Origins of the Universe

ronbyrne2005

I have always felt that the probability of a "god" was remarkably slim but lately I have been thinking about the nature of the universe(initiation of universe/big bang, space, time etc) and am puzzled by how the universe initiated. Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc). Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance and there is the chance that there was a creator of the universe, I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start. Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Even if something consciously created the universe, it doesnt mean that something has any interaction with it now,maybe it created itself. What does science hypothesise about the creation of the universe?
I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

Ciaran500

But we can't assume that the physics before our universe are what we observe now.

I've just come to accept that we can't know what happened before our universe, what will happen after our universe or what happens outside our universe.

Crucifix

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

What is matter? mmmmm

What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? Doesn't matter.

My favourite theory is always that the universe didn't begin.

Zillah

Your problem is that you can't imagine something existing without something creating it?

How is God the answer then? Where did God come from? And if the answer is that God is beyond our paltry logic, then why couldn't the (non) universe before space and time also be beyond our puny logic?

BreadBoard

I blame the Matrix.

Scofflaw

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I have always felt that the probability of a "god" was remarkably slim but lately I have been thinking about the nature of the universe(initiation of universe/big bang, space, time etc) and am puzzled by how the universe initiated. Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc). Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance and there is the chance that there was a creator of the universe, I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start. Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Even if something consciously created the universe, it doesnt mean that something has any interaction with it now,maybe it created itself. What does science hypothesise about the creation of the universe?
I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

As far as I can tell, the answers to these are currently:

1. causality (ie cause-and-effect) is a property of our Universe - we don't know whether it was a property of whatever preceded or contains the universe (if anything). Therefore, there may literally have been no reason whatsoever.

2. if whatever preceded/contains the universe is causal, then no matter how unlikely the universe was to form, from our point of view it has to have done - if it had not, we wouldn't be around to wonder about it.

3. that last argument, the "anthropic principle", applies to almost everything else. As intelligent self-aware observers, we should not be surprised to find ourselves intelligent, self-aware, and observing the universe, since all these were given in the first part of the statement.

4. similarly, the "personal anthropic principle" applies to you personally. Depsite the sheer unlikeliness of all your ancestors meeting each other as opposed to someone else, and succesfully producing surviving children/spawn/hatchlings, etc etc, for all the billions of years life has been going - here you are. Seriously, how likely was it that your ancestors, and mine, survived the end-Permian extinction? And the end of the Cretaceous? And the end-Triassic extinction, Devonian extinctions, and all the macro-extinctions in the geological record? You are one lucky lucky lucky guy.

While the anthropic principle seems regrettably circular, and can be regarded as explaining nothing whatsoever, I've considered it "the answer" since I first thought of it age 8.

It's not a very good answer, but it's the same one you'd get if by a ludicrous sequence of coincidences you found yourself stranded on a tiny island in the Pacific - you're here because you're here, and the mind-boggling odds against you being here are now irrelevant. The question then becomes, what will you do?

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

1. causality (ie cause-and-effect) is a property of our Universe - we don't know whether it was a property of whatever preceded or contains the universe (if anything). Therefore, there may literally have been no reason whatsoever.

I really really like this.

I've always thought of thinking about the origin of the universe as quite redundant. You're essentially trying to observe a system from within the system.

Its a bit like a narcissist diagnosing themselves as having a psychological flaw, you can't do it from within the system.

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

I've always thought of thinking about the origin of the universe as quite redundant. You're essentially trying to observe a system from within the system.Its a bit like a narcissist diagnosing themselves as having a psychological flaw, you can't do it from within the system.

In the case of the universe it's impossible to say whether or not it can be understood/explained from within the system. With a normal physical system you can detach yourself from it, observe from 'outside'. There may not be an 'outside' to the universe, in which case observing from within is the only observing possible. Of course this may render the ultimate answers we're looking for unknowable to us, but that doesn't mean it's redundant to think about it or seek to understand as much as we can.

Scofflaw, the anthropic principle is fine for explaining how we happen to be here but tells us nothing of the origin of the universe or if there even was an origin in the way we normally understand. I know you are well aware of this but you seem to be suggesting that the question of origin is a rather pointless one?

You are right in a way, it makes no difference at all to our everyday life, but I still feel it is a question very much worth asking and an answer worth searching for (even if we never find it). Certainly something beyond the useless 'answer' as supplied by religion, that some obscure unknowable entity called 'god' was behind it all. We should remember that science and even human civilisation itself is only in it's infancy and if humanity and the scientific endeavour continue to prosper (which they mightn't of course) then who knows what wonders will be discovered in the future? Or how much our understanding might evolve from what would be seen (then) as our primitive position today? Perhaps alien civilisations have already gained insights we can't even imagine.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

Scofflaw, the anthropic principle is fine for explaining how we happen to be here but tells us nothing of the origin of the universe or if there even was an origin in the way we normally understand. I know you are well aware of this but you seem to be suggesting that the question of origin is a rather pointless one?

Pretty much. In a sense, I don't even understand why it should matter, particularly if the answer is actually a matter of physics. I would be fascinated to see anything that gives us pointers to what was there before, but content to leave it to the experts.

aidan24326 wrote:

You are right in a way, it makes no difference at all to our everyday life, but I still feel it is a question very much worth asking and an answer worth searching for (even if we never find it).

Let me put it to you this way. If it turned out that we were part of a complex simulation, that will not impact me, except insofar as I will wonder if it can be hacked from the inside, and where the bugs are. It will not make me question the pointlessness of my existence, because I've pretty much accepted that objectively my life is utterly pointless - a short walk from nothing to nothing.

If it turned out that we were part of God's plan, I would consider that equally pointless - not very different to the simulation, actually. What's the point of God, after all? I can understand how submission to God (aka faith) clears up all these questions, but I couldn't do it in any honest way - there would always be a bit of me going "God's plan - so what?". It just moves the problem a step up the chain.

So, yes, for me "you're here because you're here" is the only satisfactory answer, followed by "now get on with it - it's not a bloody dress rehearsal, you know!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funsterdelux

Crucifix wrote:

What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? Doesn't matter.

My favourite theory is always that the universe didn't begin.

.

I am of similar thought,

why does something need to begin?

Sure we were born, but the particles that makes us have been in existence since the "begining" of the universe.

Playboy

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

What do you mean by "probably because of my anxiety"? Are you having a sort of existential crisis? Faith can give comfort if you are anxious about these sorts of questions. Faith doesnt mean you have to embrace theism but that you maybe accept and hope that there is a spiritual side to you. Try and find meaning and purpose inside of yourself and in the relationships you have instead of out in cosmos and at the beginning of existence. There is no comfort or purpose to be found there only more questions that are equally unanswerable or unknowable. Shift the focus of your search to a place where answers and meaning were meant to be found.

Zombrex

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc).

The laws of physics are properties of the universe, so they were created when the universe was created.

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance

How do you know it was an "amazing" occurance. For all we know billions of universes pop in and out of existence ever second.

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start.

Who said it did?

There is a difference between saying that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang and saying that nothing existed before the Big Bang (because saying "nothing" existed is still a judgement on what existed, and we don't know)

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Well if you assume it was a super powerful intelligence (God) doesn't the question just shift to "What created God"

Tar.Aldarion

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm

I was going to start a thread on this, I may still do.
We are indeed 'just animals' but are we any different from the rest of matter?
Do people believe in a 'soul' or that we are just chemical machines?
Is there a difference between a computer and us?
Are we just part of a system and interacting with it in a kindof foretold way, in that we are programmed just like we would program a computer?
Are we aware, or just seemingly so?
I imagine we are by standard definition, but I also come to teh conclusion that without proof of a soul, a spark, we are just chemical machines.

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

We are indeed 'just animals' but are we any different from the rest of matter?

Fundamentally, no.

Do people believe in a 'soul' or that we are just chemical machines?

Electro chemical machines.

Is there a difference between a computer and us?

Philosophically, no.

Are we just part of a system and interacting with it in a kindof foretold way, in that we are programmed just like we would program a computer?

Programmed just like a computer from the future that is vastly more sophisticated than any computer currently in existence and blessed with ingenius adaptive software of the likes modern programmers can only dream.

Are we aware, or just seemingly so?

Everything is aware, its just degrees of complexity.

I imagine we are by standard definition, but I also come to teh conclusion that without proof of a soul, a spark, we are just chemical machines.

Yup. Goo vats. Fantastical bags of slime

Fallen Seraph

I'm of the opinion that "what created the universe" is fundamentally a phyiscs question. Akin to "what makes the sky blue?". I mean the universe was clearly created, and there's nothing to suggest that a supernatural being had anything at all to do with it.

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Electro chemical machines.

Thats what you think. The argument is a philosophical dead end.

Zillah wrote:

Philosophically, no.

In what sense philosophically? I presume you mean that we are all made from basically the same stuff because that is the only sense in which you could say we are the same.

Zillah wrote:

Programmed just like a computer from the future that is vastly more sophisticated than any computer currently in existence and blessed with ingenius adaptive software of the likes modern programmers can only dream.

I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that we are programmed like computers. Cognitive psychology, artifical intelligence etc try and model the human brain in a computeristic fashion but there is still huge gaps in that way of understanding the mind and it remains to be seen if it will be completely successful. We still have no idea how conciousness arises out of chemical interactions in the brain. You cant philosophically rule out a metaphysical explanation with our current level of understanding and knowledge. This kind of Eliminative Materialism has its problems as a philosophy. You speak as if the questions that Tar posed have definite answers and not merely your perspective or opinion on the matter.

