The birth of the universe

Post Reply New Topic

I am not particularly knowledgeable in regards to science so please excuse me if I make any logical fallacies but here we go anyway-

The fine tuning argument presents the hypothesis that we live in the perfect conditions necessary for the birth life and that it seems too much of a coincidence that life can be born out of such perfect conditions, thus giving the impression that there is some sort intelligent consciousness behind it. Science disputes this claim however and claims that it was a coincidence. However, perhaps it is neither. Perhaps life was a mathematical inevitability. I have been thinking recently that perhaps the big bang was not the only big bang to occur but perhaps there have been an infinite amount of big bangs or at least millions or even billions of them. Perhaps the universe did not begin at birth of the big bang but the big bang was a beginning in a series of many cosmic beginnings. Perhaps the universe does not occur in a linear fashion but moves in a cyclical fashion and what we are experiencing now is the result of many other previous big bangs. If this true, then maybe we are the inevitable outcome of many or an infinite big bangs. When you flip a coin, the more you do it, the greater your chances are of something improbable occurring. Thus, if I flip a coin ten times, the likelihood of me getting ten heads in a row is not high. However if I flip a coin a thousand times, this likelihood increases. Thus maybe it is the same with life. Perhaps we are the mathematical inevitability not of one big bang but of many big bangs, many of them failing but with one of them successfully producing life. Sorry, if this post sounds completely stupid

One important factor to consider is the sheer size of the universe. Greenhouse planets such as ours would be extremely rare, but we've already identified a number of them that are within the acceptable range from their sun. Think of Earth as the winner of a cosmic lottery. There's a 1 in a billion chance of winning it, but the universe is so massive and filled with celestial bodies that it's got all of the number combinations covered a million times over. As rare as Earth is, there's bound to be more.

Unfortunately, distance is prohibitive when it comes to making contact with any intelligent life, so we probably never will.

Yes, this is very true as well. As you state, there are many planets that harbor life and mathematics I believe has shown that there could be millions of stars that could possibly indicate some sort of life, which shows that we are not fine tuned for life but rather are an inevitable by-product of many other planets that have been created that could harbor life. Also, if multi-verses exist, which string theory implies, then we may also be the product of an infinite amount of multi-verses in which one inevitably has to hold life, however we are ignorant of such universes and thus it seems like we are in someway very special.

No true, although saying that it is impossible for us to conceive of the kinds of technology such an alien species harbors. They may possess some sort of technology in which they are able to manipulate space time or are somehow able to create wormholes in order to travel from one point to another far more quickly. Though perhaps not. They even not be physical but purely energetic.

The mathematical inevitability argument isn't without problems, either, though. For one, it's logically possible that a conscious being could have caused a series of big bangs with the intention of bringing about mathematically inevitable results, knowing full well what the results of any First Cause would be.

Second, life isn't necessarily mathematically inevitable.

Third, the obvious problem with infinite regression!! ! Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Well, even with Big Bang you still have something that begins to exist, so there must be a First Cause. You can't really argue an infinite regression, i.e. turtles all the way down, since there is no infinite beginning. It's perfectly reasonable to argue an Uncaused Cause. I mean, given entropy (which is a fact) you can't really say the universe is infinite in terms of time. It definitely began to exist at some point, beyond which there was…what? You can speculate on what "before" was, but there's no evidence. As in ZILCH evidence. It's all speculation.

Fourth, "not-life" is just as much fair game with mathematical inevitability as "life" is. It's still more likely, and life as unlikely as it already is. How are we supposed to know which universe or which big bang we're living under? One in which life is or isn't likely? Just like the third problem, we have no way to know.

You make some very good arguments.

Personally though, I believe we view the world through cause and effect and therefore assume that the universe had to have a beginning because we perceive reality through a deterministic narrative, however I do not believe this may be the case. Infinity is an exceptionally hard notion to comprehend and thus maybe even if the universe did have an infinite amount of beginnings, it would transcend the limits of human perception. You are right but then an infinite amount of universes would heighten the likelihood of life.

The universe has to be the way it is because this thread exists.

Haha, I believe that theory is called the forum-anthropic principle?

There are infinite possibilities: Our universe could be an offshoot of a parent universe, or our universe could go through cycles of explosions from a singularity, or our universe could be a computer simulation within somebody else's universe, or our universe could be a random quantum fluctuation, like virtual particles that constantly appear and then annihilate themselves.

