The birth of the universe

Post Reply New Topic

Yes exactly. Sorry, I tend to say things in the most complicated way possible.

Fine tuning is a decent argument. It's counter is the anthropic principle. Also a perfectly reasonable argument. The weak anthropic principle being that if things weren't just so we wouldn't be here to observe it, so naturally they are just so and it shouldn't be a surprise. Who knows how many restarts or alternate universes it took for us to arrive.

On the other hand it's difficult to rate the likeliness of events when you are dealing with something that is by definition the most extreme event that we've ever come across. That the universe (or anything) exists at all is off the charts strange from our perspective. The bookie is already bankrupt at this point so additional wagers seem a little pointless.

As for a creator or creators, well, it just adds steps to the chain. It doesn't actually solve anything metaphysically. The questions remain.

i can not be bothered reading what others have said in this thread because reading even the entire stock of literature ever produced on the subject would lead one nowhere.

the universe can only be seen subjectively by brains, because brains have faculties at the focal point of their senses. it is impossible for a mind to think outside the world of subjective thought. even the notion of "objectivity" is ultimately subjective.

there is an inherent need for brains to be able to "tie off both ends" of any consideration with a quantitative conclusion, and a quantitative conclusion with respect to the universal process is impossible.

so where did it begin, and where will it end? that is the question that brains need to answer, but there was no beginning and there will be no end, so no "answer" will ever be conclusive.

just imagine that there was an answer that answers every question about the process of the entire unfolding universal reality in every aspect of it? would anyone (any life form) understand it? obviously not. the knowledge of infinity is not containable. it is not even possible because knowledge is limited to capacity for understanding, and any "capacity" has dimensions within finite limits.

on a more basal level of consideration, one may anecdotally wonder that if the ultimate answer to every question possible about the universe was funneled into the understanding of every philosopher or scientist (as well as everyone else in the world), would curiosity cease to exist?

what questions would remain to be mused over? how can thought even take place if all scrutinies are already resolved?

___________

i gave up trying to pit my brain against the universe a long time ago. it is infinitely bigger than my mental capacity.
some revisits of my thoughts when i actually cared were:

there is one universe, and all the multiverses that people try to define (suspected with reference to the idea of (mem)brane intersections) are actually subsets of the universe.

all aspects and dimensions of existence, and every element of all manifestations of reality are the fabric of this universe. "uni" means one. "verse" means "span of description" (my definition from personally modified observation).

there is one whole container which everything can be contained within, and that is the universe.

________________

people need to conceive of a beginning and end because people think sequentially.
people may ask themselves "when did the universe begin", and if they answer themselves by concluding that it began at the "beginning of time", then the question remains "when did time begin?", and they may parrot that "time did not exist before the big bang".

they seem to lock onto counter intuitive assertions by high flying philosophical cowboys that try to assert that there are linearly truncated limitations on the cycle of eternal reality.

if there was a time that time did not exist, well that does not compute.
if there was nothing before the big bang, then was there a potential for the big bang to happen?
how do they neatly ignore the imposing monsters of logic that immediately gobble their thought trains and spit them out as unpalatable.
________

who knows? not you not me and not anyone in adromeda either.

actually, i would say (correctly) that nothing that is a product of the universe can ever encompass it.

___
i had the idea that the universe was respiring like a being does. i imagined it's exhalation to be a collapse into another big bang and it's inhalation to be the expansion and actualization of all it's potential that was re harnessed from the energy of the previous big bang.
i had the idea that the apparent acceleration of expansion was due to an accretion bubble which was a "film" where gravitational expansion matched gravitational retraction, and the "stuff" of the universe eventually orbited at the universal accretion distance (which i never calculated) and due to the ever increasing surface disruption (because of extra mass being introduced to it in the end stage), it pops like a bubble and the whole spherical realm of existence immediately concentrates itself into a small droplet that constitutes the next big bang.