Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 610 posts

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#171

Post by monktastic1 »

akprasad wrote: post #66

But, after all, who knows, and who can say Whence it all came, and how creation happened? the gods themselves are later than creation, so who knows truly whence it has arisen? Whence all creation had its origin, the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not, the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows — or maybe even he does not know. -- Nasadiya Sukta ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na…

Okay, this is truly bizarre. I came here to share this exact quote (after reading a prior comment about how the universe itself may never know), only to find that someone already posted it... whose handle is the same one I use on other sites, because I share the same initials.

Genuinely thought I'd gone crazy for a moment and posted this with an alternate account.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#172

Post by al_mandi »

eis wrote: post #170
al_mandi wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're following the religion of scientism.

Science is not a religion. If scientism means thinking that science is the best tool we have right now to explain reality then I guess yea I'm pro science. But it's very far from a religion. BTW science does not claim to know it all or even be able to know it all. In fact it is an important part of science to find the limits of science.

Proper religion and science do not disagree. I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact.

Scientism is not what you defined. From wikipedia (which I take with a big grain of salt)

> Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Watch this to get a different perspective on the matter: https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#173

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

kirse wrote: post #103
gcau wrote: post #74

Things like the big bang seem to be things after the beginning of the universe. In the same way, the issue with a god is "who created god, and who created that who created god...". If he's eternal, who/what made him eternal? We have the same problem in science, and I think any explanation/theory would have the same problem. Also, I dislike that when some physicists explain this they say, "sure, you can get something…

the issue with a god is "who created god, and who created that who created god..." It is if you assume God is bound to the chain of causation, but obviously any creator is likely unbound by the system of laws in which his creation exists, the same as when we create a video game we stand apart from it. I always liked the Dr. Quantum Flatland as an example of god-like capabilities wrt dimensionality: https://www.youtub…

By the same logic the universe itself (as opposed to its contents including the laws of nature) then the universe isn't necessarily bound to the internal system of laws, and all the same arguments can apply there with no need for a creator!

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#174

Post by mytailorisrich »

egello wrote: post #72
westcort wrote: post #69

We may not know the answer to how the universe began, but a time loop at the beginning of the universe is my favorite explanation. Gott and Li proposed this model and you can see Gott explain it elegantly here: https://youtu.be/raTqAyLikLU

The thing about time loop is that, how and when did it began? I just can't wrap my head around something being here, there and everywhere at all times.

There are only two alternatives for the origin of the universe: Either creation out of nothing, or no creation through eternal existence.

Both are hard to wrap your head around.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#175

Post by cdelsolar »

h2odragon wrote: post #157
cdelsolar wrote: post #113

Why is there even such a gigantic universe? Like what is the purpose of it - why was there a Big Bang? If I really think hard about these questions it makes me uncomfortable and anxious.

Why anxious? the answers to those questions, while interesting and entertaining, aren't relevant to you today. Just be glad you get to experience this tiny little part of the universe for the brief time you're here.

Is the universe gigantic enough and long-lasting enough that my consciousness will come back in some form after I die?

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#176

Post by nnoitra »

al_mandi wrote: post #163
ratsmack wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>religious babble Why is religion held in such contempt when there is so much science that is just as much "babble", but held in high regard?

Because they're following the religion of scientism.

And what's the religious viewpoint?

Some omnipotent being did it and he cares about the sexual life of humans?!

That's bizarre as well, better to just say that at this point we don't know.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#177

Post by TrispusAttucks »

cdelsolar wrote: post #113

Why is there even such a gigantic universe? Like what is the purpose of it - why was there a Big Bang? If I really think hard about these questions it makes me uncomfortable and anxious.

I used to ponder this too much as a child. Why is there something instead of nothing.

The most satisfying answer for me was that you must first define nothingness. But the moment it's been defined nothingness ceases to be. It seems to me at least that somethingness (suchness) [1] and nothingness are cross-reference negation of the other. So it can't be one or the other but must be both.

This probably is not making an sense. Later I stumbled into Buddhism [2] which seems to have this undefinableness as a core of experienced reality.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suchness

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#178

Post by IAmGraydon »

“We will never know” is such a contradictory statement. On the surface, it implies the limits of our knowledge while simultaneously indicating that the author possesses the omnipotence required to know what humans will learn throughout the entirety of our future. Add it to your list of things to never write.

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#179

Post by ssr2020 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #119
aliasxneo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of the Bible, it makes it explicitly clear that God is uncreated. Asking the question, "Who created an uncreated God?" doesn't make much sense in that case.

Of course, but then immediately leads to the question: if we admit that it is possible for God itself to be un-created, why can't the universe itself be uncreated as well?

   The reason for easiness in regard to the complete otherness of His Essence and His unrestrictedness is this: most certainly, the Maker of the universe is not of the same kind as the universe. His Essence resembles no other essence at all. Since this is so, the obstacles and restraints within the sphere of the universe cannot hinder Him, they cannot restrict His actions. He has complete disposal over the whole universe and is able to transform all of it at the same time. If the disposal and actions that are apparent in the universe were to be attributed to it, it would cause so many difficulties and so much confusion that neither would any order remain nor would anything continue to exist; indeed, nothing would be able to come into existence.
   For example, if the masterly art in vaulted domes is attributed to the stones of the domes, and if the command of a battalion, which properly belongs to its officer, is left to the soldiers, either neither of them would ever come into existence, or with great difficulty and confusion they would achieve a state completely lacking in order. Whereas, if in order for the situation of the stones in the dome to be achieved, it is accorded to a master who is not a stone himself, and if the command of the soldiers in the regiment is referred to an officer who possesses the essential quality of officership, both the art is easy and command and organization are easy. This is because, while the stones and the soldiers are obstacles to each other, the master and the officer can look from every angle, they command without obstacle.
from Quran's Light

Re: We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

#180

Post by nnoitra »

al_mandi wrote: post #172
eis wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not a religion. If scientism means thinking that science is the best tool we have right now to explain reality then I guess yea I'm pro science. But it's very far from a religion. BTW science does not claim to know it all or even be able to know it all. In fact it is an important part of science to find the limits of science.

Proper religion and science do not disagree. I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Scientism is not what you defined. From wikipedia (which I take with a big grain of salt) > Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. W…

Yes yes and sperm comes from between backbone and ribs.
Post reply on HN