Zillah wrote:

Everything is aware, its just degrees of complexity.

Thats an interesting point .. could you elaborate on it a little further because I'm not sure I understand properly.

Zillah wrote:

Yup. Goo vats. Fantastical bags of slime

Maybe there is no such thing as a soul and maybe the default scientific and skeptical position has to be materialistic but I wouldnt be so sure. Human experience leads us to believe in a mind distinct from the body which in turn facilitates our conception of a metaphysical soul. It's really a matter of choice whether one accepts reductive explanations of human experience or one chooses to find meaning and answers within the experience. If you are a pragmatist you can do both just as many religious scientists do

aidan24326

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm.

Are we 'just' animals? Yes, that's all we are. The issue of self-awareness is a bit more complicated. We don't know to what degree any creature is self-aware. All of the matter in your body is by no means self-aware anyway, it might be more accurate to say we are a highly complex arrangement of matter where consciousness and self-awareness has come about as an emergent property of the system through millions of years of natural selection.

Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted

I wouldn't bother seeking solace in theism if I was you, unless it's a deluded solace you're after. Theology has an unfortunate habit of being wrong on almost every question it attempts to answer. That you can't accept the universe emerging from a timeless spaceless void is simply that timeless spaceless voids (should they even exist) are way outside the realm of normal human experience and pretty much impossible for us to imagine. That doesn't mean they're actually impossible though.

I agree with you that the universe may always have existed with no need for a beginning or end and no need for a creator. Again this is difficult for us to comprehend though. We are designed to think in terms of 'beginning' and 'end'. Infinity doesn't sit well in the human brain. Natural selection has shaped us to feel comfortable thinking about and dealing with the types of situations we ordinarily encounter, and it's easy to see why. Unfortunately that does limit our ability to understand counterintuitive concepts in physics.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

Fundamentally, no.

Obviously it's a fundamental no. What i am asking is, are you any different than that rock over there, at all?
It may be playing a part in a system, just as you may be, interacting in a way that you 'think' is due to 'consciousness'.
Btw, as Playboy mentioned, there are no answers to my questions.

Electro chemical machines.

Well, if we must get pedantic, electrochemical is but one word. :P

Philosophically, no.

What does that mean?
I am aware that my question has no answer that we can possibly know. It is a yes or no question that has an answer just based on ones opinion.

Programmed just like a computer from the future that is vastly more sophisticated than any computer currently in existence and blessed with ingenius adaptive software of the likes modern programmers can only dream.

Yes, yes, Data, Lor and all that.
As my question does not have an answer I am just asking for a general opinion on whether people(of the non religious variety) think that there is a 'spark' or 'soul' or if they think that this computer in front of me is just the same as a human.

Everything is aware, its just degrees of complexity.

What makes you say that? Aware in what sense? To stimulus? To surroundings? To?
I think that everything, nothing, or some things are 'aware', but I have no inkling as to which it is.
Nothing... would be an interesting truth. Maybe 'aware' does not even exist, if we are just part of a predetermined system from the start. But is being seemingly aware, actually aware? Maybe thinking you are aware, even if you are not, is awareness.
These advanced computers you speak of, take data from star trek, would you consider him aware?
If your answer is yes, i think everything is aware, if no, then nothing is, with the possiblility of a 'soul' meaning some things could be.

Playboy wrote:

Maybe there is no such thing as a soul and maybe the default scientific and skeptical position has to be materialistic but I wouldnt be so sure. Human experience leads us to believe in a mind distinct from the body which in turn facilitates our conception of a metaphysical soul.

What experience makes you think this?
I would imagine 'human experience' is what makes many people believe in a 'god'.
What would the default scientific be to most people? No soul? Soul? I would purpose that it is the former, although there is something to be said with an agnostic approach. As science does not start with presumptions, IE, does not start out with an opinion of a god existing or not, the same could be said of a soul.
For the same reason I would find it hard to believe in a god, the believing in a 'soul' also will elude me, burden of a proof that cannot be had.
With a science aimed perspective, is the default not that we are, in fact, just electrochemical machines, controlled by our 'biological makeup, and nothing else?

Zillah

Imagine me having a badly hidden smile in my last post

Zillah

Although some of the responses were fun :

Playboy wrote:

Thats what you think. The argument is a philosophical dead end.

Thats because most of philosophy is a dead end.

Philosopher: What are the ramifications of when a human fails to follow their conscience?
Me: Uh, none outside the social context in which it evolved. They may be arrested or shunned.
Philosopher: But that is a redundant position, it says nothing philosophically.
Me: Yes, exactly. Philosophy usually fails to say anything.

