Earth on the scale of things...

[Arcade Fire]

The theory maybe unscientific sounding...

It's not just unscientific sounding - it's plain unscientific. If there's no possibility of you being proved wrong by a do-able experiment (and I don't think that there is) then you have an unscientific theory.

Science can explain a lot but so much appears to be by design at some level that its hard to see how pure randomness in this fairly chaotic universe could make all of this...

You're right, it IS hard to see how pure randomness and chance could come up with everything we see around us. But that's the role of science - to try and provide models that explain why everything we see around us isn't just a fluke, and how it's perfectly natural and should in fact be expected. We have a long way to go yet, but we're making progress.

I think its safe to say things have to work together for anything useful to happen in the universe and on earth, so science is good to explain how things work but it doesn't mean there can't be some intellect that got the grand design going...

You're right, there's nothing to say that there can't be a creator who got everything going. But I can't help but think that you're missing the point of science somewhat. No scientific theory can possibly start with "Assume that God exists..." because as soon as you assume the existence of something which doesn't act according to the rules of logic, then anything goes. That's not to say that science and religion are incompatable - in fact there are several high-profile scientists who are also religious. However, they can't let their religious beliefs influence their scientific work, because as soon as you bring religion (or any kind of intelligent design) into the equation then you stop being scientific. There's nothing that can disprove the theory 'the world was created five minutes ago, along with us and all our memories' but precisely because it's not falsifiable, it's not worth studying by scientists.

 

[Visage]

Does the first bit about how a singularity could start seem possible?

It's probably how i explained it but the interaction of these fluctuations over a long time is like communication in a basic way, think what is consciousness, is it not just the interaction or communication between things?

The theory maybe unscientific sounding but it supports the possibility for what people call god, i think if we can all be self aware and conscious then perhaps the fluctuations in the singularity could and possibly else where in space at some level, its all a bit like pure information but to keep the information existing in a stable way it has to be constantly interacting and improving itself overtime and discarding anything bad like evolution does.

Science can explain a lot but so much appears to be by design at some level that its hard to see how pure randomness in this fairly chaotic universe could make all of this, i don't think anyone should discount the possibility that at some point things were swung into action by a sort of great intellect, its not really that unscientific to think this because hypothetically we could build a computer to create a universe and in it we could design everything in a way that works and doesn't happen in an unexplainable way.

I think its safe to say things have to work together for anything useful to happen in the universe and on earth, so science is good to explain how things work but it doesn't mean there can't be some intellect that got the grand design going, it just means we haven't got to that point of understanding yet, i don't think many religions are right in their ideas, especially creation but the possibility for a creator? sure.

Read up on the 'Anthropomorphic principle' - basically we shouldnt be amazed that intelligent life has developed since if it hadnt then we wouldnt be here to ask the question.

For all we know the universe may have had billions of Big Bang/Big Cruch oscillations with each universe looking radically different, and only a few of them having the correct physical characteristics for the development of life.

 

[Radiation]

It's not just unscientific sounding - it's plain unscientific. If there's no possibility of you being proved wrong by a do-able experiment (and I don't think that there is) then you have an unscientific theory.

Actually theres a few things i have read that lead me to believe in the real possibility of this, one of them was about quantum fluctuations and there was also something else i read which gave me the idea of time with the alternating existence and nonexistence paradox.

You're right, it IS hard to see how pure randomness and chance could come up with everything we see around us. But that's the role of science - to try and provide models that explain why everything we see around us isn't just a fluke, and how it's perfectly natural and should in fact be expected. We have a long way to go yet, but we're making progress.

Thats right but it shouldn't discount the possibility for design at some level, i remember watching a documentary on tv about the universe, there's a fundamental force (i forget which) that scientists found incredibly unlikely statistically to be so precise as to allow for the way things are, that of course doesn't mean it couldn't be by pure chance but its incredibly unlikely, just thought that was interesting is all.

