How strange it is to be anything at all?
July 12, 2008 8:41 AM Subscribe
Where did the universe come from in the first place?
Is there any framework, scientific, philosophic, or religious that addresses where the universe came from in the first place? i.e. where god, the singularity, or the infinite cycle of birth and death arose/came from?
Is there any framework, scientific, philosophic, or religious that addresses where the universe came from in the first place? i.e. where god, the singularity, or the infinite cycle of birth and death arose/came from?
You might google "cosmology" and start reading interesting stuff that comes up. For example the Wiki pages on cosmology and creation myths might be a place to put your toes in the water before jumping in.
posted by aught at 8:51 AM on July 12, 2008
posted by aught at 8:51 AM on July 12, 2008
A book called Metaphysics: The Big Questions has essays on the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" (BTW, try a Google search for that phrase.) This is more about the abstract question of why things exist at all than about the starting point.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:55 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:55 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
Nowhere. Because there's nowhere else. The universe is the sum total of everything that can possibly be, in all dimensions.
Some call it God.
posted by gjc at 9:02 AM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]
Some call it God.
posted by gjc at 9:02 AM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]
In my opinion, Max Tegmark [recent interview] has the best answer - the reason there is something instead of nothing is that mathematical existence and physical existence are one and the same.
posted by tomcooke at 9:15 AM on July 12, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by tomcooke at 9:15 AM on July 12, 2008 [4 favorites]
One thing I can say: this is one AskMe where no-one can offer anything approaching a provable, testable or even probably truthful answer.
posted by lalochezia at 9:22 AM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 9:22 AM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]
You might want to look at Paul Davies' The Cosmic Jackpot, aka The Goldilocks Enigma. I disagree with his preferred conclusion, but he's a good writer.
posted by lukemeister at 9:56 AM on July 12, 2008
posted by lukemeister at 9:56 AM on July 12, 2008
When I took metaphysics in college the theory that I liked the best is that the universe expands and contracts like a heartbeat, big bang to completely expanded back to big bang.
I don't think that the universe came from "nothing" but rather it has always existed, which is hard for anyone to wrap their heads around. Something can't come from nothing... so the universe could not have come from nothing. The universe must always have just existed. Don't lose sleep over this.
posted by pwally at 9:56 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't think that the universe came from "nothing" but rather it has always existed, which is hard for anyone to wrap their heads around. Something can't come from nothing... so the universe could not have come from nothing. The universe must always have just existed. Don't lose sleep over this.
posted by pwally at 9:56 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
The best theory that I can come up with is that time doesn't truly exist. We see things move, change, grow and skin deteriorate and we had a hard time understanding how all this could happen in a static environment so we invented time in a way to come up with some sense of order and control. If you eliminate time from the equation then all the questions go away and gravity becomes the real culprit.
posted by any major dude at 9:59 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by any major dude at 9:59 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
Over time, everything happens that could possibly happen.
posted by Brian B. at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]
We don't know. We may never know. We're human and have limited perception. The best I can say is that the universe by definition consists of everything and that there is no such thing as 11 billion years ago.
There is only matter, energy, and the four fundamental forces to do things to it that result from the properties of that matter and energy.
We're another insignificant species on a planet that may be one of many in the universe with life; we are likely only one of very few species in the universe that are intelligent enough to ask these questions. Put your place in the universe in perspective first. You, I, and everyone else are only blips of existence. We have no inherent importance to the universe. What makes us important at all is our actions and the ways by which we understand and manipulate our environment.
posted by kldickson at 10:42 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
There is only matter, energy, and the four fundamental forces to do things to it that result from the properties of that matter and energy.
