We all agree that no two snowflakes are alike, when viewing its variegated intricately complex design. One could analogize it to the similarly intricate/complex design of the cosmos. String theory proposes the existence of an immense variety of "universes", and if correct, different universes could be governed by different laws of physics. The laws of nature that we are familiar with on our universe may just be laws inherent and locally distinctive to our universe, but still "consistent with some overarching theory" that may be arbitrary in some cases but not in others.
Going back to the snowflakes...their ubiquitous six-fold symmetry is a direct consequence of the properties and shape of water molecules. But snowflakes display an immense variety of patterns, because each is molded by its distinctive history and microenvironment; how each flake develops is sensitive to the specific temperature and humidity changes during its growth.
Similarly, our universe would not then be just a random one. It would belong to the unusual subset where there was an intelligent draw of cosmic numbers conducive to the emergence of complexity and consciousness.
With you right up to the end, where you decide (without evidence or reason I can see) that our universe subset is very limited and due to intelligent creation. With zero information about other universes, it just isn't possible to decide that this type is rare OR that the supposed rarity means a god made it.
I can see no reason to suddenly decide that the "some overarching theory" determining possible laws does not make our type of universe a necessity instead of rare. Not, at least, until we have some solid information about that overarching theory.
Logical deductions are not permissible?
"...our universe would not then be just a random one. It would belong to the unusual subset where there was an intelligent draw of cosmic numbers conducive to the emergence of complexity and consciousness."
...seems valid to me!
Logical deductions require a premise known to be true. What is the premise used to make that deduction?
The premise: logically speaking, according to all the great thinkers… Nothingness cannot create Somethingness!
Strangely, none of these great thinkers reside in the world of physics! just looked... I thought there were a few! maybe not.
So to rephrase: according to me...
Nothingness cannot create Somethingness!
and to further elaborate:
Only Somethingness can create Something!
To think otherwise would be beyond logical.
I disagree with your premise; you have absolutely no evidence proving it to be true.
Beyond that, no one has ever, that I've heard, proposed that the universe came from nothingness. Various opponents of the big bang make the claim that scientists claim that, but they are lying through their teeth to make an emotional appeal and it is beneath you to repeat such nonsense. Which I'm sure you are aware of.
Where did that thought of yours come from - that the universe 'can' come from nothing?
From the post I replied to:
"So to rephrase: according to me...
Nothingness cannot create Somethingness!
and to further elaborate:
Only Somethingness can create Something!"
Or do you think Sed-me was referring to construction of a Lamborghini?
It's called a brain, most learned that in school. Did you not attend school or just didn't pay attention there?
I answered that question before, in more detail. To repeat:
From the factory inside the electrons, built by the tiny people that live there. Inside the electron in the electron flow in the nerve in the brain in Sed-me's body.
If you want to do more than play word games, we can do that, too.
Apparently, Human Intellect has its limitations.
I dunno - it seems able to imagine gods from another universe pretty well. Can't find or prove them, but can sure imagine them.
Thank you for letting me (us) know your final answer to that very question.
[ http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2607192 ]
I really did not foresee ppl calling me "Sed-me." Though it's very kind of you, and totally respectful, pls feel free to call me Beth. lol
That theory came from science based on the evidence. While it may be well beyond your comprehension, others certainly do understand it. Try cracking open a book.
My husband says there are a lot of believers who are astrophysicists.
There are believers in every field in the world. I AM a little surprised that your husband knows a significant enough percentage of astrophysicists to make the claim that "a lot" of them are believers. Unless he knows a couple in his circle of believer friends and considers two or three to be "a lot"?
It is apparently quite easy for some people to willingly suspend rational thought in favor of emotionalism and imagination.
He reads a lot and has an avid interest in astronomy... less so, talking on forums. He leaves that to me, the real brains of the family.
edit :cosmology... I should have said.
Check out the list of nobel peace prize winners on this link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch … in_science
I said there were people like that.
But, out of curiosity, have you looked at the number of believers vs non-believers, all also top scientists, that were born in the last, say, 50 - 75 years? When it has become OK to not believe and you won't be jailed or even ostracized for such heresy?
I WOULD have to say here that "scientist" is a very confusing term to some people, though - phrases like "creation science" have muddied the field considerably as believers attempt to lend credence to themselves. And frauds and scammers abound, too, and always have.
