It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does the Universe exist?

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Where there is birth, there is death. Where there is hope, there is despair. Where there is thought, there is void. Where there is light, there is darkness. Where there is plenty, there is none. Where there is love, there is hate. Where there is chaos, there is order. These are the constants of the universe.

The choices you make through the universe is another's despair, hate or darkness. Another's hate or void is your love and thought.

The universe exists because of us and we because of the universe.

Just focus on the fact that you can. Don't worry about why the universe is here, just focus on the fact that it is here. We have been given the means to explore this universe - how we go about it is up to us and only us.
edit on 16-8-2012 by ChuckNasty because: spelling...




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


one of the most beautiful interpretations of "God" I have read is that god is a temporal attractor.

"An attractor is a set towards which a variable(us), moving according to the dictates of a dynamical system, evolves over time." wiki - attractor

A temporal attractor is something that attracts you through time.

God is a force of such unimaginable power that it is able to reach back into time and prod us into reaching the omega, or end state of the universe in which it resides


Shades of Tippler's ideas there!

I have starred your post.

The problem is that the existence of space-time and quantum potentiality are both functions of the existence of the universe. It's already there by then and so they cannot be the reason for the universe. You need to find something that is not dependent on matter, energy or time-space because they are all attributes of the universe.

I think the issue goes back to being emergent from possibility. If there is a possibility that God could exist, He is at sufficient potentiality that He would change His possibility to the preeminent actuality. If other gods also had this same ability to make their possibility into actuality, only the most powerful possibility asserts itself over the others and so only a single, supremely powerful instance would become the actuality. This leads to God existing instantly and forever outside of time, space and matter. This accords more fully with the revealed attributes.

edit on 16/8/2012 by chr0naut because: Wording things more concisely.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
God said it was good when he ended creation on day 6. Genesis 2 begins a second creation story, only this time, the Lord is the one over the creation. My personal idea is that Genesis 1 was paradise. Genesis 2 was a fallen world to raise children. Our return to the other side is made possible by our work here. A sacrifice needed to be made and that sacrifice was the Lord's (Over a kingdom) to make. He came to us as a kinsmen to help us along at the appointed time of what Enoch called the "Consummation" of our planet. A consummation is a marriage. Two become one. Flesh and blood are matter. On the other side, as noted by the Dirac relativistic quantum wave equation, is anti-matter.

Seeing it this way brings a whole new set of questions. Like you say, there are many ways to imagine it. Imagination is the ability to image, just like God did with the original plan.


Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


There actually are Roman and Greek gods that were alleged to raise the dead, so why could they not acknowledge Jesus? Could it have been that from the perspective of the resident authority of the time,
there was no way a person of Jewish decent, could possibly be able to do the same thing??

The old testament makes clear that God understand that his son would be sacrificed, could it be because God knew mankind would react this way? No way a particular race creed or color could be capable of being in Gods graces? What is then implied in respect to Revelations and Gods wrath, for a son who died ,because he was rejected, because of who he descended from???

Creation is subject to interpretation as are ancient writings.....

Any thoughts?

edit on 15-8-2012 by Kashai because: Modified content

edit on 16-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen

If you would like my scientific attempt at explaining the universe. here it is.

In the beginning, the Quantume Fluctuations of the void produced an erroneous non neutral value which resulted in an unstable singularity. This singularity then expanded at an incredible rate, creating space, time, and all types of matter. Over time, due to the nuclear, electrostatic, and gravitational forces, particles came together to form stars and planets. And then on one small planet, in the back waters of an ordinary galaxy, a random collection of particles on its surface came together with the right polar connections. Due to a chemical reaction, this molecule started replicating, adding extra molecules as it went, and eventually diversifying and evolving over billions of years to became the plants and animals we see today.


So you assume that even though nothing that ever happens now does so by chance (as so set in motion by the conditions caused post big bang) that an erroneous non neutral fluctuation somehow not only caused all matter and energy to be many cases locked into the most complex of forms but also give rise to consciousness.