We're another insignificant species on a planet that may be one of many in the universe with life; we are likely only one of very few species in the universe that are intelligent enough to ask these questions. Put your place in the universe in perspective first. You, I, and everyone else are only blips of existence. We have no inherent importance to the universe. What makes us important at all is our actions and the ways by which we understand and manipulate our environment.
posted by kldickson at 10:42 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
If you're looking for a deeply philosophical approach to the question, I'd suggest reading up on (and reading) Heidegger. His fundamental question was "what does it mean to say that something 'is'?" Spoiler alert: he doesn't answer the question, but he does, in my opinion, have a lot to say about what it means to be the kind of being that asks this very question.
posted by treepour at 10:53 AM on July 12, 2008
posted by treepour at 10:53 AM on July 12, 2008
You, I, and everyone else are only blips of existence. We have no inherent importance to the universe.
All assumptions, of course. We have no way of knowing this.
posted by shivohum at 11:00 AM on July 12, 2008
All assumptions, of course. We have no way of knowing this.
posted by shivohum at 11:00 AM on July 12, 2008
Well, theologically God exists outside the universe as well as exists everywhere in it.
To be technical, He is both transcendent and immanent.
Theologically, then, He created the universe out of nothing-He spoke it into existence.
Now, as to where God was before He did that?
Don't ask. I don't have enough Excedrin in the house to help my head if I think on that for too long.
posted by konolia at 11:06 AM on July 12, 2008
To be technical, He is both transcendent and immanent.
Theologically, then, He created the universe out of nothing-He spoke it into existence.
Now, as to where God was before He did that?
Don't ask. I don't have enough Excedrin in the house to help my head if I think on that for too long.
posted by konolia at 11:06 AM on July 12, 2008
When I took metaphysics in college the theory that I liked the best is that the universe expands and contracts like a heartbeat, big bang to completely expanded back to big bang.
Nope. The universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. There will be no Big Crunch.
posted by Bonzai at 11:15 AM on July 12, 2008
Nope. The universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. There will be no Big Crunch.
posted by Bonzai at 11:15 AM on July 12, 2008
An interesting article follows, can't say as I know enough to judge its validity:
Tipler states [his Omega Point] theory requires that the current known laws of physics are true descriptions of reality, and it requires there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time to exploit the computational capacity of such an environment.
Tipler identifies this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity with God...
Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals since 1986...
Tipler now regards himself as a theist due to what he states have been advancements in his Omega Point Theory which occurred after the publication of The Physics of Immortality.[12][13] Namely, Tipler now says the known laws of physics—specifically, quantum mechanics, general relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, and the Standard Model of particle physics—require the existence of the Omega Point singularity in order to avoid their violation;[6][5][4] whereas in The Physics of Immortality Tipler investigated what would be necessary from the postulate that life continues forever while still keeping the analysis confined to the known laws of physics. Tipler states that these physical laws have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date. According to Tipler, this constitutes a massive body of empirical evidence for the Omega Point Theory's correctness. And as indicated above, Tipler also now considers himself a Christian due to his identification of the Omega Point with the God of Christian theological tradition.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:17 AM on July 12, 2008
Tipler states [his Omega Point] theory requires that the current known laws of physics are true descriptions of reality, and it requires there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time to exploit the computational capacity of such an environment.
Tipler identifies this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity with God...
Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals since 1986...
Tipler now regards himself as a theist due to what he states have been advancements in his Omega Point Theory which occurred after the publication of The Physics of Immortality.[12][13] Namely, Tipler now says the known laws of physics—specifically, quantum mechanics, general relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, and the Standard Model of particle physics—require the existence of the Omega Point singularity in order to avoid their violation;[6][5][4] whereas in The Physics of Immortality Tipler investigated what would be necessary from the postulate that life continues forever while still keeping the analysis confined to the known laws of physics. Tipler states that these physical laws have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date. According to Tipler, this constitutes a massive body of empirical evidence for the Omega Point Theory's correctness. And as indicated above, Tipler also now considers himself a Christian due to his identification of the Omega Point with the God of Christian theological tradition.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:17 AM on July 12, 2008
Science has shown us that the formation of the Universe was a messy business that left quite a bit of litter behind in the form of giant ice balls and big, nasty rocks; many of which have the unfortunate habit of crashing into our planet uninvited and at highly inconvenient times. A fact the dinosaurs know about only too well. Or would have, if there were any still alive, and had brains larger than a throat lozenge, which they're not and they didn't, so just forget I even brought it up.
