The origins of the universe as the originator complex

Post Reply New Topic

The origins of the universe as the originator complex


1. What are your theories of the origination of the universe?

2. Do you believe in god?

My Theory of the Originator Complex / or Origination Complex

That:

1. Nothing can create or somehow result in the existence of something from that nothing.

2. Some current theories concerning the universe currently claim origination from a point of singularity, but that point of singularity had to be something, not nothing. So something was already, thus there cannot be the concept of origination applied to the universe. There was the point of singularity of triggered patterns of formations, changes and energy changing form. Yet not from any sort of origination in totality of everything, that cannot be.

3. Origination is product of mind fundamentally, that mind originates, perceives beginning and conclusion, such as consciousness and the experience of life from origination. So origination is observed cognition and its intellectual concept of beginning is of experiential observational reasoning’s. Things begin and end, they change form and so it is, as it is now. Yet the universe was always, at least I think.

4. The theory of the origination complex are based upon the conclusions that the universe never began, that it was and is, never had it begun.

5. Also that there is no original point of singularity universally, just changes to what was always. That time never started, it was always.

This is not categorized correctly.

There is irrefutable evidence that the Big Bang occurred. We have observed the Cosmic Microwave Background, the redshifted radiation from the beginning of time. It is clear that the Universe is expanding, originating from a point of infinite density, a singularity.

There is a fundamental order in the Universe. Entropy always increases. Energy always dissipates. This is the arrow of time: the increase of entropy. We go from the beginning of time, a point of infinite concentration of energy to an endless void of uniformly dissipated energy. When the energy is distributed uniformly, nothing can occur. It is the heat death, the end of time.

Time has a beginning and an end.

You propose a sempiternal universe, and state that things cannot arise from nothing. But why does it have to be so? It is merely a prejudice of the human mind. Energy and matter are conserved within our Universe, but the origin of the Universe is "outside" of the universe.

We cannot understand the singularity yet, because our basic theories of the Universe, quantum mechanics and relativity are not in concordance. Quantum mechanics describes the world at a subatomic scale and relativity describes the world in terms of gravity. Normally, the realm of relativity and the realm of quantum theory are mostly separate. One is of galaxies, stars and planets, the other is of the subatomic world. However, in a singularity, there is an immense amount of mass in a point. So both subatomic and gravitational factors come into play. Therefore, the incompatibility of quantum theory and relativirty prevents understanding of the singularity.

When we have a theory that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics, we will have a theory of physics at the point of creation.

Now, origination is metaphysics rather than physics. In ancient times, the atom belonged to metaphysics, but now it is in the realm of physics.

But it is also possible that there are limits to human understanding, that we cannot understand creation because of the limitations of the human mind, just as a fish crashing its head into aquarium walls cannot comprehend the nature of the glass, the nature of the outside world, and the motives of the pet owner.

Sorry the big bang is very wrong, it as an event could have occured, but not as the original.

Sometimes I think even science like creationism but regular science is out of touch with critical thought.

What I am saying is there are many big bangs then, not origination.

How is the Big Bang wrong? Do you deny the evidence that the universe is expanding, that there is a Cosmic Microwave Background, that the abundance of certain elements are the amount predicted by the model? So what evidence do you have that the Big Bang is wrong?

You claim that Science is just like a religious belief. Yet, you are obviously using a computer. Can religious beliefs produce computers, put a man on the moon, transport people at hundreds of miles per hour in the stratosphere? Do you deny the existence of the complex, intricate technology so ubiquitous in our society that is a product of the knowledge of science?

If you have epistemological arguments against the validity of science, please state them.

Also, I think this thread should be moved to the Philosophy etc. forum.

An oscillating universe (Big Bang ->Big Crunch ->Another Big Bang)? So what evidence do you have of a universe that recreates itself?

What you are saying can never be proven to be wrong or correct.

What is called the big bang is just the last great perpetual pattern, not origination.

The universe could be perceived as expanding, or just changing, there is no proven limit to the size of the universe, another human foul perceptually in assumption, size and its containment.

Of what mass is known if the pattern is expansion, it does not mean that there is an end to what is being expanded.

IT is like in abstact conceptics, a circle with many circles along the larger circles outer parts, always re-creating in processes.

There is no original thing that created the circle, that is abstract reasoning.

