A better explanation for Universe

[Atzmuth]

Can we develope a better method to explain the universe? All of the current methods are useless. Creationism; Accepts everything is created by something. But tells The Creator created himself. Recent Scientific studies; There is a theory that matter can create itself. Both of them are total nonsense. We are missing a part. We are lacking the knowledge of our past. And I think a better method must be developed to explain the universe. Can we do it?

[RoseRed]

Why do we want to?

[Atzmuth]

Becouse we should find the truth.

[RoseRed]

Awesome answer!

[Atzmuth]

Awesome answer!

You are probably kidding me but your comment made me laugh! What can I say [happy] [happy] [happy]

[RoseRed]

Nope, not kidding. That was an AWESOME answer! [thumbup]

[EternalReturn]

Can we develope a better method to explain the universe? All of the current methods are useless. Creationism; Accepts everything is created by something. But tells The Creator created himself. Recent Scientific studies; There is a theory that matter can create itself. Both of them are total nonsense. We are missing a part. We are lacking the knowledge of our past. And I think a better method must be developed to explain the universe. Can we do it?

Why do you think that it0s not possible for matter to create itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis

Maybe we're just missing a cause.

[Atzmuth]

Matter creating itself? I really thought about it... But I couldnt find a way to support this idea.

[EternalReturn]

Is that a reason to throw away whole pack of other theories? [tongue]

I know that quantum physics is darn hard to understand, and often presented in such easy to figure sentences. Like the barber paradox. If you don't know what led to that conclusion, you sure as hell won't understand what's being said. Unless someone would describe it to the lesser mortals, I would have no idea what "the barber paradox" is.

But you can say that there are some other theories that you can accept as real and true, right?

[Clockwork Ghost]

Matter creating itself? I really thought about it... But I couldnt find a way to support this idea.

On a cellular level, the process is called Mitosis. EternalReturn linked you to the Wiki - it's a very interesting subject.

Can we develope a better method to explain the universe? All of the current methods are useless.

Could you please define what you mean by 'All of the current methods'? You listed two in your original post - do you simply mean 'Creationsim and Big Bang Theory'?

Creationism; Accepts everything is created by something. But tells The Creator created himself.

This is basic information regarding creationist systems in regards to their approach toward divinity. I have simplified it to a large degree, and there are many sub-sets of each specific approach. I have included Nontheism for the sake of completeness, even though it does not involve a god in the creation of the universe.

Monotheism is the belief that a singular god exists. As to whether that god created everything, that depends on the monotheistic religion. The Abrahamic faiths don't actually believe that God created Himself, they believe that God is eternal and has no beginning or end (a gross oversimplification, I know.)

Polytheism is the belief that several gods exist. It then splits into Hard; the belief that the gods are seperate beings, and Soft; the belief that there are several entities, but they are simply parts of the whole.

Pantheism is the belief that the physical universe itself is god - there is no division between the creation and the creator.

Panentheism is the belief that, like Pantheism, god and the universe are one. It does however take this one step further through the belief that god is greater than the universe, and the creation is simply a part of god.

Nontheism is the belief that the existence of any god is unneccesary for the existence of the universe itself.

Now, within these systems are distinct parameters as to how the god or gods operate. These are as follows.

Deism: Classical deism is the belief that at least one god exists, and that they created the world. Deism doesnt itself suggest that only one god exists, but that at least one god created the universe. The creator may or may not be able to influence the path that events on the world take. This then splits into three sub-categories, namely:

1. Pandeism: The belief that god came first, then created the universe. The universe is a part of god.
2. Panendeism: The belief that god is within creation, an example of this is belief in an 'Earth Mother'.
3. Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods exist, but that none have any direct influence on the way the universe develops.

Autotheism: This is the belief that we are ourself god. You can use this in line with certain philisophical doctrines to suggest that we actually create our own universe.

You then have to define the true nature of the god or gods to understand what their approach to the creation of the universe is. These natures can be applied to any of the subsets above, and therefore you can have several natures prevailent within a paradigm if several gods exist within it.