posted by netbros at 11:23 AM on July 12, 2008
posted by netbros at 11:23 AM on July 12, 2008
Just repeating the statement that this is not something that anybody can really have definite knowledge about. Also, I like the Neutral Milk Hotel reference in the title, if that is indeed what it is.
posted by number9dream at 12:09 PM on July 12, 2008
posted by number9dream at 12:09 PM on July 12, 2008
Konolia: Russell's teapot. Plz learn it.
Shivohum: Assumptions? Not necessarily. They're the best inferences we can make given a body of collected evidence. In essence, you're saying that every assertion we make is an assumption.
posted by kldickson at 12:15 PM on July 12, 2008
Shivohum: Assumptions? Not necessarily. They're the best inferences we can make given a body of collected evidence. In essence, you're saying that every assertion we make is an assumption.
posted by kldickson at 12:15 PM on July 12, 2008
Nope. The universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. There will be no Big Crunch.
Okay... the expansion is accelerating but that doesn't mean that it won't ever slow down. Nobody is in the position to tell anyone else they are wrong haha. I was describing the big bounce theory... and if you want to argue with loop quantum gravity, well I don't think you do.
posted by pwally at 12:27 PM on July 12, 2008
Okay... the expansion is accelerating but that doesn't mean that it won't ever slow down. Nobody is in the position to tell anyone else they are wrong haha. I was describing the big bounce theory... and if you want to argue with loop quantum gravity, well I don't think you do.
posted by pwally at 12:27 PM on July 12, 2008
Christians believe that God created the universe, and different Christians have different ideas of how that happened (some say it was in seven days, some say it was more gradual, etc.) He created the earth, then the plant life, then the animals, then the humans. Actually there are two different creation stories in Genesis if you read it (NRSV), I don't remember how the second one goes. Also Mormons have some other beliefs about it but I think you have to be a Mormon to learn them.
Muslims have a similar belief based on the Qur'an: Allaah created the entire universe, including space and earth, in six "days" which can actually be any length in human time. He created both the heavens and the earth from a kind of smoke. He predestined everything that would happen and then He rose above the "Throne" and the reality of this Throne is one of the unknowns in Islamic belief.
I'm not sure what Jews believe but I'd guess it's similar to the Christians' belief. As for the scientific view, I'm not sure, most cosmology is over my head.
If this is really bothering you please be sure to ask real people (not on the internet)! That way you will get a more serious answer.
posted by Laugh_track at 12:27 PM on July 12, 2008
Muslims have a similar belief based on the Qur'an: Allaah created the entire universe, including space and earth, in six "days" which can actually be any length in human time. He created both the heavens and the earth from a kind of smoke. He predestined everything that would happen and then He rose above the "Throne" and the reality of this Throne is one of the unknowns in Islamic belief.
I'm not sure what Jews believe but I'd guess it's similar to the Christians' belief. As for the scientific view, I'm not sure, most cosmology is over my head.
If this is really bothering you please be sure to ask real people (not on the internet)! That way you will get a more serious answer.
posted by Laugh_track at 12:27 PM on July 12, 2008
I don't think you can take the last 50 years scientific view (post Hubble expansion theory) as especially explanatory, any more. Observations in the last 10 years are raising real problems with the "Big Bang" or "inflation" model, including having to throw in vast amounts of "dark matter" (whatever that is) and "dark energy" (whatever that is, too) just to account for observations of deep space. From the Wikipedia article for "dark matter":
posted by paulsc at 12:38 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
"... It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with "terra incognita. ..."With what now appears to be at least 96% of the matter in the universe, in the form of "dark matter," unobservable to us, we're blind rats on speck of dust, groping for any clue to how this all works.
