21–30 of 610 posts
> So if you read yet another headline about some physicist who thinks our universe could have begun this way or that way, you should really read this as a creation myth written in the language of mathematics.
In software engineering, we do have black holes, it's where the code is a mess, untestable.
So, in conclusion, the universe were born as a dense mess, from a "strange" matter , from there all basic physic atoms were born.
"We don't know how to defend ourselves against beasts, and we'll never know."
"We don't know how disease spreads, let's just hug it out, we'll never know."
"We don't know how to fly like a bird, we'll never know."
"We don't know how to land the booster of a rocket, we'll never know."
"We don't know how to cure that form of cancer, and we'll never know."
What a ridiculous defeatist attitude. History has proven that, so far, we've been very reliable at figuring out things that were deemed impossible.
I'd say we already know. It would be infinitely arrogant of us to think we're the originals. We're likely inside an inescapable but observable simulation, inside a simulation, repeat for any unknown number of times. That's probably how "the universe" (our universe) began.
Our parent universes probably have far more complexities to them that have been stripped from ours, for the sake of computational simplicity. Perhaps the actual originals, or any of our parent simulators, know exactly how the universe came to be. We might figure it out, too.
What we do know is that the universe didn’t begin from nothing . It’s impossible for something to arise out of nothing, so there has always been something . Nothingness is the space that holds everything. From there it can be argued that the universe began with the adjacent possible of nothing.
Do we? Please enlighten …
First, we would need to solve time. I am not sure if we are able to grasp it. Then we must figure out what happened at T-1 or T-2, which I think will be simple once we understand time.
The theory creates a start and then explains the progress from there. but not what caused it.
In theory of the cylinder than the universe travels to that is good but it does not explain how everything came to be.
We have a simple to state problem. There was nothing, then there was something.
Much like in Genesis ""And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.""
Instead:
Science says there was a big bang and from that everything was created. and we have figured out a model to explain (most) of the evolution since the big bang. Which means we can say no god did it.
But the way the story begins is in my opinion quite similar.
In one version god is used to explain what created us. Which then leads to the question of who created god and to answer that we need to figure out time.
(I am aware that there are equations that explain what was at t-1 or explain that there was nothing and even asking the question of what was at t-1 is crazy. I do not have the background that could allow me to understand the equations, but every which way you do it you end up with a question of what started it, or what was before what was the trigger to get it going.
Perhaps you can say that the universe has always been there, forever, sometimes it shrinks sometimes it expands, and we have a nice perpetuum mobile.
"The issue is that physicists can’t accept the scientifically honest answer: We don’t know, and leave it at that." This sentence jumped out for me. Is there some kind of crusade going on that I have missed the beginning of? This feels like a strange sentence in this piece and feels like a (misguided) attack.
Whether time has an origin, and whether we can measure how distant it is from us are questions that could be answered.
“We will never know” sounds overly pessimistic to me; I could imagine someone from the 10th century claiming we will never know the trillionth prime number.