There may be evolution occurring at even this time enabling homosapiens to utilize more than the fraction of conscious brain we do, but as Dex saud, it takes a long time for homosapiens to evolve. We aren't virii or even insects.
Origin of Universe: God <vs> Big Bang/Non-God theories
- Thread starter westmanguy
- Start date
I'm Canadian Irish, not French.
Good habit. But, I like the idea of what goes around comes around, so lieexpresser sprouted this "Jillbear" thing and I returned with "lieexpresser". Haven't you noticed that there's a child in every man whatever the age?
Last edited:
MULTIVERSES
Open multiverse
Infinite universes would mean infinite people exactly like yourself and everyone else
Some physicists believe that the universe is spatially unbounded. The theory of relativity places a firm upper limit on the speed at which information can travel, effectively dividing this infinite space into "local" universes. Our observable universe, for example, is a sphere centered on the Earth (centered, that is, on whoever's doing the calculating), currently about 46.5 billion light years in radius, called the Hubble volume.
Thus, there are an infinite number of regions of space the same size as our observable universe -- an infinite number of observable universes, that is. This infinite set (which must contain, among other things, an infinite number of identical copies of you,[4] the nearest of which is about
(10 with 1028 zeros after it) meters away, and an equally infinite number of not-quite-identical copies) comprises the level-I multiverse.
By the Bekenstein bound there are only a finite number of configuration possible within any region, hence exact duplication is possible.
Overtly or not, physicists often use the idea of an Open Multiverse when evaluating theories. For example, Max Tegmark writes:
...consider how cosmologists used the microwave background to rule out a finite spherical geometry. Hot and cold spots in microwave background maps have a characteristic size that depends on the curvature of space, and the observed spots appear too small to be consistent with a spherical shape. But it is important to be statistically rigorous. The average spot size varies randomly from one Hubble volume to another, so it is possible that our universe is fooling us--it could be spherical but happen to have abnormally small spots. When cosmologists say they have ruled out the spherical model with 99.9 percent confidence, they really mean that if this model were true, fewer than one in 1,000 Hubble volumes would show spots as small as those we observe.
Bubble theory
"Bubble universes", every disk is a bubble universe(Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles, they have physical constants that are different from our universe), our universe is just one of the bubbles.
Bubble theory posits an infinite number of open multiverses, each with different physical constants.
(The set of bubble universes is thus a Level II multiverse.) Counterintuitively, these universes are farther away than even the farthest universe in our open multiverse, which is itself infinitely far from us (hope you understand).
The formation of our universe from a "bubble" of a multiverse was proposed by Andre Linde. This Bubble universe theory fits well with the widely accepted theory of inflation. The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe." On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.
Big bounce
According to some quantum loop gravity theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this oscillatory universe hypothesis (originally attributable to John Wheeler), the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a Big bounce. Although the model was abandoned for a time, the theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model.
Like Bubble Theory, this oscillatory view posits a Level-II multiverse.
Many worlds interpretation of quantum physics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. Other interpretations include the Copenhagen and the consistent histories interpretations. The multiverse proposed by MWI has a shared time parameter. In most formulations, all the constituent universes are structurally identical to each other and though they have the same physical laws and values for the fundamental constants, they may exist in different states. The constituent universes are furthermore non-communicating, in the sense that no information can pass between them. The state of the entire multiverse is related to the states of the constituent universes by quantum superposition, and is described by a single universal wavefunction. Related are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.
M-theory
A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the 11-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space. Unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", these universes can have completely different laws of physics—anything may be possible.
String landscape
Another proposal for a multiverse in string theory has received considerable attention lately. It is called the string landscape and asserts that, roughly speaking, there are a very large number of ways to go from ten dimensional string theory down to the four-dimensional low-energy world we see, and each one of these corresponds to a radically different universe.
wikipedia.org
Open multiverse
Infinite universes would mean infinite people exactly like yourself and everyone else
Some physicists believe that the universe is spatially unbounded. The theory of relativity places a firm upper limit on the speed at which information can travel, effectively dividing this infinite space into "local" universes. Our observable universe, for example, is a sphere centered on the Earth (centered, that is, on whoever's doing the calculating), currently about 46.5 billion light years in radius, called the Hubble volume.
