The Universe's Origin--Finite or Infinite Universe, God or no God, etc--Hypotheses

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Theseus,

Ok, right now I am reading a book called " The Theory of Everything". I'm on pages 45 " Black Hole". Anyway in back of my mind, I was thinking can we go through in the Black Hole?? So I was looking for answer on pages 53-54
The book say " Eventually, when the star had shrunk to a certain critical radius, the gravitational field at the surface become so strong that the light cones are bent inward ( I was thinking that was look like funnel ?) So much that the light can no longer escape. According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. ( Why not can travel speedy?) Thus , if light cannot escape, neither can anything else. Everything is dragged back by the gravitational field. ( Is it like a vacuum to force you back in?)So one has a set of events, region of space-time, from which it is not possible to escape to reach distant observer.( It is impossible to reach on the other side of black hole or go around on the other side, its would be lost?) This is region what we now call a blackhole. its boundary is called the event horizon.( I have seen that movie " Event Horizon") It coincides with the paths of the light rays that just fail to escape from the black hole.
Why would it fail??
Have they try it to get in Black Hole??
Do you think it is possible to build a smaller space ship to try to get in black hole, I mean smaller space ship made out of remote control. You have to do is control the smaller space ship to get in black hole?? That would mean no person to get in space ship, it had to be robot or machine made to build a smaller space ship.
Do you think it is possibe to be able contact smaller space ship inside the black hole?? If not it would bend the space ship or lost contact??


Anyway "A Breif of History Time" I brought this book about 5 yrs ago, so I need to read again about this book. I will read later after I finish read The Theory of Everything.
 
netrox said:
When we discuss about the universe, we are talking about THIS particular universe which has its beginning and will meet its end. We don't know what happened BEFORE the universe was born. Do we really need to know what happened before the birth of universe? More importantly, why does that matter to you?
Click to expand...

I agree that quantum mechanics border dangerously on pseudo-science and some of it might in fact be pseudo-science... I am hesistant about accepting the theory that "quantum computers" prove the existence of a multiverse because it seems that there are too many variables to justify anything. However, quantum physics has revealed that a single particle of matter exists not just in one position, but in several places at once. It can exist as both a particle and as part of a wave at the same time. Since everything in the world, including us, is made up of these particles, we too, must exist in many states at once, even if we don’t realize it. This is known as quantum superposition. To me it suggests the possibility of multiple universes existing, in the sense that there can be two states of an universe at once.

We aren't required to know what happened before the universe began, but for someone like me who is interested in plausibly deducting the existence of God versus a mere cosmic occurrence, it is worth thinking about the origin of the universe; and what took place prior to it. If God is real, even with a multiverse present, then there is a reason for our existence. And there would be reasonable hope for us after we die, of the existence of an afterlife.

We only observe our own universe. We have no proof that other universes exist. The idea that we have universes within universes is called multiverses. It's a theory and we have no evidence to support it. The string theories are way too complicated and I fail to see what we will benefit from those theories right now. Yes, we have quantum mechanics and yes, it's a very bizarre concept but it borders dangerously on pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

We have more scientific evidence available now than previously, and this evidence can be used to draw more logical conclusions, although most of it is pure speculation. I agree the string theories have way too many variables, but quantum mechanics has shown a very unusual phenomenon that otherwise should have never happened: the existence of two states for everything, including the universe itself. This "evidence" is seems compelling enough to convince me to give it a higher probability than 50/50 of being true, so that's why I believe that quantum superposition is real.

Surely, there had to be a source but my educated guess would be that the source is dynamically eternal and that is definitely beyond our comprehension. That's only a guess. Anyone can say the source is God but you know, there are so many definitions of God.
Click to expand...

Yes there are many definitions of God. So far, as of now, I see three probable definitions of God relating to an origin: 1) "God of reason, who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings", or 2) a "Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, a mere cosmic force". Maybe there's even 3) "God of the mind, which is everyone's minds collectively as God". The problem is that both #2 and #3 fail to reveal an underlying reason for our existence. #3, I'm not sure how a collective of minds different from each other could possibly create an universe with fixed laws of physics unless it was somehow a "harmonic agreement of the gods". I have my own doubts as to why we would also have a consciousness without a "God of reason" to set the boundaries and laws of the universe. But anyway, I'm curious what your definitions of God would be other than what I've proposed?

If that's the only thing you can come up with it *right now*, that's fine with me. I don't see why you can't think that way.
Click to expand...
Well, I just added one more above. If there are more, please add. ;)

We are illogical, irrational, stupid, and human and that's the best evidence that Intelligent Designer does not exist. :) Computers never make mistakes, humans do. When computers err, that's because of humans.
Click to expand...

Agreed, computers make mistakes based on human programming. I also agree we are naturally illogical, irrational, etc, but wouldn't you say that there are a few of us who are more "logical" and more "rational" than others? What's not to suggest that God's not more "logical" and "rational" than the rest of us to the point where He's absolutely perfect? To me, that's evidence that the Intelligent Designer exists.

To me, it's more of "Mind of Reason" than God of Reason. You are the one reasoning about your own existence. God doesn't give you the mind, you were given a mind by your own parents. You imagine that such an invisible force is responsible for your own existence. That's the way I see it.
Click to expand...

It's ok if we each have different beliefs, I respect yours. I agree that we could have been given a mind by our own parents, note when I said in post number 6 that "Maybe the single sperm or egg cell (one, not both) is already alive and contains the life force / individualism, although we won't know until they're bigger. We'll probably never know." Here's a hypothesis of mine: the three could be the same: soul = consciousness = mind. If the mind came from our parents, like you state, then who were the first people, the 'Adam and Eve' of the human race, and where did their minds come from? Was there an original consciousness? There had to be! To me, that original consciousness is the "God of Reason", who has a consciousness like us.

No, I don't. I don't believe in existence of souls. When I die, I am gone for good. No emotions, no memories, nothing. I think the problem is that we hold our lives and experiences to be so unique and sacred, it's so difficult to accept that we are born and die with no true purpose other than to live and breed. Also, it's an enormous grief to lose someone you love deeply and it is difficult to accept that your loss is gone forever. Wouldn't you find comfort knowing that your loss may be living somewhere else after death and that you'll see him/her after you die?
Click to expand...

I see your point about why people would want to believe in the afterlife. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that. It's somewhat like Pascal's Wager, but I believe he oversimplified. It's not so much about God as it is about having hope that there is something in store for us after we die. Why hope against hope itself? If there is hope after all, then by disregarding hope, there is no hope for you at all. After hope is established, then the question becomes: what is required to fulfill that hope, if anything? So I see nothing wrong with having hope, in case it turns out to be correct at the very end.

that's fine to me and it's often what many conclude.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, a lot of people conclude the same thing. However, most people oversimplify or rationalize directly from A --> Z, or (I exist, therefore God does), instead of A --> B --> C ... --> Z. That is, they do not have a solid basis for their beliefs.
 
How did the Earth evolve??
What happen before Dinosuars??
Who idea created the Earth??
Why there was no beginning and why there is no ending??

what is " no boundary proposal"??

Do you think it is possible to communicate with Aliens?? Like have you heard puslating?? I understand some people don't believes Aliens, but wonder how do we get here on Earth??
 
Star,
I'm just answering the posts in order. Don't worry I'll get to your questions soon enough. ;)
 
"However, quantum physics has revealed that a single particle of matter exists not just in one position, but in several places at once. It can exist as both a particle and as part of a wave at the same time. Since everything in the world, including us, is made up of these particles, we too, must exist in many states at once, even if we don’t realize it. This is known as quantum superposition. To me it suggests the possibility of multiple universes existing, in the sense that there can be two states of an universe at once."

Just because we found that a particle can either behave as a wave or as a particle does not mean it's applicable to the whole universe. It only applies on a subatomic level.

Our perception of our own world plays a HUGE role in shaping how we see things. To help you see how a perception can change so dramatically, let me give you an example...

Imagine you're outside the universe and you look at the universe, everything looks still and peaceful. You see many glitters. When you move toward the galaxy, you start to see some movement but it's NOT startling. When you go to the solar system, you start to see planets moving around the sun and the sun is burning furiously. When you go to the sun, you see a LOT of movement and it looks extremely choatic. Also, move to the earth, you see some activities going on and when you go on the surface, you see a lot more activities and you'd feel that it's so chaotic yet we are conditioned to believe that it's order, not chaos. Right now, when we zoom into atoms, we are shocked to see how violent atoms are. And go inside the atom and you see more movement, electrons and protons spinning so fast.They are extremely chaotic, even more than we can comprehend. That shows that our perception is relative. We still have this "classical physics" attitude believing that everything is explained by the laws of physics but the problem is that our classical physics cannot explain quantum mechnics and quantum mechnics cannot explain classical physics either. How do we bring them together? If you leave the earth and take a look at the earth and think it's peaceful and well ordered, yet you think its chaotic when you're on it with all the storms, noise, earthquakes, volcanos, etc, how can you reconcile that? What exactly makes it "chaotic" or "harmonic?" Also, we have the tendency to look for "order" in noise or chaos.