You're right, there's nothing to say that there can't be a creator who got everything going. But I can't help but think that you're missing the point of science somewhat. No scientific theory can possibly start with "Assume that God exists..." because as soon as you assume the existence of something which doesn't act according to the rules of logic, then anything goes. That's not to say that science and religion are incompatable - in fact there are several high-profile scientists who are also religious. However, they can't let their religious beliefs influence their scientific work, because as soon as you bring religion (or any kind of intelligent design) into the equation then you stop being scientific. There's nothing that can disprove the theory 'the world was created five minutes ago, along with us and all our memories' but precisely because it's not falsifiable, it's not worth studying by scientists.

I do understand this but lets not get into this sort of discussion, i've had it in the past but it just goes off topic from the interesting post i may have made to start with.

Read up on the 'Anthropomorphic principle' - basically we shouldnt be amazed that intelligent life has developed since if it hadnt then we wouldnt be here to ask the question.

For all we know the universe may have had billions of Big Bang/Big Cruch oscillations with each universe looking radically different, and only a few of them having the correct physical characteristics for the development of life.

I've heard of this one and its a alright theory but it doesn't try to explain the very start of the singularity which is what i wonder about.


Edit: i might try to digg up some of the stuff i've read on this and reasons for the theory.

What do you lot think of the idea itself, like how the singularity and time started etc?

 

[Arcade Fire]

Read up on the 'Anthropomorphic principle' - basically we shouldnt be amazed that intelligent life has developed since if it hadnt then we wouldnt be here to ask the question.

I'm fairly certain that you mean the anthropic principle - unless you're suggesting that the universe was designed by cat people or something.

In any case, I dislike anthropic arguments. They're a huge cop-out, and you can never get anything as scientific as, you know, an actual prediction from them.

I think that we've learnt to frame the question slightly differently now - instead of asking "Why did the universe develop the way we see it?" we instead ask "Is the way that the universe has developed generic (in some sense), or is it atypical and special?"

We'd like to assume that the parameters that govern the development of the universe, and ultimately our very existence, are generic in some way and thus the existence of intelligent life shouldn't be surprising. Of course, it's possible that it's all a huge cosmic fluke... but that would be a bit fluky. This is why I think that anthropic arguments are such a wheeze - they just do away entirely with what is a very interesting and very important question.

 

[SgtTupac]

Thats some seriously interesting stuff! Suprising how big some planets/stars are compared to earth!

 

[Arcade Fire]

What do you lot think of the idea itself, like how the singularity and time started etc?

To be frank, I think it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. I'd be willing to take it more seriously if it had some numbers or a prediction attached to it - at the moment it's about as scientific as me saying "I believe that a singularity at the beginning of time caused a breakdown of probability in which every conceivable event became a certainty, and thus there exists a universe in which everyone is made of a pungent blue cheese".

 

[w11tho]

"I believe that a singularity at the beginning of time caused a breakdown of probability in which every conceivable event became a certainty, and thus there exists a universe in which everyone is made of a pungent blue cheese".

I'm willing to go with that.

 

[Radiation]

To be frank, I think it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. I'd be willing to take it more seriously if it had some numbers or a prediction attached to it - at the moment it's about as scientific as me saying "I believe that a singularity at the beginning of time caused a breakdown of probability in which every conceivable event became a certainty, and thus there exists a universe in which everyone is made of a pungent blue cheese".

Well obviously i know what im talking about but whether its easy enough for you to understand without some thought, equations or extra detail is another matter, thats just the short version and some stuff is hard to explain and needs a certain train of thought, as im no mathematician or scientist you will have to believe what you will, other theory's are just as strange if not more so and hard to understand as well, but this is a theory based on real knowledge and some serious thinking.

 

[SiD the Turtle]

I think the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy pretty much sums up the scale of the universe when describing the Total Perspective Vortex:

For when you are put into the Vortex you are given just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little marker, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says 'You are here.'

 

[Inquisitor]

I think the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy pretty much sums up the scale of the universe when describing the Total Perspective Vortex:

Damn you, I was going to mention that

 

[JayMax]

I think the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy pretty much sums up the scale of the universe when describing the Total Perspective Vortex:

Darn, wish I'd mentioned that in post #188!

I've heard it can be considered rather small in the Total Perspective Vortex

 

[Arcade Fire]

Well obviously i know what im talking about...