Thus, there are an infinite number of regions of space the same size as our observable universe -- an infinite number of observable universes, that is. This infinite set (which must contain, among other things, an infinite number of identical copies of you,[4] the nearest of which is about
By the Bekenstein bound there are only a finite number of configuration possible within any region, hence exact duplication is possible.
Overtly or not, physicists often use the idea of an Open Multiverse when evaluating theories. For example, Max Tegmark writes:
...consider how cosmologists used the microwave background to rule out a finite spherical geometry. Hot and cold spots in microwave background maps have a characteristic size that depends on the curvature of space, and the observed spots appear too small to be consistent with a spherical shape. But it is important to be statistically rigorous. The average spot size varies randomly from one Hubble volume to another, so it is possible that our universe is fooling us--it could be spherical but happen to have abnormally small spots. When cosmologists say they have ruled out the spherical model with 99.9 percent confidence, they really mean that if this model were true, fewer than one in 1,000 Hubble volumes would show spots as small as those we observe.
Bubble theory
"Bubble universes", every disk is a bubble universe(Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles, they have physical constants that are different from our universe), our universe is just one of the bubbles.
Bubble theory posits an infinite number of open multiverses, each with different physical constants.
(The set of bubble universes is thus a Level II multiverse.) Counterintuitively, these universes are farther away than even the farthest universe in our open multiverse, which is itself infinitely far from us (hope you understand).
The formation of our universe from a "bubble" of a multiverse was proposed by Andre Linde. This Bubble universe theory fits well with the widely accepted theory of inflation. The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe." On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.
Big bounce
According to some quantum loop gravity theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this oscillatory universe hypothesis (originally attributable to John Wheeler), the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a Big bounce. Although the model was abandoned for a time, the theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model.
Like Bubble Theory, this oscillatory view posits a Level-II multiverse.
Many worlds interpretation of quantum physics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. Other interpretations include the Copenhagen and the consistent histories interpretations. The multiverse proposed by MWI has a shared time parameter. In most formulations, all the constituent universes are structurally identical to each other and though they have the same physical laws and values for the fundamental constants, they may exist in different states. The constituent universes are furthermore non-communicating, in the sense that no information can pass between them. The state of the entire multiverse is related to the states of the constituent universes by quantum superposition, and is described by a single universal wavefunction. Related are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.
M-theory
A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the 11-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space. Unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", these universes can have completely different laws of physics—anything may be possible.
String landscape
Another proposal for a multiverse in string theory has received considerable attention lately. It is called the string landscape and asserts that, roughly speaking, there are a very large number of ways to go from ten dimensional string theory down to the four-dimensional low-energy world we see, and each one of these corresponds to a radically different universe.
wikipedia.org
What makes it a guarantee that a scientist who believes ID isn't going to keep searching for definite answers? Plenty of scientists have to develop a hypothesis before they can start research. Starting with no idea in mind would make their task impossible. There is so much more to be found to the universe, I know even though I believe there is a God, I don't think there's a reason to stop looking for concrete answers.
do you think it's possible (in the future) to scientifically prove the existance of God?
I like the idea of what goes around comes around, so lieexpresser sprouted this "Jillbear" thing and I returned with "lieexpresser". Haven't you noticed that there's a child in every man whatever the age?
I agree with you there Gilbert. lol.
I guess I do believe that. Perhaps because I don't believe that God is an entity in the same way we are. I think in discussing God we have to use human concepts to try to define what it is we sense. But, when I try to discuss the idea of intelligent energy flowing through the universe, I get dismissed even quicker than I do when I tell people I'm Catholic. lol.
Well you may be missing something there Dexter. As I said science is on the verge of understanding and there are undoubtedly some who are very close. That means some of the very brightest will have the answers and an understanding maybe in a couple hundred years but of course the rest of civilization will still be incapable of understanding. This not going to be a discovery that can be passed on to the rest of us in the same way as the Salk vaccine for instance.
