Freaky Higgs Physics Suggests The Universe Shouldn't Exist

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: neoholographic

So who wrote the program? Who is making calculations? Jw

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: ionwind

After reading David Bohm's book wholeness and the implicate order, it would seem that these hidden states are either only observed when we create better instruments and experiments , but we would only see them in higher dimensions
and these super particles are not observed in the 3rd dimension
so time will only tell

really mind blowing stuff , that the universe exists despite the evidence showing that it shouldn't

Maybe the universe is in its death throes, and our perspective just creates the illusion that it's alive and well.

I think the Physicists are stuck on the concept of the universe is still expanding. I think what's really happening is the galaxies, stars, planets, etc are slowing so that it appears the galaxy next door is accelerating away from us, but in reality we are just slowing. It is the Higgs that is causing the universe expansion to slow...and eventually, one day, the effect will cause the universe to start contracting...faster and faster until eventually everything comes back to a single point and the "big bang" happens all over again.

Nature is cycles. It's part of our anatomy. It's part of everything. It only makes sense that the universe itself has a pulse and lifecycle. Birth, death, birth, death. That's the final law of the universe. It just moves so slowly that we can't even comprehend it.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: neoholographic

So who wrote the program? Who is making calculations? Jw

This is a metaphysical statement, I too can make one:

The Laws of Physics determines how the universe works. They have existed always. Since their existence has been and always will be infinite, there is no need for a creator.

This work being done with the Higgs boson shows us how our current universe came into being and possibly how it will end.

My very unstable and unsubstantiated theory is that every Planck time the universe collapses and reforms to what we perceive it to be. So, it would happen so fast that no one would even register that anything had just occurred.

originally posted by: ionwind
The Laws of Physics determines how the universe works. They have existed always. Since their existence has been and always will be infinite, there is no need for a creator.

So.. the human interpretations of the patterns we can observe is somehow responsible for the entirety of the universe?

Im unconvinced.

It would be more interesting if this anomaly led to new understanding, rather than being an equipment or interpretation error. We will see.

originally posted by: Serdgiam

originally posted by: ionwind
The Laws of Physics determines how the universe works. They have existed always. Since their existence has been and always will be infinite, there is no need for a creator.

So.. the human interpretations of the patterns we can observe is somehow responsible for the entirety of the universe?

Im unconvinced.

It would be more interesting if this anomaly led to new understanding, rather than being an equipment or interpretation error. We will see.

My first remark was a simple thought experiment. Although the well known physicist, Stephan Hawking, said our universe was cyclic (big bang, expansion, collapse, big bang etc) repeating infinitely. He then made the claim that because this was an infinite cycle, there was no need for a creator. Needless to say, the Pope requested an audience and Stephan Hawking went. Fortunately, he wasn't arrested like Galileo was a few hundred years ago.

Back on topic, if the Higgs boson can have such a dramatic effect on our universe, causing it to collapse, what's to prevent our universe from collapsing at any time? More here

So, personally, I'm kind of hoping the Higgs boson doesn't have this kind of influence.

And the religious fanatics are off and running again....

But I have one relevant and simple question for you "believers".

Why do you try soooo hard to ignore all reality and common sense when defending your position? Oh that's right, that's the blind in blind faith at work. OK I answered that one as I wrote it. Let's try another....

How can you possibly use the OP and your chicken and egg/something from nothing argument as "proof" that an imaginary man sits in clouds and calls the shots when it ignores one VERY OBVIOUS contradiction?

If you don't believe that an entire universe can just suddenly "appear" out of nothing without Gods help, then how the hell do you explain, or justify, God suddenly existing out of nothing to make something else out of nothing????

If you want to keep playing dumb by saying something can't come from nothing so God must have done it, then you better be able to explain how the day before the universe existed "God" was created in a void. See you once again live in hypocrisy when your frivioulus and naive faith is based on the argument the Universe couldn't possibly come from nothing, but God certainly could.

Bottom line - if in pea brained heads "God" can come from nothing, then hypothetically and theoretically so could the universe. So your entire argument is therefore redeemed to NONSENSE.

By far and away the most dangerous thing about religion, is that BY DESIGN its followers must be completely and totally unwilling to accept any other possible explanation. That sounds an awful lot like a premise whose entire existence is based on ignorance and denial. Coincidence???????????

PS - Man will never truly be free (especially from the hold of his fellow man) until religion is extinct, whether it be by force or by simple evolution of intelligence.

a reply to: DealWithReality

You make some valid remarks but how is it postulated that all this universe came from something the BB on a micro level that produced this macro experience? But its hard to process that a highly advanced being(s) generated this reality perceived...

1 is not challenging anyone's belief system programs.
But how is this all CREATED from one vortex point of creation smaller then what was generated? Yet some advanced being(s) cannot do the same?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: DealWithReality

You make some valid remarks but how is it postulated that all this universe came from something the BB on a micro level that produced this macro experience? But its hard to process that a highly advanced being(s) generated this reality perceived...