Stephen Hawking takes a 4 dimensional view, theorizing that the universe has no beginning, but simply exists as an object, and the big bang was part of a curved membrane furthest in the direction of negative time. With our current understanding of relativity, time, as well as space, were both created in the Big Bang, so neither existed before the birth of the universe.

I am painfully aware that I don’t know anything, but perhaps we'll all know . . . one day.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34sEX6VM9sU[/youtube]This is how it was formed and made! Not by some magical invisible man who was a forever alone who was bored and decided to make it 6000 years ago depicted from a book of fairy tales. It was formed 14 billion years ago nothing magical created it!

Have thought that many times.

We live in a universe that has life only because of certain unlikely parameters that are JUST RIGHT for life to occur.

So it appears that an intelligent creator did it all.

But if could be that there are many paralell universe and/or we live in an oscilating universe. So the dice gets thrown on how the universes parameters are set up infinite numbers of times because universes get spawned infinite times. When just the right universe appears- and beings evolve on that universe it then appears to those beings that their appearance was created by a diety who fine tuned things just right. But it was just the throw of the dice of that particular universe.

And right here is the problem with the intelligent creator argument. These people make the assumption that universe is so finely tuned as to be perfect for life, this is a fallacy. For the most part the universe is not even remotely suitable for life nor for that matter is the earth. Admittedly there are pools of acid and sulphur which contain bacteria, but this is not the fine tuning these people talk about. Great swathes of our planet are not conducive to life and the same goes for the universe. Those rare creationists who understand this, make all kinds of apologies for gods apparent failings as a creator, but the fact remains the universe is not perfect for life, it is instead conducive to life in certain areas.

As to the argument against infinite regression I love how the creationists simply remove their creator from this problem. To my mind the concept of a creator is one for those who cannot conceive complicated problems and prefer a simple mailable solution. I find it amusing that they cannot see their solution is infinitely complicated.

There is a new and interesting theory called Rainbow Gravity which postulates that that gravity's effects on spacetime are felt differently by different wavelengths of light, The color of light is determined by its frequency, and because different frequencies correspond to different energies, light particles of different colors would travel on slightly different paths though spacetime, according to their energy. Using this idea theorists have shown that as you look back thorough time the universe gets denser but never to the point of infinite density i.e a singularity. If correct this means the universe has always existed.

Similar to biological evolution. Except cosmological.

As for uncaused cause, could easily be something outside of the universe that randomly triggered it to emerge. Positing God as the uncaused cause leads to various logical problems that a simple mindless entity would not (for example, the problem of timeless causation and divine free will problem).

Exactly how I see it and you have explained it very well. If there are many infinite parallel universe and by a throw of the dice there is one that harbors life, it appears as if we are somehow special. Of course, we cannot comprehend the idea of infinity because our minds are based on perceiving the world through cause and effect even though the universe may be infinite or there are an infinite amount of universes. Question which I have thought before- If there are an infinite amount of universes and thus an infinite amount of possibilities, is there therefore a god?

Exactly. You have put it very well. There are many places on our earth as well as in our universe in which life cannot exist and does not have the capability to. You would have thought if he had invented the earth, it would have more areas that could sustain life. Also, although creature seem as if they have been built with a perfect function, organisms are far from perfect. A creationist may say that the human eye seems like it is designed because of its perfection, however our eyesight is awful compared to some species and thus you'd think that if there were a creator, he would be able to build us more efficiently.

Ah, that is interesting, I shall have to check out that particular theory. That is what it seems to me, that is the universe has always existed and there has been no beginning or no end, it just IS and that is all we can say about. Infinity transcends human comprehension since we perceive the world through deterministic cause and effect. Perhaps when people have mystical experiences where they say they can comprehend the infinity of god, they are actually briefly glimpsing into the fact that the UNIVERSE, not god, has existed forever. Don't know though.

As for creation, intelligent design, that could be done better with a few stars and each having several planets in the liquid water zone.

If that was the goal, it is way overbuilt. What we have seen, is planets around other stars that could not support life.

Still, with so many tries, there should be many planets within 1% of Earth conditions. Nothing local.

At one time the Sun was the Universe, and the stars thought to be sparks.

Then we learned it was bigger than that.

Just the idea there is one universe, of finite size, that had a beginning, is falling apart.

What lies beyond, forever and ever?

We do ask better questions, but we are stuck with much older thought.

!4 billion years and the Big Bang does not account for Black Holes. They seem older, much older.

How it all came to be is an ultimate question, and we are apes.