This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
What existed before the universe?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
336831
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sneetch
Oh look, Soldrethar asking about the the universe.
I imagine this will end up like his "Keybindings" thread.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
/thread
Post by
Orranis
What came before the big bang? Nothing, because their was no 'before' the big bang. With the big bang, the existence of time itself, or a 'before' was made absolute. Gravitational theory presents the idea that time and space can be distorted, and eventually distorted infinitely, until which space and time cannot have continued. The idea is that the beginning was a "singularity event," where time is so distorted it ceases to exist at all.
Quantum physics states that there is a probability of
Randomness
(Not off-topic, which, in this analogy would be God ;D) in the universe. The most common example of this (and the one used in Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment) is when the decay of a given nucleus occurs at one moment and not another. Supposedly, it's not our own ignorance (though this also might possible, quantum variables that could have caused these seemingly unfathomable events) it's inherent in nature.
Essentially, that there are events that happen on levels that are so small it is physically impossible for humans to notice them, so we are given the illusion of a cause and affect universe. My best analogy for this would be water. Take a large ice-cube. Tell me, can you observe it move? It seems static, yes? Now punch it. Go for it. Hard. It hurt didn't it? Seems pretty goddamn solid doesn't it? Now go to your shower, turn it on, and try to punch the water. Doesn't hurt, right?
But now, it's common knowledge that the ice is moving. Thousands upon thousand upon thousand of molecules vibrating, so quaint that it's blended into a single feeling, heat. Heat, no matter what it seems, is really know different from receiving thousands upon thousands of tiny punches. However, if you get punched, and, without knowing that I just told you, thought logically about it, you would feel that they were different and that no matter how small the punch it would still feel like a punch.
The same is true about the solidity of the object. They are both the same clumps of the same atoms, only packed more tightly together. Despite the tables hardness, it is actually composed of mostly empty space.
Despite
everything
your senses tell you normally, you know this to be true. Because you've realized that humans cannot observe everything. Only with the coming of aids, such as microscopes, can we be sure.
Now we take it a step further. The things that seem to lie to even the microscope. Despite everything you would think, you really can't be sure that the universe is cause and affect based, because until incredibly recently, relatively, we simply accepted that I am a man, which is made out of blood bones and flesh, and never thought to question further into what makes up blood bones and flesh. So yes, at first there was nothing, and then it exploded, is essentially, correct.
Just a theory.
Post by
Squishalot
Quantum physics states that there is a probability of Randomness (Not off-topic, which, in this analogy would be God ;D) in the universe.
At there, I stopped reading. Quantum randomness is just as plausible as God, as far as evidence is concerned. We've been through this before.
Post by
Heckler
Quantum physics states that there is a probability of Randomness (Not off-topic, which, in this analogy would be God ;D) in the universe.
At there, I stopped reading. Quantum randomness is just as plausible as God, as far as evidence is concerned. We've been through this before.
Wasn't that just a joke about the Randomness <=> Off-Topic Forum Renaming? lol, I'm not sure he was trying to reignite that debate ;)
Then again, most things go right over my head.
Post by
Squishalot
Quantum physics states that there is a probability of Randomness (Not off-topic, which, in this analogy would be God ;D) in the universe.
At there, I stopped reading. Quantum randomness is just as plausible as God, as far as evidence is concerned. We've been through this before.
Wasn't that just a joke about the Randomness <=> Off-Topic Forum Renaming? lol, I'm not sure he was trying to reignite that debate ;)
Then again, most things go right over my head.
It was an in-joke, but I think the joke was an aside. Orranis does believe in quantum randomness, or the actions of unobservable objects, from what I understand. Besides, the previous debate was with... *his name doesn't jump to mind at the moment* DoctorLore might be able to refresh my memory.
Essentially, that there are events that happen on levels that are so small it is physically impossible for humans to notice them, so we are given the illusion of a cause and affect universe.
See?
Post by
Orranis
Quantum physics states that there is a probability of Randomness (Not off-topic, which, in this analogy would be God ;D) in the universe.
At there, I stopped reading. Quantum randomness is just as plausible as God, as far as evidence is concerned. We've been through this before.
Wasn't that just a joke about the Randomness <=> Off-Topic Forum Renaming? lol, I'm not sure he was trying to reignite that debate ;)
Then again, most things go right over my head.