1 is not challenging anyone's belief system programs. But how is this all from 1 vortex point of creation smaller then what was generated? Yet some advanced being(s) cannot do the same?

Simple answer - In the event the only two currently available answers are inconceivable the simpler of the two is the most logical explanation.

Translation: if the only two options for why there is a Universe are....

A. There was a total void of nothingness then suddenly there was an explosion and everything came from nothing.

Or

B. There was a total void of nothingness then suddenly there was a conscious being (with no matter or reality to exist on) and suddenly he who appeared and existed out of and in nothingness then proceed to make everything out of nothing.

Which of those two seems to not just be far more complex, but a total contradiction of itself??????

PS - "advanced beings" would not be an acceptable answer to the god crowd. I however am open to all reasonable explanations, I don't believe the answer is known. So intelligent beings creating this universe from another universe is absolutely a possibility to me. But eventually even in that universe you run into the same origin question.

The bottom line is no matter how far you go back something came from nothing. THAT is the given. So believing SOMEONE came from nothing before SOMETHING is twice as unlikely, if not infinitely more so.

originally posted by: ionwind
My first remark was a simple thought experiment. Although the well known physicist, Stephan Hawking, said our universe was cyclic (big bang, expansion, collapse, big bang etc) repeating infinitely. He then made the claim that because this was an infinite cycle, there was no need for a creator. Needless to say, the Pope requested an audience and Stephan Hawking went. Fortunately, he wasn't arrested like Galileo was a few hundred years ago.

Whether or not there is a perceived "need" is irrelevant.

Back on topic, if the Higgs boson can have such a dramatic effect on our universe, causing it to collapse, what's to prevent our universe from collapsing at any time? More here

So, personally, I'm kind of hoping the Higgs boson doesn't have this kind of influence.

To be perfectly blunt, I dont think we really know how to interpret a lot of the data we have recently gained by experimentation. Personally, I suspect that there will be a collapse at some point, but even in the light of new "evidence," it is still just a suspicion.

As it is now, we just keep digging deeper and deeper into the space between 0 and 1. I think its time for a new outlook, but that will come in time, learning, and discovery through science.

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: neoholographic

So who wrote the program? Who is making calculations? Jw

There's a couple of answers to this.

First, there could be creative intelligence behind the universe.

Secondly, there could be a non physical structure that unconsciously computes itself ad infinitum.

This is why at Planck scales subatomic particles behave like there's no space and time between them. If there's no distance then there's no time. This could be why we see things like non locality and teleportation on quantum levels.

This could be where the non physical wave function operates outside of space and time because there's no time or space which means there's no distance. With the physical universe you have space and time. With a non physical universe there wouldn't be any space or time.

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Simple answer - In the event the only two currently available answers are inconceivable the simpler of the two is the most logical explanation.

Translation: if the only two options for why there is a Universe are....

A. There was a total void of nothingness then

what existed in this perceived nothingness?

originally posted by: DealWithReality

suddenly there was an explosion and everything came from nothing.

what instigated this explosion from nothingness was it some particle collision / separation? or did the explosion just happen?

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Or

B. There was a total void of nothingness then suddenly there was a conscious being (with no matter or reality to exist on) and suddenly he who appeared and existed out of and in nothingness then proceed to make everything out of nothing.

But this conscious being(s) could exist in what you perceive as nothingness due to your current Awareness level you cannot detect them so you write them off using atom based technology to verify their nothingness...

originally posted by: DealWithReality

Which of those two seems to not just be far more complex, but a total contradiction of itself??????

indeed?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Simple answer - In the event the only two currently available answers are inconceivable the simpler of the two is the most logical explanation.

Translation: if the only two options for why there is a Universe are....

A. There was a total void of nothingness then

what existed in this perceived nothingness?

originally posted by: DealWithReality

suddenly there was an explosion and everything came from nothing.

what instigated this explosion from nothingness was it some particle collision / separation? or did the explosion just happen?

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Or

B. There was a total void of nothingness then suddenly there was a conscious being (with no matter or reality to exist on) and suddenly he who appeared and existed out of and in nothingness then proceed to make everything out of nothing.

But this conscious being(s) could exist in what you perceive as nothingness due to your current Awareness level you cannot detect them so you write them off using atom based technology to verify their nothingness...

originally posted by: DealWithReality

Which of those two seems to not just be far more complex, but a total contradiction of itself??????

indeed?

Ahhh we've come to the parlor tricks and word games portion of defending your "faith".

See the beauty of my position is this....

Unlike people of "faith" I am not bound by any singular absolute. I didn't let primitive man, and his need to justify why the sun goes down, paint me into a corner. I can simply say the truth has yet to reveal itself.

However that doesn't stop me from disregarding "theories" (and that's all yours or any religion is, is a great big THEORY that is totally dependent on BLIND faith and the ignorance toward all reasonable rationality) that are sheer contradictions of themselves.

