My thoughts on the origin of the universe

The Ulnarian · 08-11-2004, 09:25 AM

Someone asked me to post my thoughts on the beginning of the universe so here they are.

First off, I am a man of little actual beliefs, cold logic and observation are my guideposts.

That said, to my knowledge the Big Bang theory has never been "Proven". However, we do know (to the extent that human percpetion/logic can "know" anything) that the universe is expanding which is certainly consistent with a Big Bang theory.
Here's something interesting to think about, "If the universe is expanding, just what the hell is it expanding into???", logic would dictate that there must be some kind of space outside of the universe for it to expand out into, trippy huh?

But the Big Bang isn't really the call of the question, the real question is "where did all this mass which may get compressed from time to time in a Big Bang come from?"

Through observation scientist have deemed energy can not be created or destroyed only transfered into a different state (the law of conservation of energy). If Einstein is right then this means that mass can not be created or destroyed only transrered (E=Mc^2). Therefore, all the mass that is in the universee has always been here, neither being created or destroyed.

Therefore, we must accept one of 3 possibilities:

(1) The universe is inifinite with no origin and no end (if there is a "god" I think it would fall into this possibility)

(2) Science is wrong (perhaps a misplaced calculation or incorrect observation somewhere along the line)

or

(3) Common sense dictates that something can't logically be inifite, everything must have a beginning and end, also its not possible for a universe to expand into nothing (see Big Bang theory above) therefore we live in a world where the rules of logic as we know them don't apply. I call this the Paradox of Logic, and if we all live in a universe without logic, then the universe as we believe we know it doesn't exist. Whether through a fault in our perception or our analytic capabilities, we have yet to percieve the world as it actually is, in a sense were all like Neo trapped in the Matrix.

I choose the 3rd scenario [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

bbkane · 08-11-2004, 10:40 AM

thats what I was asking ulnarian THANK YOU!
3. is what I am thinking as well. There is an infinite number of beginings so we shouldnt exist! theoretically at least.

phil28uk · 08-11-2004, 01:09 PM

There must be a god or where did Chocolate Hob Nobs come from?

bbkane · 08-11-2004, 04:28 PM

ahhaha i love chocolate sometimes

kudochop · 08-14-2004, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Ulnarian said:
Someone asked me to post my thoughts on the beginning of the universe so here they are.

First off, I am a man of little actual beliefs, cold logic and observation are my guideposts.

(3) Common sense dictates that something can't logically be inifite, everything must have a beginning and end, also its not possible for a universe to expand into nothing (see Big Bang theory above) therefore we live in a world where the rules of logic as we know them don't apply. I call this the Paradox of Logic, and if we all live in a universe without logic, then the universe as we believe we know it doesn't exist. Whether through a fault in our perception or our analytic capabilities, we have yet to percieve the world as it actually is, in a sense were all like Neo trapped in the Matrix.

I choose the 3rd scenario [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you have contradicted yourself. You are wrong. You say you are a man of "...logic"; yet you say you buy into the belief that logic doesn't exist (theory #3). How so? Through logic I have just contradicted you. If not so, this post doesn't exist. What you posted exists. Where it exists is the question!

bbkane · 08-15-2004, 06:38 PM

He said its weird.... Using science......we shouldn't exist, nothing should, if you dont believe in god, or god as the begining......if you go with logic there should be an infinite number of beginings and that cant happen.......(because we're here [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

The Ulnarian · 08-16-2004, 08:01 AM

Kudochop-First Im glad that I presented such a compelling argument that you only chose to attack me on my personal beliefs (that rarely happens [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] ).

Second, yeah as I think BBKane said, that 3rd choice I have listed is what I call "The Paradox of Logic" (Im sure others have stated it more eloquently than myself). As I stated, my belief is in logic (things which have been proven to be true through repeated observation). And if you read through scenario #3, it is my very belief in logic that results in me doubting the existence of logic.

As, I've stated in #3 logical observation of our universe would yield the conclusion that we live in a world in which logic simply doesn't apply all of the time. Since this doesn't happen in a logical universe I must be living in a nonlogical universe (i.e. either I am insane, or have yet to truly see the universe as it really is or something else).

But yes, your are also correct in that I do show some "belief" in choosing alternative #3 from the previous 2. I don't invest to much faith into it as I don't know all the facts. However, based on the scant data available, #3 seems the most likely alternative.

Alternative 1 defies logic as we know that everything must be created from something and matter does not create itself (yet, it is here...).

Alternative #2 is a lot more compelling than #1 and would probably be my choice if it wasn't for the whole expanding universe paradox. We know that the universe is expanding, but in order for something to expand into something, there must be a space outside of our universe for it to expand into. But if the universe is defined as "everything" how can something exist outside of it ("everything"?). This all seems rather illogical, which ultimately makes me choose #3.

Cya man. Thanks for the read [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

kudochop · 11-07-2004, 03:01 PM

Logic is actually using deductive reasoning, not "repeated observation" as you say. By choosing your particular stance and viewpoint, you are using a logical means to arrive at your conclusion. By saying that something is "illogical" reguires some sort of thought process: deductive reasoning. That is the point I was attempting to make. I never attacked your "personal beliefs".

The Ulnarian · 11-07-2004, 03:35 PM

Kudochop-Forgive me, I am not a student of logic, could you please clarify what you mean by "deductive reasoning". I was under the impression that "logic" is the process of using repeated events to analyze a situation and predict (deductively reason) what will happen in the future.

If this is in error, I apologize. Could you please clarify further what "deductive reasoning" is and its relationship to "logic". Thanks!

11-07-2004, 07:14 PM

Scientist, nosey scientists... poking at a molecule... one day, they poke the wrong area... boom. Thats my big bang theory.

Tazman · 11-07-2004, 07:50 PM

hmmmmm.............there is no point in debating what you believe......believe what you want to believe......debating and trying to prove you're theory is correct, just doesnt work.

The Ulnarian · 11-07-2004, 09:51 PM

Tazman-As I am extremely bored at the moment, I'll argue with you [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] If your premise is, "it doesn't matter what I belief because everyone has their own beliefs and I will never convince anyone otherwise", I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Some 2300 years ago (give or take a few hundred years), many people in the western world believed in what would now be described as "pagan" gods. However, a handful of believers managed to convince these pagans that Christianity was the right thing to belief.

Some 500 years ago, many people believed that Christianity was the correct lens through which to view the world. However, again, a handful of people managed to convince the masses that Science is the correct way to view the world.

These are just examples to show that people's beliefs are malleable and based on the force of other's convictions, people may indeed change their own belief system.

Tazman · 11-07-2004, 10:06 PM

Personally I believe in God and iam a Christian..but im not going to debate my religion and faith with you because it would be wasting our time.....thats all.

The Ulnarian · 11-07-2004, 10:44 PM

I assure you it would not waste my time as I love to talk religion, however, you may feel that it is a waste of yours, which is cool and respectable. Cyas!

**stingx** · 11-08-2004, 04:55 AM

Ulnarian, you have to remember something, most people don't like to have any spikes trying to puncture the little bubbles that they live in. Personally, I'll take science over religion because I prefer to deal with tangeble items. I would never smack down anyone whose views differ with mine and always welcome a "logical" debate. I wouldn't keep persuing this though, as it seems there is no real debating here, only words of stubborness rehashing the same statements.