• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If there is no creator

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'll give the correct scientific answer: - We don't know!

Isn't that great? We have something to investigate, research - brilliant.
Scientists don't invent answers, they are happy to admit when we don't know.

It's self inflicting view. The "universe" stands alone. It creates within itself.

I don't know shouldn't be part of the answer because humans creates the idea there must be a cause. Seen as is, you will only see things form, collide, and come into being from other things. There is no other option to the universe only the problems humans make of it.

Edit, We say don't know the answer to the problem we, ourselves, created and ask. Which is ironic. Philosophy.

tumblr_lpnz5oJkL61qggdq1.jpg

The (tormented) Thinker
 
Last edited:

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Can you elaborate on what you see as the significance of the fact that "even the most complex interactions appear to proceed at the same rate of speed", please? Just curious.

A computer program solving a physical evolution problem will run shorter or longer depending on how complex the situation is. The more variables that are relevant to that situation, the more complex it will be and the more processing is needed to reach a solution. Add in that multiple variables that affect each other make the situation non-linear, with a solution that can only be approximated by linear processing. By having the universe be granular, being quantized in all aspects, including space-time, gets around the approximation issue by having reality be only an approximation of a hypothetical continuum, describable only by real numbers.

While the approximation issue can be circumvented by requiring total quantization, it is still the case that computer processing time will increase with increasing the number of variables involved and also with the changes in those variables while the processing is going on. An atom that is subject to acceleration will experience a change of state, mostly stress on its electronic interactions with other atoms. Enough acceleration will break those bonds and material failure will take place. Subject the atom to heat, i.e., stress on its electronic bonds due to vibrations of other atoms and the bonds will break faster not slower, even though more processing is needed to figure out what to do. Have the atom get hit by neutrons from some radioactive source and even more stress is involved, making the electronic bonds fail even sooner. Add in that there are loads of other influences going on, like the constantly shifting gravitational field as the local atoms and the entire hierarchy of gravitating bodies up to heavenly bodies themselves move.

Complicating situations typically makes things happen faster. Considering that in the example above, it is not just one atom involved but a huge number of them and the state of each atom is influenced by the changing states of all the other atoms, the amount of computation to reach a result increases very rapidly as the situation becomes more complex. There should be some discernible increase in the rate of processes as complexity increase but there does not seem to be any. Rather things tend to go faster.

Reality being computation driven cannot explain this. Reality being fundamentally geometric stands a better chance in that there is no need to compute anything to arrive at a result. The shapes of things change continuously in accordance with the plethora of simultaneous influences. The ‘shapes’ here would not be simply 3D spatial shapes but would exist in multi-dimensional phase spaces. A universe being the embodiment of a particular Calabi-Yau manifold – complicated higher dimensional shapes sort of like Swiss cheese – could explain the specific properties of that universe. Possible particles and forces (which are quanta remember) would be those that fit the ‘holes’.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?
The correct answer is, We don't know (though we have not the slightest evidence to suggest that anything happened outside the realm of physics).

But this thought has previously occurred to me. Let's call the contents of the Big Bang mass-energy. Then everything that exists is mass-energy and properties of mass-energy ─ spacetime itself, its contents and its regularities of interaction (the rules of physics).

If that's right then the time part of spacetime is a property of mass-energy, not a container in which mass-energy is found. So the existence of mass-energy explains the existence of space and time, and that's all the explanation required.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
The correct answer is, We don't know (though we have not the slightest evidence to suggest that anything happened outside the realm of physics).

But this thought has previously occurred to me. Let's call the contents of the Big Bang mass-energy. Then everything that exists is mass-energy and properties of mass-energy ─ spacetime itself, its contents and its regularities of interaction (the rules of physics).

If that's right then the time part of spacetime is a property of mass-energy, not a container in which mass-energy is found. So the existence of mass-energy explains the existence of space and time, and that's all the explanation required.