I don’t believe anything even at the quantum level is ever just erroneous, it just seems that way because we don’t understand the mechanisms involved; and to dismiss it as such does not get us any further toward understanding why the universe is the way it is.


Originally posted by VonDoomen

one of the most beautiful interpretations of "God" I have read is that god is a temporal attractor.

"An attractor is a set towards which a variable(us), moving according to the dictates of a dynamical system, evolves over time." wiki - attractor

A temporal attractor is something that attracts you through time.

God is a force of such unimaginable power that it is able to reach back into time and prod us into reaching the omega, or end state of the universe in which it resides


Which assumes time is always moves linearly forwards, is in fact a real thing or in fact that everything hasn’t happened already and it is only relative to us and our senses (which themselves are merely tools with limitations) that time is actually moving forwards at the pace it seems to…

If time and space were merely an illusion how would a temporal attractor work then?

I do agree that everything prior to the big bang would most likely simply operated at a quantum level; but what goes on there...? Nobody knows.
edit on 16/8/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


I read your first paragraph many times but i still dont understand what you're trying to say with it? needs some commas, maybe a period, and a few spelling corrections i think.

Quantum fluctuation are tiny little virtual particle/anti-particle pairs that pop into existence for an extremely short time, then recombine again, canceling each other out, and thus returning to a neutral state. Thats how quantum fluctuation work as a system basically. I call it erroneous because something happened which changed that cycle. almost as if it glitched. Now dont get caught up in the imperfect words I use to describe something. Thats why i sayd "almost as if it glitched". However, an event like that we would have to assume is pretty rare. But what if that initial glitch affected the fluctuation cycle in its immediate locality and continued to spread out, seperating these virtual particles long enough to no longer be "virtual" particles.

All that we know is, for some reason, matter/anti-matter exhibits a bizarre asymmetry. Somehow matter won over anti-matter to become the dominant "stuff" of the universe.

tevatron shows how matter won over antimatter during the big bang

Baryogenesis and sakharov conditions

So i believe something happened to this quantum fluctuation system that prevented the virtual particle recombination process.

"There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time."



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
Simple...

It exists because we can observe it.

No Humans = No Universe



OK -- so what exactly are we humans observing...
...and from where are we making these observations?




edit on 8/16/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


What i said was related to what god is, not necessarily what created the universe. However this "god" could reside outside of our universe and yet still be able to have affect on it, i mean it is "god" we are talking about.

Also, I don't believe it has been proven that quantum potentially only existed after the big bang. Many theorist argue that quantum fluctuations are the cause of the big bang.

I see the quantum world as a substrate upon which the newtownian world resides, as a result of.
Its Confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

"Thus, the vacuum's totally empty space is actually a seething turmoil of creation and annihilation, which to the ordinary world appears calm because the scale of fluctuations in the vacuum is tiny and the fluctuations tend to cancel each other out."
From the book "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time- By Malcolm Brown"

The important part is that these fluctuations TEND to cancel each other out, but not always.

Quantum foam visualized


I believe you can also symbolically represent this foam using a number line with the digits 1 & 0 (or any letters really, since it is symbolic, but i think 1 / 0 is the best for visual recognition)

Lets say you were to make a random string of numbers using 1's and 0's.
1 = particle
0 = anti particle



Chances are, you will come up with a fairly close 50/50 proportion of 1's and 0's. A perfect 50/50 ratio represents a net neutral charge.
If a 1 and 0 are immediately next to each. They can be considered to neutralize each other, and thus we could remove them from the picture. If we continued to do this process, removing 2 bits here and there, and then closing the gap each time, you could feasibly remove every bit on the list except for any few remaining bits who dont have a particle pair to cancel themselves out with.

However, every once in a while, creating random strings of 1's & 0's, you will encounter an extremely long sequence of just 1's or just 0's that is not typical.