But you have no evidence of that.

Time does have an end. There is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the entropy in a closed system cannot decrease. The Second Law is arrow of time itself. Thermodynamics define time. The past is when energy was more concentrated in the universe and the future is when it will be more dissipated. When you burn a piece of wood, you cannot restore it to its previous state (when energy was more concentrated) without expending (dissipating) more energy. By burning the wood, you have dissipated the concentrated energy in the wood. Overall, the universe always goes in this direction. Eventually, all of the energy in the Universe will be distributed evenly, which is the heat death. No change can ever occur after the heat death, because change only occurs if the distribution of energy is not uniform. An analogy would be if you pour liquid into a container, the liquid will eventually settle down and it will have a flat surface (assuming that there are no other factors) and turbulence will no longer occur because the water level is uniform. The heat death is the end of time, since time is a product of thermodynamics. Therefore, this is the end of the universe, since the universe is the result of space and time.

It then follows that the Universe at least has an end, and it cannot be sempiternal.

Last edited by X on 20 May 2006, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are very wrong, the laws you speak are partly with shared concepts in mind..

Making tea from a bioling kettle.. yum

That is vague. Could you further explain your argument?

Time externally or even internally, it is perception of how it is process's take place. Without mind of course there is no perception, there is still time. However as for origination that would require beginning, there was no beginning because something would have had to exists thus there was no beginning, time is active and measures process, not necessarily in totality start and ending.

I’m not trying to make fun or put down, but what you wrote was hardly relevant to time and the concept of origination, or rather lack of origination. I understand what you said, but it hardly applies.

With regards to thermodynamics, I argued with a biology teacher once.


Tell me, two eggs falling from the sky, do they go at equal speeds or does weight and shape help one go faster then the other? Does wind on a micro level interact with shape and weight differently so that one will smash on the ground or someone’s head faster then the other. Your logics could likely answer this question, but not origination as you have no proof of origination, it exists, the universe does, that's proven, but there need be no proof of origination and it obvious part of the formula which math cannot explain with regard to the universe originating.

Simply, a product element existence originally to B product element event cannot be true for a process creating the circumstances of the origins of the universe. It would have had to begin from something else or always have had existed. Thus a time when the universe was not, is illogical and you must prove it was not for it to have begun originally.

Time, defined by the Second Law, must have an end with dissipated energy and a beginning with concentrated energy.

You state that it is illogical to say that there is a time when the Universe did not exist. It is true that there was not a time when the Universe did not exist. Time originated with the Universe, and it is meaningless to discuss what there was before the Universe and Time came into existence.

You argue that the Universe has always existed, but that there may have been Big Bangs that arose from other universes having existed before the current one is meaningless because previous Universes are not in our realm of observation and can never be proven to exist or not exist. Therefore, it is meaningless.

The concept that something cannot arise from nothing cannot apply to the Universe itself and is only a preconceived notion of the human mind that applies to what is within the Universe.

Next, there is Olber's paradox. The Universe must have either finite age (which would result in the light from distant stars not having enough time to arrive) or finite space, or the entire sky should glow with the light of an infinite number of stars. But you say that it could be that there were other Universe before this one, which is meaningless because it cannot be proven.

I could say that the Universe is carried on the back of a giant creator-turtle that cannot be observed. It stands on the back of another turtle, and there is no end to the number of turtles. You could never prove me wrong because it is outside of what can be observed.

Last edited by X on 20 May 2006, 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The person is combining laws with things that do not apply.

The universe did not begin, unless you believe in god... The human race by cultural and belief conditions believes in ultimate origination, after all we all were born. Mind originates, other things around us originate, but everything cannot originate from either an ultimate something or nothing.

If you cannot understand this, because it is much more logical then any social and cultural psychopathological equilibrium, then attempt to think outside the reasoning’s of the popular conditionings.

You are conditioned to believe that the Universe cannot arise from nothing. You cling to this belief. It is nothing more than faith. What came "before" the Universe is meaningless in terms of rational thought and your beliefs are religious beliefs. There was nothing before the Universe, and the Universe came into existence a finite time ago, for no purpose.

If one believes in God, God must have arisen out of nothing, for no purpose.

The steady-state theory maintained that the universe had no beginning and it has long been discredited.