posted by paulsc at 12:38 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
Kldickson, in fairness konolia is answering the question. Is there a religious framework that offers an answer? Yes, and hers is one religious framework (Bertrand Russell argued against it, but konolia is not wrong in providing her answer as well).
posted by Houstonian at 12:45 PM on July 12, 2008
posted by Houstonian at 12:45 PM on July 12, 2008
Meant to mention, with regard to Heidegger, that your title question is very important to him. How strange? The only thing possibly stranger is time.
posted by treepour at 1:21 PM on July 12, 2008
posted by treepour at 1:21 PM on July 12, 2008
To all you people saying that something cannot come from nothing, that's false. Something comes from nothing constantly and ubiquitously. There are measurable, undisputed physical effects based upon this fact.
posted by Flunkie at 1:38 PM on July 12, 2008
posted by Flunkie at 1:38 PM on July 12, 2008
Flunkie- that's how we perceive it, but to call "something from nothing" a fact is to ignore that we don't yet know everything.
posted by gjc at 3:36 PM on July 12, 2008
posted by gjc at 3:36 PM on July 12, 2008
They're the best inferences we can make given a body of collected evidence.
No, I don't think there's enough evidence to even come close to a valid inference. We don't know where we came from, or what (if anything) happens after death. We don't know the origin of the universe, if there is one. We don't know why there is something rather than nothing.
There's no way with our tiny knowledge caught in a vast web of ignorance that it makes any sense to claim a reasoned conclusion about our lack of inherent meaning. If anything the wonder of existence suggests much the opposite. That we experience the unparalleled strangeness of existence is itself the strongest evidence that we mean something very important.
In any case, meaning is not a scientific or empirical concept and is only dubiously, if at all, something that can be verified with reference to "collected evidence." It is much more an aesthetic concept -- something adopted based on intuitive acceptability, beauty, perhaps habit. So it is indeed an assumption, as are all metaphysical statements.
posted by shivohum at 5:24 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
No, I don't think there's enough evidence to even come close to a valid inference. We don't know where we came from, or what (if anything) happens after death. We don't know the origin of the universe, if there is one. We don't know why there is something rather than nothing.
There's no way with our tiny knowledge caught in a vast web of ignorance that it makes any sense to claim a reasoned conclusion about our lack of inherent meaning. If anything the wonder of existence suggests much the opposite. That we experience the unparalleled strangeness of existence is itself the strongest evidence that we mean something very important.
In any case, meaning is not a scientific or empirical concept and is only dubiously, if at all, something that can be verified with reference to "collected evidence." It is much more an aesthetic concept -- something adopted based on intuitive acceptability, beauty, perhaps habit. So it is indeed an assumption, as are all metaphysical statements.
posted by shivohum at 5:24 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
Your understanding of place, time, cause and events, etc are based on physics. Big-bang is an event that happened before the physics you know of even existed. Asking "where did all this come from" is like asking "what flavor is purple?"
posted by damn dirty ape at 5:38 PM on July 12, 2008
posted by damn dirty ape at 5:38 PM on July 12, 2008
If the OP is interested in these kinds of big questions, listening to the free podcasts at AstronomyCast.com might be enjoyable. They also have transcripts of their shows on-line, if you want to see what they're like before downloading and listening.
The closest I found to your specific question was in a Q&A show where they touched on "before the Big Bang" briefly. But basically they said what most other people said here. See Episode 31 transcript.
posted by forthright at 5:58 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
The closest I found to your specific question was in a Q&A show where they touched on "before the Big Bang" briefly. But basically they said what most other people said here. See Episode 31 transcript.
posted by forthright at 5:58 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
I have always felt the representation of Zero and Infinity get in our way of being able to comprehend what our universe is, is not and more importantly the fundamentals of how it became and how it will end. Since we have definitions that support nothing (zero), when in reality nothing can not be (there is always something) and conversely that things can go forever-- infinity (again no support for this theory) we will always lack a clear understanding of the end and beginning.