Just be content, or afraid, because it will happen sometime and that will be the time when religious beliefs start to be discarded in earnest for the nonsense they really are. If not before then if they find life on Saturn's moon (name?) and prove that genesis happened in more than one place. I have hope for civilization!
what's good enough for star trek is good enough for me. they've already invented the hypospray
We won't all die but there certainly looks to be a big kill off coming. Wars, which are almost always caused at the root by religious differences will be the reason. The believers are waiting with bated breathe for it to happen because they think they will be raptured. They won't, they will burn here on earth with the rest of us atheists.
It's nothing karrie, so leave it alone and don't try to cause more trouble with it. In some cases it was nothing more than a response to a person who started the tactic first. And the reason why it's nothing is because it's now history. The rules are now much stiffer and so they should be. This place was nothing more than a mudslinging match four days ago. Let's all carry on and try to do our best.
lol. hubby was ranting about gas prices and greenhouse effects and such the other day and I simply said "well, if they'd release the transporter technology we all know they have, we could fix this mess." He had to actually ask if I was joking because I managed to say it with a totally straight face. lol.
Just a general observation: I think that for anyone to shoot down another's thoughful and lengthy posts with terse yups and nopes in not adding to the discourse on this forum. And that is regardless of whether the person making the long post is a religious believer or a non-believer. AJ for instance makes long thoughtful posts and he deserves proper answers as opposed to sarcasm.
This can be the new forum!
This can be the new forum!
we have good an bad posts here lieexpsr. Each post is judged by the readers. I don't think a long thoughtful post CAN be shot down by a "nope" the nope goes ignored and the post is read and absorbed. I enjoy AJ's posts btw.
That's a good point and on topic amongst a lot of off topic nonsense. String theory is one of the great hopes I have that we will really be able to understand the universe (multiverse) within a couple of hundred years.
Just give it another decade
By then I'll be out of school and I can amaze you all with my knowledge... ^.^You may be able to say that karrie but I think the belief in a god may take away the initiative from some to search for the real answers. In fact when I hear religiuos people scoff at the Big Bang theory or other science such as Natural Selection for instance, I know they have stopped looking and are attempting to convince others to stop looking. If a kid comes home from school and tries to tell his parents about how he learned about the big bang theory and they laugh at him, that poses a real problem. I have to wonder how you would handle that if you had children. Would you attempt to insill your belief in god right alongside the science you kid had just learned?
Take for instance the ID fight going on in the U.S. at the moment. The religious wackjob extremists down there are attempting to hav it taught in science classes to children in elementary schools. You remember what we said about the informative years. If ever there was a reason for censorship it is there!
Absolutely not but IMO the opposite will be proven soon. God belief is based on lies which are easily disprovable. Religion has a very inconvenient book staring it in the face. As long as religion continues to take that book as the gospel truth and entirely the literal word of god then it can only get worse for them. God in their sense is a completely false idea.
If religion would perhaps change and try to get it's followers to believe in something which is not literally from the bible then they may have a chance of proving some kind of god, sky fairy, or something entirely different from the current beliefs. Of course that would be a complete abandonment of religion as we know it for some sort of scientology (ish) thing. The bible must be thrown out first and then they could start from a new beginning. For those believers who have already thrown out the bible, and there are some, they may be able to start to reconcile their beliefs with science. For instance, if I as an atheist needed to have some kind of sky fairy out there I would have to make sure it is consistant with science. I don't need one but for those who do there shouldn't be any problem.
The universe has a big headstart on the human mind, to think that we'll catch up and write a service manual on everything is optimistic to say the least, but this is what we're intent on doing with our science. I have seen it written somewhere that this is the monumental conciet of mankind, I have also seen it written that we were created in Gods image and emmulation of God is our ultimate goal.What will we do if we ever get to the point in time when there are no more unanswered questions, every rocks been flipped over and every nook and crannys been explored and there is no mystery left anywhere? I suggest we will die of boredom the second that happens, what keeps us going day in and day out is not necessity but mystery. To know all is to be all and that's God. I wouldn't worry to much about running out of mystery and dieing of boredom just yet, it appears we have a few more papers to write.:laughing7::laughing7::wave: