You are viewing symphonic_rp

The Technicolor Dreams Of Perri Prinz - My Personal Theories On The Origin Of The Universe [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

My Personal Theories On The Origin Of The Universe [Nov. 22nd, 2013|08:34 am]
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
[Tags|, , , , ]
[Mood |thoughtfulthoughtful]
[Music |Yes - The Order Of The Universe]

I’ve been watching a video where an Atheist is reading a book by Christian apologists. And in the section I’m watching now he is explaining the various theories about the beginning of the universe. And both sides seem to be hung up on the idea of how the universe could have come into being where there was no space or time before it, and thus no law of causality. That is, where there is no space or time there can be no cause to result in the effect of the universe being born.

I find this a strange idea to be hung up on, and a major point on which I don’t connect with Atheists. I don’t see any evidence to support the idea that the universe exploded out of nothing. But then I don’t go the Christian route, because there is also no evidence that a God magically made it happen either.

I find it an odd conclusion for everyone to be jumping to that there was nothing before the universe existed. That to me would be like a person saying, “I don’t remember being born, therefore some god magically brought me into being at the point of my earliest memories.

This is the way we would think if we had no awareness of our parents. And it is a consistent pattern that is observable in nature. Everything that is born is born from something, whether it remembers that or not.

In a previous essay I mentioned that some scientists have a problem with Einstein’s theory that mathematically puts a singularity at the bottom of a black hole, and one of the theories explained in this video I’m watching now says that the universe resulted from a singularity in the nothingness.

Well, if you put those two things together, it should be obvious that before the big bang there was not a great nothingness. Rather, there was a black hole in another universe that compressed matter down to a singularity and blew our universe out of its back side.

This is not too different from the way cells in a living organism divide and grow. This is a consistently observable pattern of nature. Why shouldn’t it extend to universes?

Even Einstein conceived that ours was not the only universe. So, if we then tune up our microscopes and peer deeply into our own cell structure, we can see how nature builds life on a process of micro and macro dimensions. Various universes of life exist within our own bodies on various micro levels, and we assume that we are at the macro level, because it’s the level we function on. But what if we are just another micro level and the next dimension up has creatures so large that they would need a microscope to see us.

Further, maybe they have microscopes and do see us, but they don’t see us as we see ourselves. To them we’re just micro life forms performing regular tasks. They perceive nothing of the universe we perceive, because what we perceive is just the way the optic centers of our brains interpret what we see and how we rationalize it.

Thus, if we shift our logic from “Before there was a universe there had to be a nothing that our minds are incapable of conceiving” to “By observing the patterns of nature we can assume that before there was our universe there most certainly must have been some kind of parent” we might be getting to an idea that more folks would accept as logical.

This still leaves the problem of, if our universe is just a cell in the body of something much larger, what kind of animal is it, and how long will it live? Well, the bad news is that it probably won’t live long enough for us to figure out a way of seeing its outside. So we’ll most likely never know what we’re a part of.

The good news is, given the probability of different measurements of time in different dimensions, whatever we’re a part of will probably out live us all by many thousands of years, at least.

Unfortunately, you probably couldn’t prove the parent theory any more than you can prove the nothing theory. We just have to face it – theories are all we’re going to have in this lifetime. And so I’ll hang in there as an Agnostic until one of the two sides of the argument comes up with some actual proof that a common person like myself can analyze and accept as factual. Until then, theories and faith still get a reaction from me of “This person doesn’t know for sure any better than anyone else.” But, as long as theories are all our generation is going to have, here’s another theory this video called to mind.

When talking about the law of causality and the big bang, the commentator suggested that our minds are not capable of conceiving a nothing. Because no matter how empty a space we try to imagine, it’s still a space with dimensions and time. And we can’t imagine anything in that space that could cause the big bang that is not matter or material. But that actually is an error on the part of the Atheist commentator. I can imagine something in the nothing that is not material.

Thoughts and ideas are not material. And in a nothing with no scientific laws of nature or materiality, the power of a single thought or idea could have explosive power to instantly bring something into being.

So let’s just say that on some level of existence there are these areas of nothing that are extremely volatile – so explosive that the moment they are touched by an idea they erupt into a completely new reality.

This brings to mind a Bible passage. “In the beginning was The Word. And The Word was with God. And The Word was God.” Now, when I was a kid I always assumed “The Word” meant The Bible. But now that I’m old I see the logical problem with that interpretation, because The Bible wasn’t there at the beginning. The Bible is something men made a long time after that. So what is this Word that was with God at the beginning and was God?

Assuming that John (whoever he was) knew what he was talking about when he wrote that, this would seem a highly significant passage. So, let’s say that somewhere in one of those many universes that exist outside our own there was a writer whose piece of paper was somehow close to a pocket of nothing sitting outside the rear of a black hole, very close to the singularity at the bottom. The writer has an idea to express which is our universe, and when he goes to title the concept he’s about to describe, he conceives that our universe shall be called “God,” and “God” is the first word he writes on the paper.

This word, this idea, is so powerful that it instantly causes the nothing to become agitated with pregnancy; the agitation opens the back of the black hole, causing the singularity to rush in and start spewing compressed matter all about so that the nothing is now something. And all that matter assembles itself according to the concept that the writer writes.