I suspect that it's all perception and our human perception is far too limited to truly grasp what makes the universe (more like the force underneath) keep going.

Even when we solidify a superstring theory, scientists will still ponder, "what caused the 'strings' to behave?" and it will never end.

"If the mind came from our parents, like you state, then who were the first people, the 'Adam and Eve' of the human race, and where did their minds come from? Was there an original consciousness? There had to be! To me, that original consciousness is the "God of Reason", who has a consciousness like us."

No, I don't see that way. There is no such a thing as "original consciousness." Consciousness is molded through languages, genetics, and cultures. It's a continuum. I think you should look into "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and it explains how humans begin to have a consciousness fairly recently (he argues around 3000 years ago which I think he makes it too definite). Prior to that, humans had "two minds" - one that speaks and one that obeys. They didn't really have a true "I think therefore I am" consciousness. The author points out evidence in ancient literature including the Bible and older myths showing their lack of "modern consciousness." I am a firm believer in bicameralism even though it wasn't well accepted but I think it deserves serious attention.

I predict that we will have a huge paradigm shift in our consciousness in the future.

"It's somewhat like Pascal's Wager, but I believe he oversimplified. It's not so much about God as it is about having hope that there is something in store for us after we die. Why hope against hope itself? If there is hope after all, then by disregarding hope, there is no hope for you at all. After hope is established, then the question becomes: what is required to fulfill that hope, if anything? So I see nothing wrong with having hope, in case it turns out to be correct at the very end."

That's the thing. You certainly have read postings by people of different religions trying to convince you that their religion gives you a gateway to heaven. Which religion is right? What makes you so sure you're right? And what makes you think that if God does really exist, he would send atheists to hell? If I were God, I would never send anyone to hell for not believing me, I'd send them based on their acts and deeds than their beliefs on something they think explains their existence.
 
indie,

You ask Theseus. It is about Physic and stuff like that.
 
All I know is that I believe that God made everything. Thats all.
 
Star said:
Hi Theseus,

Ok, right now I am reading a book called " The Theory of Everything". I'm on pages 45 " Black Hole". Anyway in back of my mind, I was thinking can we go through in the Black Hole?? So I was looking for answer on pages 53-54
The book say " Eventually, when the star had shrunk to a certain critical radius, the gravitational field at the surface become so strong that the light cones are bent inward ( I was thinking that was look like funnel ?) So much that the light can no longer escape. According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. ( Why not can travel speedy?) Thus , if light cannot escape, neither can anything else. Everything is dragged back by the gravitational field. ( Is it like a vacuum to force you back in?)So one has a set of events, region of space-time, from which it is not possible to escape to reach distant observer.( It is impossible to reach on the other side of black hole or go around on the other side, its would be lost?) This is region what we now call a blackhole. its boundary is called the event horizon.( I have seen that movie " Event Horizon") It coincides with the paths of the light rays that just fail to escape from the black hole.
Why would it fail??
Have they try it to get in Black Hole??
Do you think it is possible to build a smaller space ship to try to get in black hole, I mean smaller space ship made out of remote control. You have to do is control the smaller space ship to get in black hole?? That would mean no person to get in space ship, it had to be robot or machine made to build a smaller space ship.
Do you think it is possibe to be able contact smaller space ship inside the black hole?? If not it would bend the space ship or lost contact??


Anyway "A Breif of History Time" I brought this book about 5 yrs ago, so I need to read again about this book. I will read later after I finish read The Theory of Everything.
Click to expand...

Star,

You may have to read slowly to understand:

-What is the event horizon? It is actually the shape of a sphere, and the sphere's curvative edge is the same as the certain critical radius your book refers to. This edge is where the gravitational pull of the black hole begins to equal the velocity of light, and the escape velocity becomes higher than the velocity of light.

-What is the escape velocity? The escape velocity is the velocity required by an object to escape the gravitational pull... like if you were to throw a baseball upward in the sky, how hard must you throw it in order for the ball to escape the Earth's gravitational field? The higher the ball goes, the weaker Earth's gravitational pull gets. The point where Earth's gravity no longer pulls the baseball back down is when the escape velocity is defined.