Eutheism: The god is benevolent, and anything they do is beneficial.
Dystheism: The god is neither benevolent nor malicious, and their actions are not based on whether the action is 'good' or 'evil'.
Misotheism: The god is malicious, and everything they do is harmful.

Each supernatural entity therefore has several key features that definite it, its place in the creation of the universe, and its motives for being so.

Recent Scientific studies; There is a theory that matter can create itself. Both of them are total nonsense.

There used to be two key scientific theories as to the creation of the universe, namely; Big Bang Theory and Steady State Theory, the second theory having since been disproven. Through Redshift, the way that light moves away from the person observing that light, and in accordance with the Copernican Principle, that the Earth isnt the centre of the universe, it becomes obvious that all parts of the universe are moving away from one another. Big Bang Theory is based on Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity, this basically being the way that gravity behaves as a geometric quality in space and time.

We are missing a part. We are lacking the knowledge of our past.

Which part do you believe we are missing? What aspect of history do you refer to?

And I think a better method must be developed to explain the universe. Can we do it?

I think it's possible, but you have to understand the two distinct paradigms themselves first before you can expect to add to them. Any advances will more than likely not be true hypotheses is their own right, and will most likely simply build on existing theories.

[Clockwork Ghost]

Is that a reason to throw away whole pack of other theories? [tongue]

I know that quantum physics is darn hard to understand, and often presented in such easy to figure sentences. Like the barber paradox. If you don't know what led to that conclusion, you sure as hell won't understand what's being said. Unless someone would describe it to the lesser mortals, I would have no idea what "the barber paradox" is.

But you can say that there are some other theories that you can accept as real and true, right?

The 'Barber Paradox' can be described as follows:

Suppose there exists a town that only has one barber to shave everyone in that town. This barber is himself male. In this town, every man keeps himself clean-shaven, and always does so by taking one of two options:

1. They either shave themselves; or
2. They are shaved by the barber.

Now, here is the very important factor to remember in regards to this paradox; The barber only shaves those people who do not shave themselves.

From this, asking the question "Who shaves the barber?" results in a paradox. This happens because of the statement above: he can either shave himself, or go to the barber (which happens to be himself). However, neither of these possibilities are valid as they both result in the barber shaving himself. The barber cannot shave himself however because he shaves only those men "who do not shave themselves". Add this to the fact that every man keeps himself clean shaven and you have the 'Barber Paradox'.

According to 'naive set theory', to which the Barber Paradox is an attempted formalisation, any definable collection is a set. Next we define R as the set consisting of all other sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, because by definition R is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The problem then presents itself that if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves due to the fact that it is in fact a member of its own set.

Okay, are you still following this crazy theory? Good. Lets apply it to the existence of God.

If the universe can be said to 'exist', and all things in the universe exist outside of God (having been created by God) the Universal Set can be said to be 'All things in the universe which were created'. God is not a member of the Universal Set due to Him creating it, and not being created Himself. Nothing can exist outside of this Universal Set, except God, though God still remains a member of a set due to naive set theory stating that 'any definable collection must be a set'. The Universal Set must contain all other sets. In containing all sets, the Universal Set contains R - the set which contains all other sets that are not members of themselves. This is logically impossible however, as in the universal set containing 'all sets that are not members of themselves' must ultimately contain God - the one thing which exists outside of the universal set. In being outside of the universal set, which is still by definition a set, God becomes part of R, and is included in the Universal Set.

In this way you can prove, through the application of logic, that if God created the universe (and the universe contains all things) He must in turn be a part of the universe , and therefore must have created Himself. As God cannot have brought Himself into existence through the process of creation without external means (unless he simply started to exist from nothing - which would still suggest he was somehow created, even by Himself), and as no external means can exist due to 'all things' being created by God, God cannot exist outside of His own creation of Himself. As naive set theory clearly proves that God must exist within the Universal Set, and as Theology teaches that God created the Universal Set through His creating the universe, God must therefore have created himself, and is not external to creation.