If someone could figure out how to get past these two concepts, fundamental to our mathematics, then perhaps you might discover your answer(s). Otherwise you are looking at a crap shoot based on our fall back of just saying "Well the universe started from "Zero" and will go on for "Infinity". If you were able to replace these two concepts with some fundamental representation found in the "natural process" of our universe then you and I might be able to understand it. I have laid in bed countless nights trying to get my arms around the question of the universe and always try to find a meaningful replacement for these two problems... zero and infinity mess it all up.
Maybe it is just something the human brain can not comprehend.
posted by bkeene12 at 8:05 PM on July 12, 2008
If someone could figure out how to get past these two concepts, fundamental to our mathematics, then perhaps you might discover your answer(s). Otherwise you are looking at a crap shoot based on our fall back of just saying "Well the universe started from "Zero" and will go on for "Infinity". If you were able to replace these two concepts with some fundamental representation found in the "natural process" of our universe then you and I might be able to understand it. I have laid in bed countless nights trying to get my arms around the question of the universe and always try to find a meaningful replacement for these two problems... zero and infinity mess it all up.
Maybe it is just something the human brain can not comprehend.
posted by bkeene12 at 8:05 PM on July 12, 2008
Russell's teapot
Huh? Never heard of it. And I took metaphysics from a secular philosophy department, even.
posted by konolia at 8:56 PM on July 12, 2008
Huh? Never heard of it. And I took metaphysics from a secular philosophy department, even.
posted by konolia at 8:56 PM on July 12, 2008
In the beginning there was God.
Eternal, absolute and infinite. Without beginning, without end.
God does not exist.
Therefore, there is the universe.
1 cosmic contradiction birthed everything.
Here is yin and yang, eternally chasing each other.
You are finite.
God the infinite is in you.
Laugh.
It is all a big joke. There is no universe.
There is only God.
What are you going to do today?
posted by Goofyy at 5:22 AM on July 14, 2008
Eternal, absolute and infinite. Without beginning, without end.
God does not exist.
Therefore, there is the universe.
1 cosmic contradiction birthed everything.
Here is yin and yang, eternally chasing each other.
You are finite.
God the infinite is in you.
Laugh.
It is all a big joke. There is no universe.
There is only God.
What are you going to do today?
posted by Goofyy at 5:22 AM on July 14, 2008
dunno if it adds anything to the convo but in a similar vein to what brian b. said, i heard a quote once i've really liked about the universe that, and i'm paraphrasing at the moment because i can't seem to find it "the great thing about the universe is that if something is not completely impossible, it happens all the time"
posted by Soulbee at 6:49 AM on July 16, 2008
posted by Soulbee at 6:49 AM on July 16, 2008
I suppose to echo the other commenters here, there is no way to "answer" this question.
I do want to help out by asking you a question:
If I have an enormous bucket full of letters and 20 million pounds of TnT, do you think I could walk into a factory, explode the dynamite and come out with a perfectly indexed, bound and fresh dictionary?
Lets look at it like this, the next time you go out somewhere, pay attention to people's shirts. Pay close attention to the style of one shirt to the next, some have flowers on them or letters or animals on some, numbers and maps, patterns and pictures....each and ever one of the shirts you see was designed by someone. Someone had a certain, pattern, texture or speciality in mind. Of course, you and I know that the shirt didnt make it self to be formed and shaped like that. But from design to completion for market consumption, there was a designer. Does it really matter that the shirt designer took 2 weeks or 2 years to produce it? Nope, what the effect you get is what was intended...someone wears it right?
Who cares, 20 trillion, or 7 thousand years...we are here right?
I see alot of useless "bullets" above pointing out scientist this and scientist that and...scientist are the only profession I know that gets paid for guessing 99% of the time and its 100% ok to be way far off.
posted by TeachTheDead at 12:46 PM on July 17, 2008
I do want to help out by asking you a question:
If I have an enormous bucket full of letters and 20 million pounds of TnT, do you think I could walk into a factory, explode the dynamite and come out with a perfectly indexed, bound and fresh dictionary?
