first line "watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself"
• 

  prologos

  Yes, true, but that was an aside, an illustration that come to my mind as a new father, unskilled labor in the field.

  Those that hold biology dear would focus more on the illustration, as I would on my field of interest.

  Some good, helpful points were shown here on the conditions need for the making of the universe, self created or otherwise.

  thank you.

  Dear Mr. Hofer. your double negative is telling. it is positive.

  some authors are of the same opinion. The emptiness of nothing , the vaccuum, really contains all that was needed to start the universe-building.
• 

  jgnat

  You might understand how someone like me might assume the opening sentence was to point.
• 

  rawe

  Hi Prologos,

  "Many authors and theoriticians, in one way or another realize that to explain the start of the material universe there has to be a pre-condition, energy, potential, time even, that became focussed in this particularly glorious way."

  I once saw a Youtube video wherein a number of physics students are asked if they believe there was something before the Big Bang event. My recall is the vast majority raised their hands. And both Carl Sagan and Roger Penrose theorize about the universe going through cycles. In this way we can escape being trapped in the time-space continium of the current universe. I think Penrose may be on to something and I don't feel the slightest bit qualified to cast doubt on his views. Same with Sagan. However, I do think we need to be careful with all this, otherwise we'll wind up discarding the insights of Einstein. As you probably know, it was Albert Einstein who connected time with matter. The idea that a clock outside the universe beats independent of gravity and matter is just not a real thing.

  In practical ways we know Einstein must have been right, since GPS satellites, have their clocks set purposefully slowed down while they are built here on Earth, so when they are flying at high speed in orbit, their time will be "right."

  When one of Einstein's friends died, he wrote a letter to his widow, in it he called "time" a "persistent illusion." From the best I can tell, he meant that since time is merely an attribute of space and matter, it seems incorrect that we should measure our lives as lengths of time. He may have also been hinting at a universal unfairness that such an un-reality as 'time' should be empowered to take our friends away. Of course, I'm sure he didn't really mean that time doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist independet of the universe.

  So.. here we are... to talk about origin of something we have to start with imagining the subject matter does not exist then in a step-by-step process wherein it comes into existence. None of us have observed a planet in our solar system forming. But we observe they all orbit in the same direction and on the same plane, so we conclude clouds of dust in orbit must have been pulled together to form planets. Likewise with life. We close our eyes and imagine planet earth as completely sterile, not a spec of life to be found. From there we imagine pre-life chemistry that could have existed and forms of energy that could have created a pathway towards the first self-replicating system.

  But... in terms of the universe, we close our eyes and imagine it does not exist. Now what? We can't say, "before" or "pre", because that relates to time and if time exists, then so does the universe so we haven't gone back far enough. We can't say, "matter-of-this-or-that-sort" because if such matter exists, so does the universe. It is a fundemental black box we just can't seem to pry open.

  But, some insist hidden in the black box is God. If such were just a simple philosophical item to be discussed I see little harm in that. But, some of those who insist this is true, go on to suggest this God has feelings and he can be please or displeased with us, therefore we should remove the foreskin of penis and donate 10% of our income to the Church.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  prologos

  R: well said. some authors have used language that has time as a stationary dimension and us, being tied to space, moving outward from the beginning. also,

  any condition prior to the appearance of energy, matter would entail the existence of time.

  to tie a personal , angry, god to the making process, must be a human idea. To me there seems to be a compeeling self-organizing, energetic drive both in the material, energy and living world.

  The making, creating properties seem to be buid-in at a very deep, ancient level.

  Ancient in the sense that it must be included in the cause of the beginning of our cosmos.
• 

  jgnat

  prologos, here's a mind-bender for you.

  • With every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
  • In empty space, an object in motion will continue to go at the same speed and in the same direction unless something gives it a push or pull.
  • The galaxies are accelerating away from the core.
  • What continuing force is acting on the galaxies to speed them outward?
• 

  prologos

  i: If we recognize that in the pure energy "big bang" singularity there would be tremdious pressure, radiation pressure, as is inside the sun.

  energy is thought not to engender Gravity, space tension to the same extend as does MATTER.

  it is thought that the matter that formed with the expansion, expansion that was not retarded, matter & antimatter "congealed".

  a slight bias in favour of MATTER has us here, but the excess energy from that anihilation of anti matter vs. matter is apart of the energy that gave

  the INITIAL IMPETUS for the outward movement of space and it's matter-CONTENT outward into time.

  If you think of our cosmos as a two - dimensional diaphram expanding form it's small beginning, any movement in that curved surface would generate a "centrifugal force" favoring the universes expansion. so keep moving.

  so we have the initial impetus, and continuing centrifugal forces driving expansion against ever diminishing* gravitational forces wich would resist expansion.

  There are theories that propose both dark matter that would slow down expansion, and dark energy that would accelerate that movement, by

  it is possible these cancelling concepts might be an artifact of our mis-interpretation of the data,

  after all, we can see only what happened in the past, sometimes the very distant past. but,

  Any information from events before the beginning would have been obliterated in the big squeezeng of all the (now)universes' energy into the big bang singularity. so:

  for all we can see, the development of the universe can be happening spontaneously, as if flying on auto pilot, like the dividing of the fertilized ovum cell(s), but:

  because of the immense energy x mass x time (squared) x distance = work,--- in my mind--, it did not make itself, too much work involved.

  glad to still have the time and energy to contemplate it all.

  * the energy/matter content of the universe is considered constant, its "diameter" increasing. gravity is inversely proportional to the distance from the CG in this case the big bang.
• 

  jgnat

  You had me until you mentioned dark matter and dark energy.

  All the forces you've mentioned would create constant movement, not acceleration.