*edit* - it is interesting to not that I don't recognize a single name on that list that was also born since 1950. I'm not "up" in any of the fields anymore, but do read some and would have expected to at least recognize some of the names if they were actually highly recognized in their fields. Not all, certainly, or even most, but at least one or two!
http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blog … ew/116060/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/ni/20 … ce_po.html
I could provide you with a lot more, but Norton's family filter is blocking most of them. lol
Looked at only one, about Peter Brand.
The man is either an idiot or running a scam and making up a new definition for "God". Science cannot find the Christian god, by definition, and there is certainly no evidence for one to be found in astronomy. Check what Stephen Hawking has to say about the necessity for a god in the creation of the universe.
He's the smartest man I know. You could google though if you want to prove him wrong.
He's the one making the claim, he has to prove himself right. It has nothing to do with me.
I printed a bunch of links, feel free to check them out if you are interested.
Yes, I can see you've provided an entire page of names, amongst the tens of thousands of scientists in the field. Well done.
I suppose I could print thousands of individual names if you'd like, but it seems easier when they're contained within those links.
Yea, maybe not.
Then what created the Somethingness? If this logic is to hold true then everything has to have been created including the creator of the universe.
Follow that logic through and you'll see it conflicts with the Gods described by most people.
Funny, speaking of logical deductions. This quote has been on my mind for 2 days.
“I had always felt life first as a story: and if there is a story there is a story-teller”
Is it your intent to then "logically" deduce that there was a creator (writer) for the story we are in? Because I would question the truth of the premise that life is like a story.
The "string theory" was proposed and uniformly agreed upon by theoretical and experimental physicists as well as by astrophysicist, as potentially the one unifying theory that could explain the inner workings of the universe or at a minimum try to connect the dots from quantum mechanics to Einstein's relativity theories, and everything else in between.
Fourier's theorem, a lesser known but still deep and elegant explanation emanating from the mathematics of physics, proposes, that any complex pattern, whether in time or space, can be described as a series of overlapping waves of multiple frequencies and various amplitudes. Thus, it is an an assuredly uncomplicated way of analyzing complex visual patterns in non- biologic systems, but also has applicability in biologic structures as well.
The string theory if followed to its logical conclusion, could explain the more than chance probability that a "multiverse" exist. Fourier's theorem attempts to explain the development of simple systems to complex structures, and the inner workings of those complex structures i.e. the multiverse or the snowflakes.
Fine, but none of that addresses the laws, requirements and nature of the "super-universe" (I forget the term you used) that produced this one. And it is those laws and attributes that would determine what laws are possible or probably for any other universe produced.
Remember, that theorem(s) can attempt to describe THIS universe and it's nature and laws, but cannot begin to address those of any possible universe that produced this one. Not until we have at least the minimum information as to the probability that the laws of this one would come about.
Sorry, how did you possibly go from a snow flake to intelligent design in one gigantic leap of ... ?
It is very natural to believe that God caused the Big Bang… he thought of it and bang… existence!
Whats wrong with that presumption?
Presume all you want. Just don't try to pass it off as truth for you have no idea if your presumption is true or not. That is, after all, the nature of presumptions.
Some things are not provable because we don't have the tools to prove them. When we can measure the energy of a soul as it leaves the body after the heart has stopped beating, we will have proof.
...maybe in the Golden Ages.
And some things are not provable because they are not true. The trick, of course is to know when to stop trying and just accept that we don't know. Or, in rare cases, it is possible to prove a negative, but it is notoriously difficult.
And sometimes, some 'things' are not provable because some people are determined not to accept them to be true.
Sure, and when we can measure the speed of a galloping unicorn with a leprechaun riding, it, we will have proof.
... maybe in our dreams.
Do you not actually know that, never been to school, never cracked open a book?
Seriously, this is not kindergarten.
by Obscure_Treasures 9 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
by qwark 11 years ago
Considering that "our" universe is surrounded by limitless space, have you considered the possibility that Our "big bang" might be just 1 of countless others beyond our awareness?
by God shet 6 years ago
What is the smallest 'thing' in the universe, currently? Well, it's 'quarks'. Now the question is: What are 'quarks' made of? Is it true that 'quarks' are made of even smaller particles? Then, what are those particles (that are smaller than quarks) made of? And where would this chain of the...
by Baileybear 10 years ago
<snipped graphic image>Search for 'birth defects' and you will find lots of disturbing images like this one - some look barely human
by Scott.Life 11 years ago
Over the past few days I have been witness to and taken part in some pretty lively debates about using scripture to chastise and condemn those who disagree with someone's particular view or belief. During these debates people have been banned, insulted, and made fool of. However the debate rages...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 7 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this force were much stronger than it actually is, the big bang would have collapsed...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|