You're describing Quantum mechanics If it was from within then it would never evolve into any other state, like Schrödinger"s cat it will be both dead and alive until decoherance happens, so it will be perfectly balanced in this state of eternal nothingness forever. The collapse has to come from outside - an environment consisting of higher degrees of freedom than itself which would be able to measure the state and collapse the wave function causing the quantum fluctuation I see there being two types of nothing, the first is in empty space particularly the space between super galaxy clusters. There's no light no visible matter there but there is dark matter and energy in the form of radiation. So this nothing would seem empty but it's actually quite something. There's no isolated region in the observable universe that can escape spacetime, even singularities in supermassive blackholes occupy a region of spacetime at the plank length which is something The second nothing and the one we're talking about here is the absense of everything, no matter, no waves of energy, no fluctuations, not even spacetime itself, just zero black still blankness And as you said with our logical brains it's quite difficult to get an intuitive grasp on this
The universe started with a finite number of stuff so it would be illogical to assume that this finite stuff suddenly turned infinite for no apparent reason
The problem is you are merely kicking the can down the road, I think. Where did the 'without' come from? Did it come from within or without? And on and on we go. I think we must say there was never a state of unity, or that the state of unity is able to differentiate 'itself'. If there was never a state of unity, that would suggest the 'actual' proceeded the potential. In other words, the actual existed without the potential to first exist. Either way is a leap of faith or postulation. Have you read anything about Hegels "Science of Logic"? The wiki page on this is pretty good.
When you say, in describing your second nothing, that there are no waves, do you mean it in the way I described? That there are actually two waves producing a net zero wave, thus nothing actual, but still an underlying potential?
I agree with your view of the probable state that could have been, it's consistent with eternal inflation, i just dont call it nothing, 'The without' is not part of the 3 spacial dimensions + time we observe and intuitively believe reality should be like "When you say, in describing your second nothing, that there are no waves, do you mean it in the way I described? That there are actually two waves producing a net zero wave, thus nothing actual, but still an underlying potential?" Yes, no waves, no energy, no space, no time, no anything, just complete flat nothingness. Now i dont know what nature this nothingness is but see this video below that shows a simulation is our universe, the fluctuations are being caused by something
I follow the money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_bac... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_univers... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_...
I don't see a video? Back to the original topic, have your opinions changed in regards to the multiverse being so apparently necessary?
Not at all, what makes you think that? I'm still arguing tooth and nail for the multiverse, i'll paste the videos again just add a y before the link outube.com/watch?v=bJrXMh4yqZM outube.com/watch?v=BCUmeE8sIVo
Well if you follow the big bang, you probably know that they say it started with a singularity.. and a singularity is said to be infinite in all aspects, including energy.. and we all know that matter is basically condensed energy. So right there, your finite belief is contradictory to your money trail. Also, if there are an infinite number of multiverses.. there would be an infinite number of big bangs.. which would mean there were an infinite number of singularities with an infinite amount of spacetime quantities. Just doesn't jive with your finite belief. As for the cosmic background radiation, the expansion, and the acceleration.. none of those findings are restricted to a finite universe, or the existence of the multiverse.
Infinite number of big bangs is in direct agreement with the multiverse The singularity is a point where the volume goes to zero and density becomes infinite not where the mass becomes infinite, the mass is still very finite The cosmic background radiation shows firstly ripples in the density of the matter which proves the predictions made by inflation theory and secondly shows evidence that space is expanding See this video it will explain alot of what i'm talking about if i'm not explaining myself well
Expansion is one interpretation of CMBR, there are others. I can't watch the video now, I don't have WiFi at home unfortunately. IMO, the multiverse is only a necessary postulation to avoid the apparently ideal universe without appealing to the idea of an intelligent creator. There is no evidence for it nor any sound logical reasoning to support it. Brian Greene admits this. Its like trying to explain how my plasma tv came to be without invoking an intelligent creator. You COULD say, well given the multitude of star's and dozens of planets around each star, eventually a plasma t.v. COULD form. Since it's probability is non-zero, you just have to invent enough unseen stars and planets and voila! Problem solved!
Op. I want to make sure I understand you correctly. The following is essentially your point correct? Premise 1 - if the cosmological constant was even slightly off, there could be no universe as we know it (ie. Galaxies and such) Premise 2 - it is extremely unlikely that the universe would be so precisely tuned (fine tuned as you put it) by random chance. Premise 3 - the fine tuning cannot be the result of intelligent design. (Inferred from your conclusion) Conslusion - there must be an infinite number of universes all with different evolutions. Do you really not see the blatant errors in logic here? Your entire argument is based on false premises. -Yuri
Premise 1 - correct Premise 2 - correct Premise 3 - incorrect I did not rule out intelligent design, I just said it's unlikely. Since there is no more any reason anywhere else in science to invoke intelligent design, there is no reason to do so here too. As our knowledge grows, science fills the gaps arguments coming from ignorance through the process of elimination, ie eliminating the need for gods (Zeus caused thunder, etc) when we can explain something, we no longer need gods, science will do the same for the origin of the universe If the big bang happened once, cant it happen again? Nothing happens only once in nature. This is in agreement with the best cosmological theory we have today which is String Theory
Because we dont know yet should we conclude God created it? Gods were responsible for lightning until we found natural causes for it, evil spirits for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes. God seems confined only to the parts of the universe we dont know about, and that keeps shrinking
This is not a god of the gaps I am talking about at all, which is why I never used the term God because it comes loaded with presuppositions etc. I have arrived at the conclusion that the universe came from nothing, a nothing that has potency, all via deductive reasoning. I don't call it God because a nothing can't be a being. Perhaps the nothing gave rise to a being that gave rise to the universe idk. "Nothing happens only once in nature" Before the universe, there was no nature, there was nothing. BTW String Theory is neither a good cosmological model nor is it a theory.
I haven't been at home to be able to watch movies.. but there are different interpretations of singularities. Some say that since there is infinite density, there must be an infinite amount of energy/matter in there. I personally agree with you on the finite limits of black holes and singularities.. but it seems like most people think there is an infinite amount of energy in a singularity. Some even suggest that black holes open up worm holes to other universes.. and if they do and there are infinite multiverses, that too would circle back to there being (at least the possibility) of an infinite amount of energy entering our universe. Knowing past threads.. I feel like you are clinging to the finite universe because you cling to determinism, and an infinite universe would challenge that belief. With the rest.. and again, CBR, inflation, expansion of space.. all that does not prove anything. A person who believes in a finite universe and multiverses can work them all into their theory.. and a person who believes in an infinite universe can work them into their theory as well.
OK so then I'd like to point out again the entire conclusion is based on a false premise. The idea that "if the constant was slightly off" assumes that it is even possible. There is no precedent for that claim. We can speculate, but we've never observed or have any reason to believe there could be other universes with different laws of physics. In fact, you yourself made a thread about determinism, which is based on the idea that all actions are equal and opposite, and thus everything is predetermined. The laws of physics are just a result of balance. Equal opposite reactions. There is no fine tuning. Only balance, which should result in same type of universe no matter how many big bangs happen. -Yuri