This long line of 0's can represent the build up of a charge(represents a spike in the first picture). It would take longer than is typical to remove this charge build up through our process of combining 1's and 0's. There is then a longer than typical time frame upon which this non-neutral value can exhibit it's charge or force. This charge or force represent the bubbling up of matter from the quantum world. There may also be a thresh hold value that this a-typical charge needs to over come before actually manifesting above the quantum world and into the newtonian world.
edit on 8/16/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by chr0naut


I would posit that at the core of what matter is, is energy, as per Einstein's famous equation. The virtual particles, falling out of quantum fluctuation, are really structures (vibrations or oscillations according to the Schrödinger equation) upon energy, the energy of the zero-point field (which would be finite as vibrations smaller than the Planck Length do not seem to be allowed).

Also, these vparticles appear and disappear in finite time periods and in, at least, three spatial dimensions. So these dimensions which are linear (and as far as we know, infinite) have to exist first for quantum fluctuation to create virtual particles.

I could understand dimensions whose topologies are curled to less than the Planck Length, coming into being through some sort of fluctuation but what created the four infinite linear dimensions (or if they aren't infinite, what "pushed them out" that far)?

So if energy, three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension have to exist for vparticles to fall out of quantum fluctuations, I'd say that the "universe" was already there, just in a proto-universal form prior to the existence of matter.

Although, some might say we are both off-topic as the the question asked "why" but we have, instead, responded with "how".



edit on 16/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I think i have reached the limit of my ability to discuss this. Good discussion!

While researching this, I distinctly remember reading (may have been conjecture or theory) that these fluctuation occur/can occur in less than or more than 3 dimensional space. Actually if you google this, you can find quite a few links discussing this in non 3-d space.

personally, I believe that the newtonian 3-d space resides within a higher dimensional space that existed before hand. Newtonian matter, us and our instruments, are basically stuck in this 3d space. While the space that existed before hand still permeates our locality (gravity? dark matter?), but is overshadowed by newtonian space, atleast to our sense and instruments.

I cant get too deep into this, at this point, it becomes very difficult to explain what I am thinking without sounding like a schizo



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by chr0naut
 


What i said was related to what god is, not necessarily what created the universe. However this "god" could reside outside of our universe and yet still be able to have affect on it, i mean it is "god" we are talking about.

Also, I don't believe it has been proven that quantum potentially only existed after the big bang. Many theorist argue that quantum fluctuations are the cause of the big bang.

I see the quantum world as a substrate upon which the newtownian world resides, as a result of.
Its Confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

"Thus, the vacuum's totally empty space is actually a seething turmoil of creation and annihilation, which to the ordinary world appears calm because the scale of fluctuations in the vacuum is tiny and the fluctuations tend to cancel each other out."
From the book "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time- By Malcolm Brown"

The important part is that these fluctuations TEND to cancel each other out, but not always.

Quantum foam visualized


I believe you can also symbolically represent this foam using a number line with the digits 1 & 0 (or any letters really, since it is symbolic, but i think 1 / 0 is the best for visual recognition)

Lets say you were to make a random string of numbers using 1's and 0's.
1 = particle
0 = anti particle



Chances are, you will come up with a fairly close 50/50 proportion of 1's and 0's. A perfect 50/50 ratio represents a net neutral charge.
If a 1 and 0 are immediately next to each. They can be considered to neutralize each other, and thus we could remove them from the picture. If we continued to do this process, removing 2 bits here and there, and then closing the gap each time, you could feasibly remove every bit on the list except for any few remaining bits who dont have a particle pair to cancel themselves out with.

However, every once in a while, creating random strings of 1's & 0's, you will encounter an extremely long sequence of just 1's or just 0's that is not typical.


This long line of 0's can represent the build up of a charge(represents a spike in the first picture). It would take longer than is typical to remove this charge build up through our process of combining 1's and 0's. There is then a longer than typical time frame upon which this non-neutral value can exhibit it's charge or force. This charge or force represent the bubbling up of matter from the quantum world. There may also be a thresh hold value that this a-typical charge needs to over come before actually manifesting above the quantum world and into the newtonian world.
edit on 8/16/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)


My question would be are vacuum fluctuations results or products, of the countless massive objects that reside in the greater vacuum, and whose energies and wave forces pass through this vacuum, or are the vacuum fluctuations, as like what you propose, a fundamental aspect of what space is,, regardless of the massive dense regions of matter and energy within that space...

basically what im asking,,, do vacuum fluctuations cause matter and energy,,, or does matter and energy cause vacuum fluctuations,,,, we can only observe from the latter perspective being that when we observe space there are massive dense regions of energy/matter...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread871610/pg6#pid14780523]post by VonDoomen/url]

My question would be are vacuum fluctuations results or products, of the countless massive objects that reside in the greater vacuum, and whose energies and wave forces pass through this vacuum, or are the vacuum fluctuations, as like what you propose, a fundamental aspect of what space is,, regardless of the massive dense regions of matter and energy within that space...

basically what I'm asking,,, do vacuum fluctuations cause matter and energy,,, or does matter and energy cause vacuum fluctuations,,,, we can only observe from the latter perspective being that when we observe space there are massive dense regions of energy/matter...


This is a good question and as we don't have an instance of absence of all matter to experiment with, we probably can only theorize.

The whole concept of zero-point energy (at least in regard to the measurable Casimir force) can actually be explained away by charge-current interactions in the Quantum ElectroDynamics theory.

Zero-point energy should arise mathematically from the uncertainty principle's application to existing theory, which implies that pre-existent matter is not required.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 



Originally posted by VonDoomen
I read your first paragraph many times but i still dont understand what you're trying to say with it? needs some commas, maybe a period, and a few spelling corrections i think.

Sorry. That’s what I get for trying to post something complex on an iphone just prior to sleepy time. It should read a little more like this…

So you assume that even though nothing that ever happens now does so by chance (as so set in motion by the conditions caused post big bang), that an erroneous non neutral fluctuation somehow not only caused all matter and energy to be formed; but in many cases locked into the most complex of forms imaginable while also giving rise to consciousness.

Thanks for the links they were quite informative, and these and your below answers to chr0naut are some of the best I’ve ever read regarding the subject.

My issue is I guess is what happened between the ‘fluctuation’ and the big bang itself. There is definitely seems to be a lot of missing links between these two events and imho to form an entire universe through a mere aberration within a quantum potential field seems unlikely at least until we know a little more. I guess reading your earlier answers it seemed to me that you were merely putting it all down to ‘chance’ but now looking at some of your responses I see this may well be not the case. It is more a case I guess of you answering the …


Originally posted by chr0naut
…question asked "why" but we have, instead, responded with "how". …
.

The why I guess is the part in which I am most interested. Obviously the mechanisms used in the process are fascinating in themselves but they can only ever hint at an answer.

This is why of all you’ve written so far the theories you hint of here…


I cant get too deep into this, at this point, it becomes very difficult to explain what I am thinking without sounding like a schizo


…are possibly the one’s you should really be sharing.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


So what you are saying/asking is-

as per my theory
If these quantum fluctuations are responsible for the 3d universe we see today, why did they create a 3d universe instead of say, 4,5,6+ dimensions?

if thats the case, good question.

Probably some sort of flying spaghetti monster



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Quantum fluctuations do appear random from the context of our ability to observe. But in the case of the Virtual Strange Quark, its appearance within the proton actually aids in, maintaining the protons structure.

Of particular interest in this is in regard, to what could be evidence of a non-random events, perhaps in relation to quantum fluctuations as whole.

There is a theory related to the Big Bang. It presents that the explosion was an explosion of space/time. The Matter and Energy produced are packets, of space /time.

Multiverse theory does suggest an infinite number of Gods that created the infinite number of universe's. But dimensionality, does offer a tenth dimension that is just one point. Implied is the potential of a culmination, even in the context of the human condition.

Each of us as perhaps as facet in a diamond from the context of an orientation, that encompasses type 1, 2 and 3 multi verse's, created at the same time, from the perspective as a whole.

To suggest God created the Universe for his greater glory, implies to me that God has needs.. I do feel that to be truly perfect one must also be imperfect. So as to encompass all things and therefore actually be perfect.

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

To suggest God created the Universe for his greater glory, implies to me that God has needs.. I do feel that to be truly perfect one must also be imperfect. So as to encompass all things and therefore actually be perfect.