If that theory were true, then God would not be an old man in a chair in the sky. God would be nature itself, the universe itself – God would be the concept of a living universe, of which we are all part of its cellular construction. In other words, we are not only all brothers and sisters, we are actually part of the same body. So when you hurt someone else, you are literally hurting yourself.

Oddly enough, this theory supports the Genesis creation story, because it would probably take a writer about six days to write down the conceptual ideas for a world. But it also supports science in that it would probably take about however many years scientists think it took for the world to evolve for these written concepts to be played out.

This doesn’t negate evolution either. But it does offer a theory about what designed the parameters of evolution and set it in motion, if you take “The Word” not to be a novel, but the scientific code for a universe of biological science based on digital principles.

In other words, we could say, “In the beginning was The Code, and The Code was with The Great Programmer, and The Programmer would be called God.”

To me, as a sci-fi writer, this makes perfectly logical sense. I do see the world as being designed. All life is digital at the heart of its DNA. Digits do not occur without a mind behind them. They certainly don’t calculate themselves or develop their own calculators. There has to be some kind of intelligence at work, at least at the beginning to set things up.

But I don’t see the creator of this scientific system as some magical old man in a chair in the sky. I see this designer as an alien life form living in some other universe with knowledge of sciences we haven’t even begun to imagine yet.

Of course, this is all just as much a fairytale as what’s written in The Bible. We can never prove these things one way or the other. But if we must have a fairytale to get us through our lives with these unanswerable questions, why not have a fairytale that befits our current state of awareness? Why be stuck in a mindset that’s thousands of years old?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: shockwave77598
2013-11-22 06:43 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Actually the cosmic background radiation is a clincher to the big bang model of the origin of the universe. And the strangest note was that it wasn't discovered by someone trying to prove the origins of anything -- it was found by a Radio scientist trying to get rid of "snow" on televisions and "hiss" from radios. Not a bad way to win a Nobel prize; trying to tune your radio.
[User Picture]From: nikolinni
2013-11-22 09:59 pm (UTC)

(Link)

But see the kicker is....where did all this stuff come from? That's the ultimate question. Even if the big bang is right...well, where'd all the stuff to make it happen come from?

Sometimes I joke around and say that when God was trying to make the Universe, he was trying to pack things in too close together :o)
[User Picture]From: symphonic_rp
2013-11-23 02:42 am (UTC)

(Link)

Where the stuff came from was the singularity. Singularities are found at the bottom of black holes where huge amounts of matter have been compressed to such a tiny point they can't be seen with the naked eye. But this means there had to first be a black hole to produce the singularity, and another universe is necessary to produce a black hole - all of which is incompatible with the nothing theory.

A big bang is plausible, as a singularity released from a black hole would produce the biggest kind of bang imaginable.

All this is, of course, assuming everything scientists claim to know about black holes isn't just as much mythology as the religious perspective. After all, it's all theory concocted on somebody's drawing board. It's not like anyone could go to a black hole and put a singularity under a microscope. We really only have Einstein's mathematical equation to suggest the singularity is even there.

Science tends to proceed on such assumptions, or what they would term theories or likelihoods, as the foundation for their entire understanding of the universe. So if even one of these theories were to be proven wrong, our whole understanding of reality would topple. And, indeed, quantum physics threatens to do just that - pull pins out of the foundation of our understanding of reality.

Indeed, quantum physics suggests that the universe does actually revolve around us, what we think and perceive. It suggests to me a third theory that the universe expands with our perception. The farther we look, the more universe that is created by the force of our will that there be something there for us to see. Which in tern suggests that the origin of the universe was the advent of thought and perception. The first being to think and perceive needing to have something to see, and thereby bringing a very small environment into being, which there after expanded as the need for something to perceive increased.

This theory also suggests the possibility that this perceived physical reality exists only in the minds of the creatures perceiving it, who not only imagine its physical structure, but its sciences as well.

However, the background radiation thing does not make any kind of sense to me. Space is full of various types of radiation. I have no understanding of how the discovery of a certain type of radiation can be attributed to the big bang, let alone prove that there was one.

See, I'm not a scientist. I'm a philosopher and logical thinker. I don't try to judge physical evidence, because the physical evidence in these things is never available to me to examine with my own eyes. What I tend to look at is can I arrive at this same conclusion by any unbroken path of logic.

I can see the logic that a black hole compresses matter down to a singularity, and that a singularity could result in an explosion that could kick off a universe. I can not see an unbroken path of logic in saying, "Here's a band of radiation we didn't know about before. This is proof there was a big bang."

This seems to me the same logic that says "Here is an intricately constructed butterfly. This is proof of the existence of God."

In both cases there is a huge gap in the logic stream. It does not naturally follow that, because an intricate design exists, a specific entity must have created it. It is equally difficult to connect a band of radiation to the big bang.

It might be a safe assumption that this band of radiation was created by something exploding. But what exactly exploded and when is not something I see as a logical certainty.

Anyway, I've always been inclined to think that the "White Noise" was created by the collective of radio transmissions in space. Lots of things in space give off radio waves. Put together they produce the cacophony that is white noise, or at least that was the theory back when I was a kid.

I'm not sure I see a logical path to the idea that white noise all comes from a single source. But then, I've never given too much serious reading to this background radiation thing.