[Atzmuth]

I think one of the mistake is that the concept of a "begining". Becouse there is actually nothing called time. It is a human made concept. No begining, no ending.

[Clockwork Ghost]

I think one of the mistake is that the concept of a "begining". No begining, no ending.

Definitely. What you have to remember however is that 'Infinity' isn't a length of time, it's simply an abstract concept and actually has several set values, depending on how you apply it. The biggest problem for the human mind in regards to time is that we simply cannot imagine something which has no end and no beginning. We can imagine something that goes on for an extremely long time, but picturing endlessness is impossible. If there exist spiritual entities who have lived forever, then we have no hope of ever understanding them. Such entities should have no real interest in us either, as we simply wouldn't exist in any way, shape, or form that they could ever understand.

There is actually nothing called time. It is a human made concept.

Your comment is quite untrue - there is something called 'time', and it's best viewed as the fourth dimension. There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of information out there about time, and you may wish to look into it at some point. I don't really want to fill several pages with material, but would suggest that you explore such a thing, if it interests you to do so.

[Atzmuth]

I know about the fourth dimension and I have a theory that with meditation we can reach it.

[Clockwork Ghost]

I know about the fourth dimension and I have a theory that with meditation we can reach it.

Atzmuth, you are already in the fourth dimension. If you weren't you wouldn't age. Finding a form of meditation that removed you from the fourth dimension would definitely be the goal in regards to time, though you would cease to move through the fourth dimension, and would conceivably completely stop altogether - your entire existence completely focussed on a singular point.

[Atzmuth]

Humans can only get to 3rd dimension out of that even if 4th ones exsits we cant understand it. Its out of humans capabilities.

[Clockwork Ghost]

Humans can only get to 3rd dimension out of that even if 4th ones exsits we cant understand it. Its out of humans capabilities.

Nope, there's actually ten dimensions according to Superstring Theory. I'll detail them tomorrow - need to get some sleep right now. [grin]

[Rin]

I've often wondered about the 10/11 dimensions in string theory. I know they're only theoretical, but it opens up some interesting possibilities. If we've got 3 physical dimensions, a 4th dimension as time, a 5th dimension of density (physical > energetic > mental > spiritual, or however different systems describe it, the spectrum that separates the experience of physical reality from the unity of the ultimate source), then what on earth (or not on earth, as the case may be) is along all the rest of them? Some kind of multiverse?

[Ramscha]

I want to add that when it comes to the term "dimensions" in physics it should be considered that this is also often meant in a mathematical way, it is used to form and explain certain models but leaves aside anything else.

As an example.

Anyone can probably imagine 2^1, that is simply the first dimension, it is a "flat" line.
2^2 already becomes a square, we move to the second room dimension.
2^3 becomes a cube, we move to the third.
2^4 is already impossible to "imagine" in the sense of projecting anything into the fourth dimension via ower thoughts. We can "experience" the fourth dimension in the sense that we are slaves to linear time, we age. Nothing more. of course we can try to project higher dimensional objects into our three dimensional perception like it is done with the famous "Hypercube".

Dimension can also be used synonymously for a sort of "parallel world", however this has in a strict sense nothing to do with the physical and mathematical dimensions used to describe hypothesis and models od reality. It is, however, very often a reason for confusiing terminology especially when sci-fi steps in and adds "aliens from another dimension" like the aliens in Indianer jones. It would therefore probably be more accurate to talk about "parallel universes".

Ramscha

[Clockwork Ghost]

Thanks Rin and Ramscha - absolutely great explanations of multi-dimensional space. Please let me expand on the ten dimensions, as used by Superstring theory:

The first dimension gives an object its length (aka. the x-axis). A good description of a one-dimensional object is a straight line, which exists only in terms of length and has no other discernible qualities.

The second dimension, the y-axis (or height), makes a one dimensional object into a two dimensional shape, like a square.

