The origins of the universe as the originator complex

Post Reply New Topic

I am fairly sure that either you are unable or just not trying to comprehend the simplicity of what I say, either stubborn or unable to think outside of the box. The universe did not begin, what is now started and became what it is now, through a dynamic process. Between two substances creating reaction, as if there was an original point of singularity, however with any concept either static or not concerning of a formula because it is not product of any origination in totality, there still is the absolute argument that:

1. The original substances existed, thus came from something else.

2. If substances, gas or what not that was the product formation event in what I perceive as false theory then it would have to come from something else. So it originated.

3. There was always something, thus origination is false.

Let's talk about static vs. dynamical points of singularity in physics and also as equilibriums of brief dynaminial psychopathies.

1. The big bang was dynamic; having at least two something’s combining to create reaction. Mind perceives this theoretical event as absolute origination, or some do.

2. Static is singularity event, either God created it from nothing or two or more something’s created the static singular event originally. Both are impossible because God would have had to exist and also those two or more something’s originally in another belief or theoretical scenario.

The universe was always, in some way or another.

It's so simple it is complex. Yet I understand some cannot comprehend this.

God Belief,

God was A always and created B event, action or process to create C which was the following processes that continue to occoure.

or

A and B dynamial process interacted making the big bang creating C as everything resulting.

What is logical is that A is B and C, without originating, existing always just changing.

There are two differentiations to be made.

Origination of a singular process as an event

and origination in totality.

You accept the postulate that something cannot arise from nothing.

I do not accept this postulate.

I suppose for you, it is much like a paradox.

Nothing cannot become something, a law of common sense logic.

IMHO the universe started like a train rolling down a from the crest of a hill on very shiny well polished tracks. Just the the most tiniest and most infinitessimal amount of force and momentum was set in motion spontaniously and the train spontaniously rolled by itself just as the universe expanded exponentially by itself because it only required an infinitessimal amount of force to get if going in the first place.
So you would only require a God to prevent the universe from existing in the first place. Like if there was no one around and that train started to roll down on its own accord then you would need some one of such Herculian strength to intervervene to halt its inevitable momentous roll down hill.

Paul

A process did, but the universe existed before the first process, well really, there was no first process.

I think if I took the most perfectly imaginable straight line trajectory back in time to the "Big Bang" you will find not matter how straight you try to make that straight line it will make a quantum U-turn back into the future again, because there is no time that exists before time zero or the "Big Bang" just like there is no temperature lower than absolute zero.

Paul

It's unfortunate that minds cannot think logically in some ways, while others yes.

There are those that agree with me by the way... what about the big bang that made the substances of what made the big bang, oh wait it's some kind of universal magic show, it then just was because it banged. People are fascinated with things that go boom and blow up, yay.

Humanity can be so oblivious to its own reasoning’s, that it cannot realize it's own unfound logic, but make fact of what is imagined. It's interesting talking that way....

How persons believe that at a time the universe was not, that it did not exist is really mind not external universe. Perhaps the assumption is if it did not exist like it is now, that it did not exist at all.

Really the theoretical scenario presented of the rails is an event happening in general, for a process perceived as large. IT cannot be in totality.

Laugh Snort

People once believed the Earth was flat too... hahahaha

People also could not believe in planets with exotic atmospheres different from this earth. They even believed the Moon has oceans with an atmosphere like our Earth. Well we know there are and they are extremely inconsistant to the development of life as we know it.
I am also of the view there are not only exotic planets with exotic atmospheres that are hostile to life but also exotic universes with exotic laws of physics that cannot support life.

One thing that now amazes me and many others with a vested interest in cosmology about this universe are the fine tuning of its fundamental constants. They are beautifully fine tuned and even if only one of its fundamental constants like the velocity of light of the strong nuclear force are fractionally different, then life as we know it would not be possible and the universe may be just a cloud of boring gas or maybe a void of space with nothing else at all; either way it would constitute as a totally failed universe as far as any prospect of any future life is concerned, intelligent or otherwise . I am of the view there are a plethora of such failed universes and we can only observe this one simply by virtue of "Anthropic Bias" I am a very strong advocate of the "Anthropic Principle" in its weaker version. It is the corner stone of my philosophy on the big ontological questions on how we got here. I base it on a "safe bet" principle that makes some theories on the subject of personal existence more tenable than others just by the sheer virtue statistical probabilities.

A contained vs a non-contained universe, really the difference is one is not infinite and the other is.

What lays on the otherside then of the universe where it is not... more of the universe?

I think X's replies are pretty crappy.

The only thing that contains my universe is my brain and skull.

IMO what contains my universe is not so much the matter of my brain but what my brain does and how it is configured and I sit in the center of a subjective reality I call the "universe". A reality orientated around the observer. So in a sense I am the god of my universe.

Of course..