It was an in-joke, but I think the joke was an aside. Orranis does believe in quantum randomness, or the actions of unobservable objects, from what I understand. Besides, the previous debate was with... *his name doesn't jump to mind at the moment* DoctorLore might be able to refresh my memory.
Essentially, that there are events that happen on levels that are so small it is physically impossible for humans to notice them, so we are given the illusion of a cause and affect universe.
See?
I consider it a possibility. Certainly it explains a lot of things, though I find it hard to believe in actuality. I did post it was 'just a theory,' I'm actually more close to the idea of a clockwork universe.
Post by
Heckler
It was an in-joke, but I think the joke was an aside. Orranis does believe in quantum randomness, or the actions of unobservable objects, from what I understand. Besides, the previous debate was with... *his name doesn't jump to mind at the moment* DoctorLore might be able to refresh my memory.
It was Squishalot on one side, Skeeran on the other, and me in the middle where I usually seem to be.
Post by
Squishalot
I consider it a possibility. Certainly it explains a lot of things, though I find it hard to believe in actuality. I did post it was 'just a theory,' I'm actually more close to the idea of a clockwork universe.
It sounded like you believed in that theory, and it presented as fact, anyway :)
Otherwise, someone else could contest you by stating:
God created the universe, so He existed before the universe.
Just a theory.
Just seemed a little out of place.
It was Squishalot on one side, Skeeran on the other, and me in the middle where I usually seem to be.
Ah, Skreeran, that's right. I knew it started with 'S', but I kept running my head into Secarious, and I knew it wasn't him.
Post by
Orranis
God created the universe, so He existed before the universe.
Just a theory.
Personally, I think Hyper's done a great job in trying to persuade me that there's something greater than our universe, and as such is not subject to it's laws. It really made sense, though I think trying to define it as a sentient perfect being, as it could easily just be a 'force' as well, or even trying to define something that is not privy to the rules of the universe at all is useless. To assume things like it is in the 'shape of man' and has a child and has interacted with the earth directly, and created us as we are now in life's first days, is way too far, but I think it's a very good start.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Personally, I think Hyper's done a great job in trying to persuade me that there's something greater than our universe, and as such is not subject to it's laws. It really made sense, though I think trying to define it as a sentient perfect being, as it could easily just be a 'force' as well, or even trying to define something that is not privy to the rules of the universe at all is useless.
I didn't even realize I was making that much of an argument here, heh. I tried a lot harder in previous threads, but really to no avail.
To assume things like it is in the 'shape of man' and has a child and has interacted with the earth directly, and created us as we are now in life's first days, is way too far, but I think it's a very good start.
Any of those things are matters faith. I wouldn't call it "going to far." It's just non-rational (which is not the same as irrational).
When it comes down to it, reason can only get to the point of seeing that something exists. Beyond that, all it can do is affirm matters of faith, seeing that things fit or make sense.
Post by
Orranis
Personally, I think Hyper's done a great job in trying to persuade me that there's something greater than our universe, and as such is not subject to it's laws. It really made sense, though I think trying to define it as a sentient perfect being, as it could easily just be a 'force' as well, or even trying to define something that is not privy to the rules of the universe at all is useless.
I didn't even realize I was making that much of an argument here, heh. I tried a lot harder in previous threads, but really to no avail.
I'd like to say I matured a lot since then (which was a looong time ago, considering.)
To assume things like it is in the 'shape of man' and has a child and has interacted with the earth directly, and created us as we are now in life's first days, is way too far, but I think it's a very good start.
Any of those things are matters faith. I wouldn't call it "going to far." It's just non-rational (which is not the same as irrational).
I agree, but it's the the same thing as immoral not being the same thing as amoral. You might as well just do the moral thing, in my opinion. I'm not trying to call religion evil, just using an analogy. Personally, I'm fine with people believing whatever they want if it makes them happy and doesn't make anyone else unhappy.
When it comes down to it, reason can only get to the point of seeing that something exists. Beyond that, all it can do is affirm matters of faith, seeing that things fit or make sense.
Post by
91604
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Really, what exist before the universe?
Oº°‘¨ > ¤ < ¨‘°ºO
That doesn't solve the question of what happened before that. And before that. And before that...
Post by
382219
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91604
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.