The third dimension involves depth (the z-axis). This gives all objects a sense of area. The perfect example of this is a cube, which exists in three dimensions as it has a length, width, and depth, and therefore volume.

The fourth dimension is time, which governs the properties of all known matter at any given point. Knowing an objects position in time is essential to plotting its position in the universe. The fourth dimension is also often referred to as 'spacetime', and is used to locate not only three dimensional objects, but also events - this way you can use the fourth dimension to accurately plot both where and when an event occurred. Until the beginning of the 20th century, 'time' was believed to be independent of 'motion', and was thought to always progress at a fixed rate.

More recent experiments have since revealed that time actually slows for an object when it travels at a higher speed in relation to another object, for example a spacecraft travelling at a greater speed relative to the speed travelled by those observing the spacecraft . Such slowing, called time dilation, can be explained in the Special Theory of Relativity (STR). Many experiments have confirmed time dilation, such as the relativistic decay of muons from cosmic ray showers, and the slowing of atomic clocks aboard a Space Shuttle (relative to synchronized Earth-bound inertial clocks). The duration of time can therefore vary according to events and other reference frames.

The fifth dimension* is where the notion of possible worlds first arises. If we could see the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and differences between our world and other possible ones which were interacting with the first four dimensions in the same way we were, albeit not in the same fifth dimension as our world is.

The sixth dimension* is where we would see a plane of all possible worlds in universes that started with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimension, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.

The seventh dimension* is where we get access to the possible worlds in universes that started with different initial conditions. Whereas in the fifth and sixth dimensions, the initial conditions were the same and subsequent actions were different, here, everything is different from the very beginning of time.

The eighth dimension* gives us a plane of all possible universe histories, each of which beginning with different initial conditions, branching out into infinity (hence why they are called 'infinities').

The ninth dimension* allows us to compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics, and different initial conditions.

The tenth dimension* is where everything that is possible, and everything that is imaginable, can be said to exist. Beyond this, nothing can be imagined - the tenth dimension being the dimension of everything that could possibly ever exist, either real or imagined. This makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive of in terms of dimensions.


* According to Superstring Theory

[Atzmuth]

Is superstring theory accepted?

[Ramscha]

We are moving very deeply into theoretical physics here, that should be said at the beginning. Though a lot of stuff which was formerly regarded as purely part of theoretical physics like examination of quantum mechanical principles is now possible to be examines via experiments there is still a shitload of stuff we cannot yet test with current technology or observation.

Okay, back to the superstring theory. It is not uncontroversal exactly because of the part with those high dimensions and the theoretical properties implied by this theory. Therefore it would not be able to be falsified which is a basic requirement for falsification meaning that a theory should have testifiable properties which one could theoretically approach to test the claim. A idea which is not tested and neither falsified nor verified is called a "hypothesis". When there is some experimental proof and foundation like for evolution it is called a "theory". Important detail! When a hypothesis is simply not falsifiable or verifiable because it cannot be tested, then there cannot be a scientific argument about it making any dispute about it meaningless. And yes, also a simple mathematical calculation is a proof by set definitions.

Sceptics of the superstring theory now say that it is not falsifiable/testable, therefore it wouldn't even be a scientific hypothesis. However, the string theorist Edward Witten says that the concept of supersymmetry is indeed a falsifiable concept meaning that it could be tested (though as far as I know there is not much data on the hypothesis yet). Summed up, it is controversal, but a popular object of popular science same as quantum physics.

We are lacking the knowledge of our past.

How do you know?

There is a theory that matter can create itself

Meaning hypothesis though it is currently an issue with the concept of thermodynamics (energy prservation and stuff...)


You also say science has failed? I don't exactly know how old you are but if you visited a public school with the basic curses in science and history you will probably know that a big part of science, not just the natural sciences like physics or biology but also psychology and sociology, is actually about failing and building up on failure.