What is time?
In my experience we only live in the moment, not in the past and not in the future, what exist is only right now. So does time exist, or is it only human beings who create time in the head?
We as human beings are only observers, we observe one moment arise and fall, then a new moment of rising and faling. So seen like this, there is nothing called time. only moments.
In my experience (meditation) everything and nothing happens in the same moment.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
"In theoretical physics, the Hartle–Hawking state, named after James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, is a proposal concerning the state of the Universe prior to the Planck epoch."

References:
  1. Staff (University of Cambridge) (2 May 2018). "Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang". Phys.org. Retrieved 2 May 2018.
  2. ^ Hawking, Stephen; Hertog, Thomas (20 April 2018). "A smooth exit from eternal inflation? - abstract". Journal of High Energy Physics. arXiv:1707.07702. Bibcode:2018JHEP...04..147H. doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2018)147.
  3. ^ Hawking, Stephen; Hertog, Thomas (20 April 2018). "A smooth exit from eternal inflation? - full article" (PDF). Journal of High Energy Physics. arXiv:1707.07702. Bibcode:2018JHEP...04..147H. doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2018)147. Retrieved 2 May 2018
"Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backwards in time towards the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might otherwise have been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the Universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state Universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state Universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time or space."

"The Hartle–Hawking state is the wave function of the Universe—a notion meant to figure out how the Universe started—that is calculated from Feynman's path integral."

"More precisely, it is a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity that describes this wave function."

"It is a functional of the metric tensor defined at a (D − 1)-dimensional compact surface, the Universe, where D is the spacetime dimension. The precise form of the Hartle–Hawking state is the path integral over all D-dimensional geometries that have the required induced metric on their boundary. According to the theory, time, as it is currently observed, diverged from a three-state dimension after the Universe was in the age of the Planck time."

"Such a w
ave function of the Universe can be shown to satisfy, approximately, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation."

Reference: John D. Barrow, The Origin of the Universe: To the Edge of Space and Time, Basic Books, 1997.


 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?

I donot have an answer to it my self if i try to see it from an atheists POW. But they can ofcourse be correct just like religion can be correct.
I don't think that there was necessarily a start. That is a natural expectation to have from a human perspective, but existence does not owe us conformity to such an expectation.

We just do not know whether existence had a beginning. And that is of no practical consequence.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I don't think that there was necessarily a start. That is a natural expectation to have from a human perspective, but existence does not owe us conformity to such an expectation.

We just do not know whether existence had a beginning. And that is of no practical consequence.

Buddha once said it had been 81 cosmos like this we live in now. meaning 80 big bangs. that is how far back in history he could see.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Huh? No, no, It's just being a super chess player and seeing 10 or 12 moves ahead.

Any fool can predict scheduled events and
simple cause-effect. That aint prophecy.

Them prophets do decades, millenia, and
not as "chess players" but as seers.

If you can actually predict the future-which,
is not, you know, predetermined-then you get
part of the effect before the cause.

That part being knowledge of the event, sometimes
in great detail.

This requires a deterministic universe, and reversal
of cause / effect. Maybe some time travel besides.

That aint chess, that is a bit more serious.
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
Any fool can predict scheduled events and
simple cause-effect. That aint prophecy.

Them prophets do decades, millenia, and
not as "chess players" but as seers.

If you can actually predict the future-which,
is not, you know, predetermined-then you get
part of the effect before the cause.

That part being knowledge of the event, sometimes
in great detail.

This requires a deterministic universe, and reversal
of cause / effect. Maybe some time travel besides.

That aint chess, that is a bit more serious.

You got some interesting rules. Serious??
 

blacklagoon

New Member
Extension, maybe. Do clouds make rain? The water is always there, it just changes its form. Suppose a potter takes a piece of clay, and uses a wheel to make a pot. I might forget the terms, but there is material cause (clay) instrumental cause (wheel) and efficient cause (not sure if that's the right word, maybe separate is better) the potter. In eastern views God is the clay, perhaps wheel. In Abrahamic views, God is only the potter.

I'll link you to the longer detailed explanation if I can find it.
Water is water, how does it change form in a cloud?

Clay is part of the natural world and inferring that somehow God is like clay is kind of pointless.

Any analogy that tries to use the natural world and the supernatural is flawed as there is no indication that the supernatural realm is even possible.
 
Top