Whether we exist or not, whether there is an Earth, or if all this is some omnipotent’s great dream is not in question. The fact is, SOMETHING exists. Be it us, or something that’s dreaming us, or anything else, something does exist. But for existance to… well, exist, we have to disobey the laws of the physical universe.
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed; only changed to other forms. This is widely accepted (as far as I know, anyway.)
So where’d it all come from?
The Big Bang? Where’d the material come from to form that tiny ball of infinite density?
God? That’s something else entirely.
The point is; How far back can we go before we come to the ultimate beginning?
Say there is a God, and it created the universe. Who created it? Where did it begin? My mind simply cant grasp the concept that ‘it always has been and always will be’. This is where ‘reverse infinity’ comes from. For the universe to exist, at all, reverse infinity must be, there must always have been SOMETHING. Otherwise you’re tracing who created who created who back until you go insane. I know. I’ve tried. It’s my main reason for believing in a God at all. Without it, existance simply could not be.( If you need my little idea (reverse infinity) explained futher, let me know, I’m not sure if I’ve expressed it properly here).
So, what? Am I nuts? Was there a real ‘beginning’ that I just cant find? Or will I spend the rest of my life trying to figure out the concept that there has always, ALWAYS been SOMETHING, with no beginning? 'cause that really hurts my brain.
I believe in “reverse infinity,” for the same reason I believe in spatial infinity (i.e., the universe has no edge). For any point in the causal sequence we call time, there probably has to be a previous point.
“From forever unto forever,” is how I think of it. (Yes, I coined that phrase.)
How does existance require any sort of tangible creator?
The universe just is.
I know I’ve spent my life trying to understand that there is no cause/effect relationship. How did it all begin? It never began. “It always was and always will be” is the best answer I can come up with.
I can accept that the universe or the force or the Tao or existence may have always existed and will always exist. But I think the conflict comes in knowledge of the fact that we have not always existed. Humans and earth and the physical universe and life in the state we currently know it are a product of a time based linear evolution, at least according to our perspective (and who can fathom anything outside a human perspective? If you claim you can I would say it is just a human’s idea of a not human perspective.) Anyways, my point is, what the hell was going on before the big bang? What has always existed? If god/the universe has always existed, what prompted the creation of life, of us. or are we just one in an infinite series of big bangs and evolutions of life. Perhaps humans/or some other variation thereof have evolved an infinite number of times in the infinite past. I agree with the OP, how the hell can anyone get their mind around this stuff?
Actually, new matter/energy is being added to the universe all the time. At any point, particles are generated from little rips in space. Sometimes, they are particle/anti-particle pairs and just destroy eachother but sometimes there is a little energy left over.
There’s also no way to determine which direction time is going in. We percieve that it is going in the direction of entropy but since our mechanisms of perception only work in that direction, it is meaningless to use them as a test.
Do you have some specific information on this via some links? Not to sound like im flaming you, but it sounds a bit hoaky. The whole concept is that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed…technically your statement doesnt go against that but it suggests it comes from an outside source. That is what sounds like some new age crap spiel.
As for the particle/antiparticle bit…Well in an antimatter explosion there is energy… What? do you think they just kind of null each other out or something?
I’d just like to point out that claiming God as the Creator of the universe doesn’t solve this problem. It is not logical to say that the universe cannot have existed without a creator, but God can. I.e. refusing to believe that the universe somehow just came into being, but accepting God’s eternal nature. Why believe one without the other?
Also, just because our common sense and limited intellect cannot grasp something, doesn’t mean that it is not true. Human perseptions are only good for certain environments that we commonly experience. We cannot visualize the fourth dimension, and we cannot picture being outside time and space, so don’t hurt your brain trying.
bryanmcc: That’s one of the ideas I’m trying to avoid here; A lot of people would say ‘God has always existed, and that is that’. I’m not willing to settle with that. I know my puny human mind will probably never be able to comprehend what exactly IS, but I cant stop myself from trying. I’m innately, incurably, painfully curious.
As for why I put this up here; My understanding of higher math/quantum mechanics/spatial relations/whatever is slim to nil. All this is my own little thoughts. I find it incredibly interesting to see the thoughts of others, and even moreso when they come from people who have a background in one of those subjects I couldnt touch with a ten foot pole. differing viewpoints always make for, if not a CLEARER picture, at least a more thought provoking one.
I figure (hope) we’ll find out when we die. Until then, I’ll keep pondering, despite the headaches.
As for the possibility that matter/energy can be created… This adds a whole new angle to everything I’ve ever considered. Links/cites would be greatly appreciated so I can explore this theory further.
Okay, until a high-energy physicist can enter here and explain it correctly, I’ll have to throw what I still remember of my quantum mechanics at this question. The statement about the creation of virtual particles is correct, I believe, but not really the part about energy left over. Basically, the idea is that there is an energy–time uncertainty relation (\Delta E)(\Delta t) > h/(4pi) where E is energy, t is time, h is Planck’s constant and \Delta denotes “change in”. This is analogous to the more commonly known position–momentum uncertainty relation. So, the idea is that for small enough times (\Delta t), energy need not be conserved (\Delta E can get pretty large)…in fact, in a very real sense, it is ill-defined…but over long enough times, energy is conserved (to a high degree of accuracy). [Note that because of Einstein’s relation between mass and energy, it is really mass–energy that is conserved…i.e., one can “convert mass into energy”, as is done in nuclear reactions or particle–antiparticle annihilation because mass is simply another “form” of energy.]
Welcome to the SDMB, escika! I’m afraid that it is not very likely this conversation will pick up where it left off in 2001. Most of the participants have not posted in the last 6 years. Don’t let that stop you from sticking around, though. This can be a pretty fun place.
escika, a reply asking for information in a thirteen year old thread of a poster who hasn’t visited in more than ten years is unlikely to generate a reply.
I’m going to close this. If you still have an interest in the subject, please feel free to start a new thread on the subject.