• 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!

Pre-Singularity Evolution

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
If it is believed that the universe essentially evolved from that which preceded it, do you think it possible that pre-singularity/pre-elemental life forms could have evolved -or do you believe that life must be based on the specific elements formed by/by what followed the singularity?

We are now doubting the belief that life must be based on carbon -so might it be possible for life to be based on that which preceded the formation of any of the elements?
 
Last edited:

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
If it is believed that the universe essentially evolved from that which preceded it, do you think it possible that pre-singularity/pre-elemental life forms could have evolved -or do you believe that life must be based on the specific elements formed by/by what followed the singularity?
I believe life can take on an infinite number of shapes. There might be life, awareness, consciousness of kinds that we'll never be able to recognize.

We are now doubting the belief that life must be based on carbon -so might it be possible for life to be based on that which preceded the formation of any of the elements?
I think so.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
hqdefault.jpg
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If it is believed that the universe essentially evolved from that which preceded it, do you think it possible that pre-singularity/pre-elemental life forms could have evolved -or do you believe that life must be based on the specific elements formed by/by what followed the singularity?

We are now doubting the belief that life must be based on carbon -so might it be possible for life to be based on that which preceded the formation of any of the elements?
Based on what we now know about quantum mechanics, which granted is very little, I think the chances of previous universes coming into existence, quite possibly including some life forms, is likely. I doubt very much that we alone.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Based on what we now know about quantum mechanics, which granted is very little, I think the chances of previous universes coming into existence, quite possibly including some life forms, is likely. I doubt very much that we alone.

What about intelligence/life before a universe as we know it?

Might an intelligence evolve from that which also becomes a universe -which is not dependent on the prior existence of a universe?

If there might be multiple "physical" universes/multiverses, would they not all exist within one overall universe of a more basic nature?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What about intelligence/life before a universe as we know it?

Might an intelligence evolve from that which also becomes a universe -which is not dependent on the prior existence of a universe?

If there might be multiple "physical" universes/multiverses, would they not all exist within one overall universe of a more basic nature?
I don't think it likely that "intelligence" can exist without a organism with something like a brain. To your latter point, I don't think that is as likely because that would turn q.m. on its head.

But then, what do I know.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
I don't think it likely that "intelligence" can exist without a organism with something like a brain. To your latter point, I don't think that is as likely because that would turn q.m. on its head.

But then, what do I know.
I don't know, either -but it seems there was "something" -which formed and from which was formed the universe -and the universe would essentially be within that something -or at least part of the whole -and other universes would be similar.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't know, either -but it seems there was "something" -which formed and from which was formed the universe -and the universe would essentially be within that something -or at least part of the whole -and other universes would be similar.
As time has gone on, the complexity and the diversity of our universe has become more apparent.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't know, either -but it seems there was "something" -which formed and from which was formed the universe -and the universe would essentially be within that something -or at least part of the whole -and other universes would be similar.
That's quite sensible, even obvious, on a human scale, but if you step back and look at the Big Picture, or closely examine the physics in question on a microscopic scale, common sense flies right out the window.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Based on what we now know about quantum mechanics, which granted is very little, I think the chances of previous universes coming into existence, quite possibly including some life forms, is likely. I doubt very much that we alone.
What do we know about quantum mechanics that renders "the chances of previous universes coming into existence" likely?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What do we know about quantum mechanics that renders "the chances of previous universes coming into existence" likely?
Sub-atomic particles, which take all sorts of different forms and behaviors, permeate our universe in ways that are mostly unpredictable. From what I've read, more and more cosmologists and physicists are feeling that it's more likely that we are a part of a multiverse versus just a universe, largely because why should we believe there was only one singularity that somehow "acted" alone and led to our universe?