Lets look at it like this, the next time you go out somewhere, pay attention to people's shirts. Pay close attention to the style of one shirt to the next, some have flowers on them or letters or animals on some, numbers and maps, patterns and pictures....each and ever one of the shirts you see was designed by someone. Someone had a certain, pattern, texture or speciality in mind. Of course, you and I know that the shirt didnt make it self to be formed and shaped like that. But from design to completion for market consumption, there was a designer. Does it really matter that the shirt designer took 2 weeks or 2 years to produce it? Nope, what the effect you get is what was intended...someone wears it right?
Who cares, 20 trillion, or 7 thousand years...we are here right?
I see alot of useless "bullets" above pointing out scientist this and scientist that and...scientist are the only profession I know that gets paid for guessing 99% of the time and its 100% ok to be way far off.
posted by TeachTheDead at 12:46 PM on July 17, 2008
If I have an enormous bucket full of letters and 20 million pounds of TnT, do you think I could walk into a factory, explode the dynamite and come out with a perfectly indexed, bound and fresh dictionary?
No, therefore there are no miracles in your example.
posted by Brian B. at 4:39 PM on July 17, 2008
No, therefore there are no miracles in your example.
posted by Brian B. at 4:39 PM on July 17, 2008
No, the miracle is that if left alone, like the faith it truly requires to believe that we came from a random bang that has never happened since and cannot be proven, TnT and a bucket full of letter will NEVER EVER just combust and make a dictionary, which is exactly what one who believes we came from an explosion. Some one (or thing) had to make that dictionary or that shirt and there was a purpose for them both. Desolation and despiration OFTEN comes from those who believe that there is no purpose; we are here by an accident and so we have no guiding hope.
Miracles happen, I have seen and been apart of them - and no, I don't dance with snakes. Trying to make some logical laymen sense here Brian B.
Alas brother, discussion changes nothing...
Take care...
posted by TeachTheDead at 6:26 AM on July 18, 2008
Miracles happen, I have seen and been apart of them - and no, I don't dance with snakes. Trying to make some logical laymen sense here Brian B.
Alas brother, discussion changes nothing...
Take care...
posted by TeachTheDead at 6:26 AM on July 18, 2008
Presuming 'stuff exists thus there's a creator' is actually the unprovable statement here. Demanding the existance of paranormal events (miracles) is just being silly.
posted by damn dirty ape at 7:07 AM on July 18, 2008
posted by damn dirty ape at 7:07 AM on July 18, 2008
Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. However, since the nature of most of the sources of gravity in even the observable boundaries of the universe (let alone the regions we might not able to observe) is unknown, it remains a possibility that the accelerating expansion is not a constant, and could change at some point. Moreover, if other 'universes' exist they could potentially affect our own, resulting in big crunch even if our own local region is set to expand.
Meanwhile there are independent theoretical reasons to believe in the oscillating universe theory. Firstly the paradoxes associated with both the notion that time/space is infinite and that's it's finite that Kant pointed out in his antinomies in The Critique of Pure Reason (look these up). A circular time/space space helps to resolve these paradoxes somewhat. Something can be infinite in n-dimensions, whilst finite in the n+1 dimension. The worry is then whether the number of dimensions is infinite or not!
Secondly we must question whether absolute nothingness (a state in which there never was nor never will be anything at all) is really possible. Certainly if we are 'modal realists', that is, we think that all possible universes really do exist, then absolute nothingness is automatically ruled out, because for it really to be absolute nothingness then you can't have the real existence of other universes. This is equivalent to saying that if nothingness is possible then it must be necessary. But since something exists, we know that nothingnes cannot be necessary, so the only alternative is that it is impossible. Whether the same answer can be given if we are not modal realists is something I am working on and would give my eye teeth to know.
Note that in any case, given the existence of something, we know that absolute nothing never was, nor ever will be for the very simple reason that whatever destroyed the something would have to destroy itself, and whatever created the something would have to create itself. The person above who referred to the regular observations of something coming from nothing (that is, the creation/destruction of matter-antimatter pairs into 'nothing') has failed to realise the distinction between space and nothing (space is something that curves, has dark energy etc...) and the common truism that you can't observe a negative.