-In general relativity, gravity is thought of as curved space-time instead of as a force. This means that when black holes are referred to as a funnel, and that is how the space-time curvative is pictured-- so, the further down the funnel you go, the stronger the gravity pull gets and the greater the escape velocity becomes.

-Once again, the certain critical radius your book refers to is the radius of the "event horizon" which is shaped like a sphere. Anything that enters inside the sphere cannot escape, not even light. So when you look directly at a black hole, it is invisible because light cannot escape from it. The velocity of light starts to compete against the black hole's gravitational field the closer it approaches the event horizon, so what you get is something like this:

Your velocity - escape velocity = final velocity

-If the final velocity is positive, then light reflecting off something can escape. If the final velocity becomes negative, once an object crosses the event horizon, then light will bend inward and fall into the black hole funnel because the escape velocity has exceeded light's velocity.

-To the casual observor, an object approaching the event horizon seems to move more slowly because the final velocity of light coming towards the observor has become slower. Then when an object finally reaches the event horizon, the casual observor will no longer see the object moving... the object appears to have become frozen.

-The other side (and opposite) of a black hole in theory is considered impossible but it is called a white hole. A white hole is supposedly the opposite end of a black hole, where energy will spew out at incredible velocity and cannot come back in. The connection between a black hole and white hole is what's called a wormhole. The problem is that theoretically the two are opposites of each other: black holes cannot be destroyed, and white holes cannot be created. So how would a wormhole exist? Theory says it's not likely.

-Regarding the remote space ship, that won't work. The remote space ship would be stretched and destroyed. If not before approaching the event horizon, then certainly afterwards.
 
netrox,

I checked out the The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind book you were talking about at Amazon. Thank you for unveiling bicameralism. You put a term to something I had previously thought about (primitive changes in consciousness) but never explored deeply enough to find a proper term. The book reviews describe bicameralism as a consciousness shift in terms of having a prior schizophrenic-consciousness where ancient people heard voices in their heads, and they would refer to that voice as being God. It does seem very possible - look at the native tribes residing in Africa, a continent with over 2,000 cultures, as well as South America, and many of the tribes are superstitious. You have the shamen who claim to hear voices inside their head and have the power to cure diseases. It seems as if the native tribes live in a primitive state of consciousness causing them to refer to voices as being from deities, or are you referring to something other than that?

I've read translations of ancient texts like Plato's The Republic and Homer's Iliad and been endlessly captivated by those texts, not only because of the eloquent language, but because it gave me a look into their mind -- and made me wonder about their consciousness. Here's what I see in the Iliad: sophisticated, grown people acting similar to little children, upon subconsciousness more than consciousness. For them, a behavior that is subconsciously done seems effortless and natural; they simply react instead of thinking before reacting, in many circumstances. But with the spread of written language, more time was required to sit down and think and process and evaluate information, so this "change in pace of thinking" could have altered consciousness somehow. Is that possible? I could easily apply this to ancient Egypt and times of ancient literature when it was very likely that only 1 out of every 100 persons could write/read. That could explain why in ancient literature the people sound different, because they haven't been exposed to written language frequently or for very long.

It does seem plausible that many of the ancient people were so subconsciously-driven that their mind existed in a schizophrenic-state of mind like some of the Greeks might have, while at the same time being incredibly intelligent. I'll have to read that book to find out more. However, it seems like our current consciousness can still be reverted to a more subconscious-driven state of mind because it's actually happened to me before. The problem for me in accepting bicameralism as a sole explanation for the existence of our beliefs in God, and our own consciousness coming from an entirely sub-conscious state of mind, is that I'd then have to ask where did the sub-conscious mind come from if nothing (which makes no sense to me anyway) and why are we humans so much more conscious than the rest of the animal kingdom, evolutionally speaking? Do you perceive that this evolution of consciousness will happen to other animals in another billion of years from now, assuming the Earth's geography remains the same, or do you perceive us human beings as being unique apart from other creatures on the earth?

Good analogy of the outside the universe down to the sub-atomic level perspective as a way of not understanding what forces may lie underneath. It's been a while since I thought about that. You're correct, what we think of as "A... B... C... --> Z" could actually be "... G... H... --> Z" with the existence of whatever is before G unknown.