OTOH, is theistic causation hypothetically possible? Yes, but that cannot be assumed, so more "natural" causation based on what is known, which granted is very little, tends to form most hypotheses. My understanding is that M-Theory matched with String Theory does work out mathematically, but don't ask me how they came up with that.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Sub-atomic particles, which take all sorts of different forms and behaviors, permeate our universe in ways that are mostly unpredictable. From what I've read, more and more cosmologists and physicists are feeling that it's more likely that we are a part of a multiverse versus just a universe, largely because why should we believe there was only one singularity that somehow "acted" alone and led to our universe?
Perhaps they'll evolve a testable scientific theory to confirm these feelings.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
If it is believed that the universe essentially evolved from that which preceded it, do you think it possible that pre-singularity/pre-elemental life forms could have evolved -or do you believe that life must be based on the specific elements formed by/by what followed the singularity?

We are now doubting the belief that life must be based on carbon -so might it be possible for life to be based on that which preceded the formation of any of the elements?
What in the bloody seven hells does the singularity have to do with life?

Isn't "Pre singularity" an oxymoron?
Yes, it is.

As far science goes, they are only theoreticising and hypothesing of what is the singularity. They have no evidences to see through the opaqueness of the universe before the Recombination Epoch (hence before the CMBR), so they can only speculate about the oscillating universe model (or cyclical model, also known as the Big Bounce) and multiverse models.
 
Last edited:

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Sub-atomic particles, which take all sorts of different forms and behaviors, permeate our universe in ways that are mostly unpredictable. From what I've read, more and more cosmologists and physicists are feeling that it's more likely that we are a part of a multiverse versus just a universe, largely because why should we believe there was only one singularity that somehow "acted" alone and led to our universe?

OTOH, is theistic causation hypothetically possible? Yes, but that cannot be assumed, so more "natural" causation based on what is known, which granted is very little, tends to form most hypotheses. My understanding is that M-Theory matched with String Theory does work out mathematically, but don't ask me how they came up with that.

Would not a God which truly existed necessarily be 100 percent natural? It is true that we can only know what can presently be known, but we may not be interpreting the data we have correctly.
We may have enough to prove that forethought was necessary -or something like that -but not realize it.

I imagine everything that is to be "1" -which is subdivided and rearranged -perhaps infinitely (I was thinking about the statement "God is one", etc... in mathematical terms.)

It just seems to me that "everything" needed to be arranged as an overall intelligence before our universe and ourselves were possible.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
As time has gone on, the complexity and the diversity of our universe has become more apparent.

It would be awesome to find life constantly evolving and changing on many other planets -but it is interesting that humans imagine not being subject to evolution one day.
Constant adaptation -life and death cycle -has its uses -but not needing to adapt or adapting as individuals is not an impossibility.
Permanent life forms/immortality would allow us to move on -and to provide a stable environment for future immortals.
If you think about it, one of the main problems with humanity is successive generations needing to learn the same personal lessons over and over -even given the amount of recorded knowledge.
Our minds can conceive of immortality.
It seems logical that it will follow somehow.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Perhaps they'll evolve a testable scientific theory to confirm these feelings.
This is what they're looking for in regards to the Theory of Everything that well might explain what in general happened. However, it's been elusive, and the closest they've got is with 17 or so different equations lumped together that actually works. However, they're still hoping to find that one equation that they think could exist.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Would not a God which truly existed necessarily be 100 percent natural? It is true that we can only know what can presently be known, but we may not be interpreting the data we have correctly.
We may have enough to prove that forethought was necessary -or something like that -but not realize it.

I imagine everything that is to be "1" -which is subdivided and rearranged -perhaps infinitely (I was thinking about the statement "God is one", etc... in mathematical terms.)

It just seems to me that "everything" needed to be arranged as an overall intelligence before our universe and ourselves were possible.
First of all, check my signature at the bottom of this page, which may help to understand where I'm coming from on this.

Secondly, there are some rather serious problems putting a single deity in "charge" of supposedly creating our universe since the positing of such a deity has never been confirmed objectively, plus such a deity would negate cause & effect in terms of this deity always supposedly existing. IOW, why is it so difficult to understand that our multiverse hypothetically could go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am, and yet believe in a deity that hypothetically goes back into infinity?

But there's even some other issues, but I gotta leave for a short time-- lunch is on.
 
Top