Fair enough, perhaps you just haven't made it obvious enough to me yet. Does your theory make any testable predictions? What experimental data do you have to back it up? How does it fit in with current theories about the universe, such as quantum field theory and general relativity - which, by the way, make numerical predictions accurate to one part in a million millions. Is your theory, in principle, expressable in the language of mathematics? Without exception, every single theory in use today which describes the world is mathematical - what makes you think yours should be any different?

...but whether its easy enough for you to understand without some thought, equations or extra detail is another matter, thats just the short version...

You're right, I doubt that I can understand it fully given that all you've given me is two paragraphs of wordy explanation. I've been studying quantum mechanics for the best part of four years, and I don't claim to even have come close to understanding that. Can you supply some of these equations or extra detail?

...im no mathematician or scientist...

Don't worry, that was one part of your theory that you didn't need to explain!

...you will have to believe what you will, other theory's are just as strange if not more so and hard to understand as well, but this is a theory based on real knowledge and some serious thinking.

That's true, some other theories are just as strange as yours, and I'm certain that a great many of them are even harder to understand. But they differ in that they're quantifiable, testable and ultimately falsifiable. If your theory doesn't make any predictions then it's not a scientific theory - it's just you rambling about nothing.

 

[Gilly]

Its just you rambling about nothing.

Damn you, you stole my theory

Unfortunately I can't back that up mathematically.

 

[Arcade Fire]

Damn you, you stole my theory

Unfortunately I can't back that up mathematically.

Haha. Knob.

 

[Visage]

I'm fairly certain that you mean the anthropic principle - unless you're suggesting that the universe was designed by cat people or something.

In any case, I dislike anthropic arguments. They're a huge cop-out, and you can never get anything as scientific as, you know, an actual prediction from them.

I think that we've learnt to frame the question slightly differently now - instead of asking "Why did the universe develop the way we see it?" we instead ask "Is the way that the universe has developed generic (in some sense), or is it atypical and special?"

We'd like to assume that the parameters that govern the development of the universe, and ultimately our very existence, are generic in some way and thus the existence of intelligent life shouldn't be surprising. Of course, it's possible that it's all a huge cosmic fluke... but that would be a bit fluky. This is why I think that anthropic arguments are such a wheeze - they just do away entirely with what is a very interesting and very important question.

I disagree. The who 'multiverse' notion, whether that be single universes coming in and out of esistence in a long chain of Big Bangs/Crunches or the 'many worlds' hypotheses regarding the temporal progress of the universe splitting into many distinct timelines, introduce the concept that we may be in one unioverse of many possible ones. In this context the notion of a complex universe supporting intellifgent life is not 'flukey', since there are many universes that do not support life.

Its akin to a lottery winner thinking that they are flukey because they won. On a personal level that may be true, but the concept that *someone* won (assuming enough tickets were sold...) is not 'lucky'....

 

[Borris]

...

Jammy git.

I had to buy tickets to every universe before I found a winner.

 

[Arcade Fire]

I disagree. The who 'multiverse' notion, whether that be single universes coming in and out of esistence in a long chain of Big Bangs/Crunches or the 'many worlds' hypotheses regarding the temporal progress of the universe splitting into many distinct timelines, introduce the concept that we may be in one unioverse of many possible ones. In this context the notion of a complex universe supporting intellifgent life is not 'flukey', since there are many universes that do not support life.

But like I say, the multiverse theory falls down on two important counts:

(i) It's completely unscientific, so even if it's true it shouldn't form a part of our accumulated body of scientific knowledge - how would you make a prediction from it?

(ii) It's a complete cop-out! The question of why our universe is one that is seemingly so ideally suited to support life is important and complex. Anthropic arguments throw that out the window, and brush aside many issues that we should, as interested scientists, be struggling to get to grips with.

 

[Gilly]

Haha. Knob.

OMG PERSONAL ATTACK!!!

 

[Blue Cypher]

Im just thinking there maybe a planet of hot sexy virgins out there waiting for me to discover them

 

[tbz_ck]

Im just thinking there maybe a planet of hot sexy virgins out there waiting for me to discover them

3 boobs for the win!