So where does this leave us? The universe exists and definitely 'always' did exist. An oscillating space and time is a good model, but we are still left with the problem of where all that came from. How can the universe explain it's own existence?? This is a problem I still wrestle with, and I really do think that an answer is possible. My best hope is in showing that absolute nothingness is paradoxical, and hence that it is logically necessary for something to exist. Meanwhile we must question whether the universe is 'open' or 'closed', that is whether it grows/changes in any sense or is always complete ('now' would be just like 'here').
The best option it seems to me is that the universe is like the number series. It is infinite from one perspective, but from other (less involved) perspectives it is complete in the sense that other infinities can be larger/smaller, and it never actually changes. So I agree with the guy above who said that the universe is like maths. The best answer is that it is logically necessary somehow. And we should try to remember that our normal sense of time and space and dimension is internal to things and not always applicable to the whole.
All of these questions regularly give me a sense that the whole thing is completely arbitrary and we are floating in a meaningless bubble that could pop at any moment. So I sympathise. I also sympathise with identifying God with whatever the answer is here. Personally, I worship the paradox of absolute nothingness.
posted by leibniz at 1:21 PM on August 1, 2008
Meanwhile there are independent theoretical reasons to believe in the oscillating universe theory. Firstly the paradoxes associated with both the notion that time/space is infinite and that's it's finite that Kant pointed out in his antinomies in The Critique of Pure Reason (look these up). A circular time/space space helps to resolve these paradoxes somewhat. Something can be infinite in n-dimensions, whilst finite in the n+1 dimension. The worry is then whether the number of dimensions is infinite or not!
Secondly we must question whether absolute nothingness (a state in which there never was nor never will be anything at all) is really possible. Certainly if we are 'modal realists', that is, we think that all possible universes really do exist, then absolute nothingness is automatically ruled out, because for it really to be absolute nothingness then you can't have the real existence of other universes. This is equivalent to saying that if nothingness is possible then it must be necessary. But since something exists, we know that nothingnes cannot be necessary, so the only alternative is that it is impossible. Whether the same answer can be given if we are not modal realists is something I am working on and would give my eye teeth to know.
Note that in any case, given the existence of something, we know that absolute nothing never was, nor ever will be for the very simple reason that whatever destroyed the something would have to destroy itself, and whatever created the something would have to create itself. The person above who referred to the regular observations of something coming from nothing (that is, the creation/destruction of matter-antimatter pairs into 'nothing') has failed to realise the distinction between space and nothing (space is something that curves, has dark energy etc...) and the common truism that you can't observe a negative.
So where does this leave us? The universe exists and definitely 'always' did exist. An oscillating space and time is a good model, but we are still left with the problem of where all that came from. How can the universe explain it's own existence?? This is a problem I still wrestle with, and I really do think that an answer is possible. My best hope is in showing that absolute nothingness is paradoxical, and hence that it is logically necessary for something to exist. Meanwhile we must question whether the universe is 'open' or 'closed', that is whether it grows/changes in any sense or is always complete ('now' would be just like 'here').
The best option it seems to me is that the universe is like the number series. It is infinite from one perspective, but from other (less involved) perspectives it is complete in the sense that other infinities can be larger/smaller, and it never actually changes. So I agree with the guy above who said that the universe is like maths. The best answer is that it is logically necessary somehow. And we should try to remember that our normal sense of time and space and dimension is internal to things and not always applicable to the whole.
All of these questions regularly give me a sense that the whole thing is completely arbitrary and we are floating in a meaningless bubble that could pop at any moment. So I sympathise. I also sympathise with identifying God with whatever the answer is here. Personally, I worship the paradox of absolute nothingness.
posted by leibniz at 1:21 PM on August 1, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by 0xFCAF at 8:46 AM on July 12, 2008