Ramscha

PS: I am very bad in explaining very complex theoretical physics which I barely understand myself in its basic concepts, but I suppose it would be a good start for all who try to grasp the matter without loosing themselves in posting motherhood statements to have a look at this one:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/

[Atzmuth]

First thanks for your reply Ramcha. Secondly you didnt get what I really meant so you questioned my science knowledge. I am not critsizing anything. Becouse both way is wrong. Thats why I am asking if we can find a better solution. By this solution I mean a better general concept and of course I cant ask for you guys to go deep in maths and quantum. If I wanted that I would sign up to a quantum forum. I just think we can build up a better concept philosophically and generaly. Maybe a hypotesis?

Ps. Ramscha dont get me wrong but... I dont know your age also but I can understand that up to this time you should have learned to understand and to listen before repling in a negative manner.

[Ramscha]

First thanks for your reply Ramcha. Secondly you didnt get what I really meant so you questioned my science knowledge. I am not critsizing anything. Becouse both way is wrong. Thats why I am asking if we can find a better solution. By this solution I mean a better general concept and of course I cant ask for you guys to go deep in maths and quantum. If I wanted that I would sign up to a quantum forum. I just think we can build up a better concept philosophically and generaly.

Thanks for clearing up and displaying your position, it would help if you do that more often, but...

Ramscha dont get me wrong but... I dont know your age also but I can understand that up to this time you should have learned to understand and to listen before repling in a negative manner.

don't try the cunning variant of twisting words. Your posts are short and and there is neither much to listen or to read between the pages if there are just two lines. I read and look of what I have in front of me and try to get the best out of what I have there to work with. If there is not much of a text about what you actually mean, then don't expect people to read your mind, buddy.

Ramscha

[Clockwork Ghost]

Ps. Ramscha dont get me wrong but... I dont know your age also but I can understand that up to this time you should have learned to understand and to listen before repling in a negative manner.

Ramscha and I are both wild Red junglefowl (gallus gallus), though you would call us chickens. Ramscha is 108 years old, which is pretty damn good for a chicken. I am a bit younger, being only nine. We frequently sell trinkets by the roadside in our home town of Silver City, in the Christmas Islands - you can buy some if you wish, we have PayPal.

To call a spade a spade, and not a shovel, telling someone that they 'didnt get what I really meant so you questioned my science knowledge.' is a bit strange when you make such sweeping statements as 'Creationism; Accepts everything is created by something. But tells The Creator created himself. Recent Scientific studies; There is a theory that matter can create itself. Both of them are total nonsense.', only for other members to prove to you that a) your knowledge about Creationism is incomplete and b) Mitosis is anything but 'total nonsense'.

In response to RoseRed's request to expand on why we would want to develop a 'better method to explain the universe' you replied 'Becouse we should find the truth.'. When a whole bunch of scientifically recognised theories, and theological debates were put to you, stuff that is commonly recognised as 'truth' by many people, both scientists and theologians alike, your response was to question whether time exists (which I responded to), then to say that you understand time, and think you can get there somehow, but that humanity cannot ever hope to understand time as there are only three dimensions (which I also responded to).

Your latest comments say 'Both ways are wrong', but you don't actually expand on this statement - do you mean you still don't believe in the existence of gods nor the ability of science to explain things, or are you referring to criticism? You want a better concept of the universe, but aren't prepared to fully understand the ones that already exist. Just because people believe in magick doesn't mean that they have to be ignorant of science - the two subjects can actually exist side by side. If you want to build a better concept of the universe philosophically, then please start making suggestions as to your philosophical standpoint and stop telling people that science and religion are a complete pack of lies.

You have asked Ramscha how old he is without telling us how old you are. For the record, I'll be 43 this year if something terrible doesn't happen to me first. You advise Ramscha to both listen and understand before replying, yet you don't do him the honour of doing so yourself. Ramscha is trying damn hard to understand you, and to reply to your questions constructively, as am I. Please stop getting defensive about people refuting your statements - this is a discussion forum, we discuss things, share our experiences, and see if we can help others develop their own knowledge further as a result, even if only through explaining their own positions on a topic.