See I do not, not believe that the universe could come from nothing.

Ironically its the religious that insist that the universe can not come from nothing, but a singular all powerful being certainly could. That kids is what we call a paradox!!!!

originally posted by: DealWithReality

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Simple answer - In the event the only two currently available answers are inconceivable the simpler of the two is the most logical explanation.

Translation: if the only two options for why there is a Universe are....

A. There was a total void of nothingness then

what existed in this perceived nothingness?

originally posted by: DealWithReality

suddenly there was an explosion and everything came from nothing.

what instigated this explosion from nothingness was it some particle collision / separation? or did the explosion just happen?

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Or

B. There was a total void of nothingness then suddenly there was a conscious being (with no matter or reality to exist on) and suddenly he who appeared and existed out of and in nothingness then proceed to make everything out of nothing.

But this conscious being(s) could exist in what you perceive as nothingness due to your current Awareness level you cannot detect them so you write them off using atom based technology to verify their nothingness...

originally posted by: DealWithReality

Which of those two seems to not just be far more complex, but a total contradiction of itself??????

indeed?

Ahhh we've come to the parlor tricks and word games portion of defending your "faith".

See the beauty of my position is this....

Unlike people of " faith" I am not bound by any singular absolute. I didn't let primitive man, and his need to justify why the sun goes down, paint me into a corner. I can simply say the truth has yet to reveal itself.

However that doesn't stop me from disregarding "theories" (and that's all yours or any religion is, is a great big THEORY that is totally dependent on BLIND faith and the ignorance toward all reasonable rationality) that are sheer contradictions of themselves.

See I do not, not believe that the universe could come from nothing.

Ironically its the religious that insist that the universe can not come from nothing, but a singular all powerful being certainly could. That kids is what we call a paradox!!!!

The very same primitive men who were told the Earth was flat and then proceeded to imprison and persecute anyone that said differently as enemies of religion. Yeah - because their track record for bullseye's in the truth department are irrefutable.

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Ahhh we've come to the parlor tricks and word games portion of defending your "faith".

See the beauty of my position is this....

which faith is 1 defending and not the who CREATED the?

originally posted by: DealWithReality

Unlike people of " faith" I am not bound by any singular absolute. I didn't let primitive man, and his need to justify why the sun goes down, paint me into a corner. I can simply say the truth has yet to reveal itself.

where you CREATED? DealWithReality?

originally posted by: DealWithReality

However that doesn't stop me from disregarding "theories" (and that's all yours or any religion is, is a great big THEORY that is totally dependent on BLIND faith and the ignorance toward all reasonable rationality) that are sheer contradictions of themselves.

1 didn't bring religion into this OP intentionally only Scientific archeological data/ finds compiled.

originally posted by: DealWithReality

See I do not, not believe that the universe could come from nothing.

Ironically its the religious that insist that the universe can not come from nothing, but a singular all powerful being certainly could. That kids is what we call a paradox!!!!

So who CREATED the universe? itself?

a reply to: DealWithReality

See I do not, not believe that the universe could come from nothing.

Can you rephrase this statement so that it's less confusing?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Ahhh we've come to the parlor tricks and word games portion of defending your "faith".

See the beauty of my position is this....

which faith is 1 defending and not the who CREATED the?

originally posted by: DealWithReality

Unlike people of " faith" I am not bound by any singular absolute. I didn't let primitive man, and his need to justify why the sun goes down, paint me into a corner. I can simply say the truth has yet to reveal itself.

where you CREATED? DealWithReality?

originally posted by: DealWithReality

However that doesn't stop me from disregarding "theories" (and that's all yours or any religion is, is a great big THEORY that is totally dependent on BLIND faith and the ignorance toward all reasonable rationality) that are sheer contradictions of themselves.

1 didn't bring religion into this OP intentionally only Scientific archeological data/ finds compiled.

originally posted by: DealWithReality

See I do not, not believe that the universe could come from nothing.

Ironically its the religious that insist that the universe can not come from nothing, but a singular all powerful being certainly could. That kids is what we call a paradox!!!!

So who CREATED the universe? itself?

You're ability to carry on a rational conversation has come to an end. You are the only one dealing in absolutes in this conversation yet you want to try and play naive games that attempt to paint someone else into a corner defined by absolutes.

You have no interest in any other possibility other than the fairy tale that was blindly passed down from generation to generation as indisputable fact. You're just the fool at the end of a centuries long version of the telephone game.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: DealWithReality

See I do not, not believe that the universe could come from nothing.

Can you rephrase this statement so that it's less confusing?

No. If you can't handle a short sentence with 13 common words and comprehend a double negative then I can not help you any further.

My guess is that you understand it perfectly, you're just trying to be "cute".

So go be cute.

a reply to: DealWithReality

its ok DealWithReality