When I choose my religious beliefs, I don't assume but instead question my own beliefs. I leave open the possibility of being wrong. I like to hear the side of atheists as well, why they believe that God doesn't exist in case I may have overlooked something. You won't see me telling you to believe something or go to hell. But I believe it's essential to have religious beliefs because it is a way of understanding purpose on Earth, of having a "blueprint" for everything including before we were born and after we die. That is one thing that seems to differ between you and me - if I see the tiniest glimmer of hope for me after death, I'm willing to take the chance- but what about you? You don't even have to choose Christianity, you can choose a different religion. You'd still have a "blueprint" to work with regarding before you were born / after you die, at the very least.

If you don't have a designated religion, then you have no framework in that context at all. It also only seems rationale to me to have a designated system of beliefs regarding God in case a reward/punishment system is actually present. If no reward/punishment system is present, then of course it makes no sense to choose a religion, you will die and your treatment will be the same as everyone's else, whether in some kind of spiritual realm or in a void state of nothingness. Or you can simply believe that you dissolve into nothingness after perishing. Which one gives the best odds in your own interest? If you don't care, you could be throwing away a larger part of yourself that you never knew existed. Who knows. Irregardless, the odds seem better in your own interest with the first option.

In fact, I have to admit I wonder if some atheists choose the third option because it has something to do with being afraid of seeming like a fool if they choose to have religious beliefs. Probably not true for every atheist. That's one thing I'm unclear about. I'm personally against forcing beliefs on others, but not against sharing beliefs and being proved wrong in any instance.
 
However, it seems like our current consciousness can still be reverted to a more subconscious-driven state of mind because it's actually happened to me before. The problem for me in accepting bicameralism as a sole explanation for the existence of our beliefs in God, and our own consciousness coming from an entirely sub-conscious state of mind, is that I'd then have to ask where did the sub-conscious mind come from if nothing (which makes no sense to me anyway) and why are we humans so much more conscious than the rest of the animal kingdom, evolutionally speaking? Do you perceive that this evolution of consciousness will happen to other animals in another billion of years from now, assuming the Earth's geography remains the same, or do you perceive us human beings as being unique apart from other creatures on the earth?
Click to expand...

Our consciousness is dynamic. We sometimes experience a level of consciousness that isn't quite "normal" to us. Drugs often caused changes of consciousness. Illnesses do that as well.

You asked, "why are we humans so much more conscious than the rest of the animal kingdom, evolutionally speaking?"

Imagine elephants asking, "Why are we so much more evolved with our trunks? We can do much with them!" That would sound silly but it's the same kind of thinking we have. If dinosaurs were as smart as we are, they would say, "It's a miracle we exist! We're here for only a few hundred millions! We are special!" only to be wiped out completely from the earth. We are very human-centric and we think we're special (and we ARE!) because we have something that sets us apart from other species. Will we become the next dinosaurs? Probably unless we have the technology to protect us from dangers.

"Do you perceive that this evolution of consciousness will happen to other animals in another billion of years from now, assuming the Earth's geography remains the same, or do you perceive us human beings as being unique apart from other creatures on the earth?"

Well, we're the only species with this level of intelligence although apes show more intelligence than we once thought. Will apes evolve? I don't know. There are many theories on how our brains become as they are right now. What's even more surprising is that we have a tribe in south America that can't count at all. They have no concept of math. Of course, that'd make you wonder about their consciousness or their evolved brains.

"That is one thing that seems to differ between you and me - if I see the tiniest glimmer of hope for me after death, I'm willing to take the chance- but what about you?"

Hope for what? What do you hope after death? For me, death is a natural process. We ALL will die and that's normal. It is ALSO normal for us to look for ways to survive as long as possible otherwise we would not be here at all!

Why can't you entertain the idea that once you die, you're gone forever? Remember, once you die, you wouldn't feel emotional. You wouldn't feel a thing at all. You'd NEVER know you ever existed. You'd NEVER know you were once educated on this beautiful planet. Sounds depressing, huh? Probably. But you see, that is OK!

We are so obsessed with the idea of eternal hope and eternal happiness when in fact, they are temporary, just as our other emotions as depression and fear. That's why self-help gurus make a lot of money selling their books and seminars! What people don't realize is that many self-help gurus are neurotic as well!

I mean, I am neurotic in some ways. I am hypochondriac. I am a "worried well" type person. Belief in God is a form of neurosis as well. People want to believe in something that is not there in a scientific sense.

Neurosis, contrary to what most experts say, is normal as well therefore belief in God is normal. So are diseases. Everything surrounding us changes and we change as well. Without them, we'd NOT evolve at ALL!
 
Hello,
I have been extremely busy and won't be able to reply until after Nov. 27th.
Gotta go!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top