Your motivating for believing it is completely irrelevant to me, as I pointed out, there is no reason nor evidence. I don't think there is any harm in postulating and pondering, but trying to pass it on as the only sensible explanation is a bit premature IMO.
Btw your line of reasoning would lead to the following. Going back to your clock on mars analogy, your reasoning would say 'this proves that clocks can form naturally, since it's probability is so unlikely, there must be so many planets and alternate universes with countless planets in order to explain how one appeared by chance'. Instead of the more obvious explanation 'the probability for a clock to be on mars is so vanishingly small it must have been created by an intelligence.' I assume you reject the idea of an intelligent creator prima facia, which would then necessitate the multiverse hypothesis to explain the unlikely reality of this universe.
Btw I would be happy to talk to you about how something could come from nothing. It sounds absolutely ridiculous (I wrote it off for over 10 years until I heard it properly explained). I can do it here or in a PM if you are interested.
Is the explanation something like there is no "nothing".. cause my understanding of it was that it is something, just nothing we can directly observe yet. Like if you were talking face to face with someone, it would appear that there is nothing between you.. but in reality there is air and all sorts molecules. I think that is why some cosmologists are looking at fluid dynamics.. like the universe is a body of fluid, but it extends to a level that we cannot observe just yet. That's how I see it.. our universe is just a soup mix of super subatomic particles that are so small, it'll probably take us a few more generations til we can even observe them. They are out there in space slamming into each other in a chaotic mess, sometimes joining to make bigger particles that we can actually observe.. so it appears that something is coming from nothing when that nothing is actually something.
That is assuming that the universe is eternal, which science points to a finite universe. Yuri- call it what you want but "God waking up" would be what the divine creation of the universe is known as in a sense. If things evolve from simple to complex then where did anything evolve from to begin with? Where did the first "simple" come from?
Actually, science is shifting towards an infinite universe and/or an infinite multiverse. Hell.. there could even be an infinite number of multiverses and each one is infinite itself. Point is, science is shifting from the dogma of creation. At first it tried fighting fire with fire, fighting creationism with a point of creation.. but has realized that you can't fight fire with fire.
I'd be better off with intelligent design than that 'the clock just is and always was there', and I'm open to the idea of a creator (not the religious one) i just find it less probable given the evidence we have on the opposite side of the table And please share your views
Actually the most significant problem with the multiverse is that there is no evidence for it. Finite reality is what we call "the universe". Other universes would be impossible to detect if that were the case. Also there cannot be an infinite number of finite universes. if the universe is eternal, then today never would have gotten here. There would have been an infinite number of days before today and we would never reach today, there had to be a beginning. Next, if other universes existed they would need fine tuning just like our universe, which would only multiply the need for a creator. The multiple/infinite universe theory is so broad that any event could be explained by it, why did 9-11-2001 happen? Maybe we are in one of the universes that the planes actually did hit by accident even though it appeared as an attack. I mean, an infinite amount of possibilities exist in an infinite amount of universes. It is broad enough to even excuse atheists who suggest that this theory is the truth. Where is the science and what scientific conclusions are shifting towards this?
I think as you've mentioned we're very limited by our ability to actually measure it, I see it as finite but unbounded (travel far enough in a straight line and you get back to where you began)
There is the 'multiverse' of eternal inflation, the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics, and 'parallel universes' of string theory. They are different, and I dont argue for the latter two. I dont believe there's some universe out there where i have a mustache and another where i dont See it like stars, you get trillions of them and all are made of the same stuff but they all have different solar systems. All of the universes that had the right configuration to evolve life would seem 'fine tuned' to whatever observer existed inside of them
It's unbounded because it has no bounds, you can go in a straight line without ever reaching an edge. It is finite however as its 500 million square kms I'm using a 2 dimension example because it's easier to imagine than a 3 dimensional one
But.. if you were to travel in a straight line and end up right where you started.. then there would be at least one bound. All this stuff here is contradicting one another, no bounds.. yet you place a limit on it? How can you not see the contradiction?
Thats the thing though, they are all thories, i mean if there was a study with evidence that pointed to a multiverse then we would have to seriously look at that, obviously. And to me the multiverse theory still begs the question 'how did those universes get started?'. Im just not seeing something here. Havent we found multiple pieces of evidence that suggests matter space and time came to be at the exact time? If not then I know where I am screwing up. Second law of thermodynamics, the universe is expanding, the radiation afterglow, galaxy seeds, einsteins general relativity
Nothing = no thing Nothing =\= absolute absences The best way I have found to understand this is this simple picture below. Each of the waves are something, in that they are not nothing. The straight line represents nothing. When you add two opposite waves (reverse polarity) together, you get nothing. As far as science can tell, everything is ultimately a wave, there is no solid tangible object/particle when you 'zoom' in enough. So in order for something to be 'Something/not nothing' it cannot be equally present with it's opposite. As the picture below shows, a wave and it's opposite = no wave. If you have no wave, you have no-thing. Now imagine the entire universe, it is only something because it is not being canceled by it's opposite wave function. If you ADD it's opposite, you will have nothing, as soon as you SUBTRACT one of those wave functions, you get the universe existing. So nothing is the prime source of everything. Nothing = everything and it's opposite all at once This is called 'potential'. In this infinite nothing, the universe both existed and didn't exist at the same time, in other words, it had the potential to exist. It came into actual existence when this separation occured.
Ok cool but how is this different from the wave-particle duality in QM or wave-structure of matter in string theory or the Zero-energy universe hypothesis? Also, the opposing reverse polarity of waves causing the state of equilibrium would have to be in an already existant state of potential for the fluctuation to occur collapsing the wave function. An electron can exist in all potential states until a measurement is done, what collapsed the wave function here and how did it come to be in the first place?
Is the contradiction semantics or reasoning? What do you believe? I dont know the shape of the universe, and even if i wanted to the measurement problem would see to that. But what i am convinced of is that there isn't an infinite amount of matter here and that as far as observational data shows space has no boundary
I don't know how it relates to such theories, it's a metaphysical argument not a scientific claim (from me). I agree they were in a state of potential, that is the point actually. Everything that exists came from a state of potential, a state of not-actual, a state of nothing. To answer your last question(s), no one can know. In my opinion it seems like an act of intelligent will. Either it was from 'within' the infinite nothing or from 'without'. Since there is nothing beyond the infinite nothing, I am led to believe it was from within. No answer makes sense to our logical computers we call the brain, because the answer, whatever it is, will be illogical (since it requires that there was an uncaused cause/first cause). Our brains operate on logic, cause and effect type operation. Having said all of that, do you view "nothing" a little differently? Nothing=potential (properties of the infinite) Something=actual (properties of the finite)
Reasoning. I just don't see how you can see that we are unable to fully observe the universe.. and that there are no boundaries.. and yet so sure that it doesn't continue forever, with energy and matter throughout. To me, if you can't see a limit.. there is no reason to assume a limit until you hit the limit.