Any thoughts?


It also suggests his needs are more petty than many of his more enlightened creations; which doesn't really mesh well with me.

I take a pantheistic view (with a slightly spiritual twist). If there is a God then he is the universe itself. The implications that God somehow sits outside of 'Creation' not only questions his/her omnipotence, but also suggests that there is in fact something greater than God (God + Universe =
)



edit on 17/8/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


you brought up a lot of nice and interesting things,,,,


"To suggest God created the Universe for his greater glory, implies to me that God has needs.. I do feel that to be truly perfect one must also be imperfect. So as to encompass all things and therefore actually be perfect. "

however,, these little logics, and semantics games of man making up words and then imaginarily telling themselves what and how god must be is silly,,,,, you can make all these rules and laws with language and words,,, infinite, perfect,,, to describe god,,, but if an intelligent creator created this universe anything you could mutter to it would be laughable,,, it can always respond with,,, " you are telling me what i am and have to be yet you dont know what and how you are"....



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


"Zero-point energy should arise mathematically from the uncertainty principle's application to existing theory, which implies that pre-existent matter is not required"

regardless,, we are energy/matter quantum and atomic, chemical, elemental and biologic,, we measure the "stuff" which exists which is closely related to our selves in terms of base structures and components,.,. all of this stuff is constantly moving through space and time,,, you would think we can retrieve energy from a big dam like structure satellite hanging in space,, like you feel preasure against your hand when you hold it out the window of a car,,,

so again,,,, how do we know we are ever measuring any aspect of true "space",, and not just measuring results of us being energy,, measuring energy, in what is space?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


In order for God to have created the Universe, God must have the capacity to exist outside it. I understand where you are coming from, though I feel creation could be more of a symbiotic relationship when considering God.

Altogether a fractal is an expression of everything, it is in all possible dimensions as a whole. As well as the sum of its parts both separate and altogether.

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Kashai
 


you brought up a lot of nice and interesting things,,,,


"To suggest God created the Universe for his greater glory, implies to me that God has needs.. I do feel that to be truly perfect one must also be imperfect. So as to encompass all things and therefore actually be perfect. "

however,, these little logics, and semantics games of man making up words and then imaginarily telling themselves what and how god must be is silly,,,,, you can make all these rules and laws with language and words,,, infinite, perfect,,, to describe god,,, but if an intelligent creator created this universe anything you could mutter to it would be laughable,,, it can always respond with,,, " you are telling me what i am and have to be yet you dont know what and how you are"....


The function of science, religion and even our records in respect to history, are the result of a consistent effort to understand reality. I am not making any real claims as to what is real or what is not, this is a discussion forum that offers people an opportunity to discuss potentials. Science is essentially an exercise in statistics, even in the case of Gravity, mankind cannot lay claim to having tested the conclusion, throughout the Universe.

That is the problem with the paranormal, in order for science to prove that. They would have to run a controlled experiment that would involve, ever living human on the planet. The resultant variation from the median would result in a responds that would involve a population.

I am not saying anything about yourself I am offering an opinion I have formed. I am presenting them in this forum

I feel that another analogy would be that each of us are a part of an infinite puzzle, we perceive ourselves as a sum of a part, offered as a reflection to a culmination of everything that can exist .

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 



Originally posted by Kashai
In order for God to have created the Universe, God must have the capacity to exist outside it. I understand where you are coming from, though I feel creation could be more of a symbiotic relationship when considering God.

I don’t see it so much as ‘creation’, more along the lines of simply changing forms from the quantum craziness which existed prior to the big bang to what we now see before us.

Here is a thread of mine regarding some of my thoughts on the matter if you’ve got time to check it out

Genesis Rewritten


Altogether a fractal is an expression of everything, it is in all possible dimensions as a whole. As well as the sum of its parts both separate and altogether.
Any thoughts?


Completely agree. I’m a big fan of fractals and think that it is a logical way of answering many of the questions about the universe.

Another thread of mine…

Wave-Worn Smooth Black Stone





edit on 17/8/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join