In what sense philosophically?

Both a human and a computer are systems interacting with other systems. When I do indulge in philosophy, its usually disquietingly Nihilistic (Although I prefer the term "deconstruction", people tend to make all sorts of silly assumptions about Nihilism).

I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that we are programmed like computers. Cognitive psychology, artifical intelligence etc try and model the human brain in a computeristic fashion but there is still huge gaps in that way of understanding the mind and it remains to be seen if it will be completely successful. We still have no idea how conciousness arises out of chemical interactions in the brain.

Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

You cant philosophically rule out a metaphysical explanation with our current level of understanding and knowledge. This kind of Eliminative Materialism has its problems as a philosophy. You speak as if the questions that Tar posed have definite answers and not merely your perspective or opinion on the matter.

To the best of the human ability to perceive, any metaphysical argument is useless until there is any verifiable reason to even consider it. We may as well say "Universe = X" until one can quantify whatever God-nonesense is the myth of the day.

Thats an interesting point .. could you elaborate on it a little further because I'm not sure I understand properly.

It would appear that sentience is a side effect of a system that is complex enough to guage its own place in the world. I think of it as being a matter of degrees.

For example:

A rock rolls down the cliff. Is it sentient? Did it choose to roll down the cliff? Most people say no, of course not, its just a stupid rock. It didn't choose to roll, it just did because of the wind/soil/errosion.

Well what about a virus? Is its complex behaviour evidence for its sentience? Most people would say no, its just a fancy bunch of molecules reacting to their environment. Chemical and physical processes drive its "behaviour".

A dog? I think most people would say that a dog is certainly aware, but not really sentient the way we are. It doesn't truly understand its existence, it just works on levels of instinct that evolution programmed into its brain.

Well what about people? Are we sentient? Most say yes. But in the same way are we not just a reactionary system, like all the other one's I've mention, just of a degree of complexity that we consider sentient?

So its a sliding scale, sentience is not on/off. I wouldn't be suprised if there were (non supernatural!) entities out there of a scale of sentience fundamentally beyond ours, like us to a cat.

I might post more later, for now I really want a smoke.

aidan24326

Posted by Zillah
Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

...though modern research in neuroscience is suggesting that the brain works far more differently to a computer than was previously thought.

I do agree with what you say about our relation to other creatures though. It is nonsense to say we are 'aware 'and a cat isn't or we are 'conscious' and a mouse isn't etc. It would appear to be a sliding scale and if there is life on other planets there is likely to be something out there much further along the scale than us.

Tar.Aldarion

Why do you think a mouse is any less 'aware' than you are?

Red Hand

aidan24326 wrote:

Posted by Zillah
Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

...though modern research in neuroscience is suggesting that the brain works far more differently to a computer than was previously thought.

Yep, the idea of us thinking broad blurry "concepts" suggests that the brain is quite different to a computor.

Red Hand

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Why do you think a mouse is any less 'aware' than you are?

Just a side-question: what does being "aware" mean? Knowledge of a creature's surroundings?

Tar.Aldarion

Having knowledge; conscious; cognizant. Knowledge gained through one's own perceptions or by means of information.
Awareness describes a human or other animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. Awareness does not necessarily imply understanding, just an ability to be conscious of, feel or perceive.
Etc.

...though modern research in neuroscience is suggesting that the brain works far more differently to a computer than was previously thought.

How so?
Also, what do you mean by 'computer'? Our standard one or something that is programmed?

monkeyfudge

Wicknight wrote:

The laws of physics are properties of the universe, so they were created when the universe was created.

It's thought that the laws of physics weren't determined until a few seconds after the big bang.

One idea that I've had is that at some point in the future we develop a way to look back through time to examine the very beginning of the universe and through that act of observation a universe is created that allows us to exist to observe it.

aidan24326

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

do you think a mouse is any less 'aware' than you are?

I don't. A mouse is presumably aware of it's surroundings in much the same way as I am. I was thinking more of self-awareness. I meant overall mental capacity seems to run along a sliding scale. Other creatures may not have the same sort of mind as we do but that doesn't mean that we go in one box and every other creature in another.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

How so?
Also, what do you mean by 'computer'? Our standard one or something that is programmed?

Too complex for me to explain. You'd have to look it up yourself I'm afraid. I read a book called 'Consciousness - How matter becomes imagination' which is a theory of mind put forward by Gerald Edelman (nobel prize winner in the 70s) and Giulio Tononi who are leading researchers at The Neurosciences Institute in America, you could give it a go if you're interested though it's fairly heavy stuff. Basically they're suggesting that the brain works in a very different way to any standard programmable devices that we've invented, and if anything it appears to be even more complex than previously thought.

Anyway, we're wandering a bit off-topic now. As to the origins of the universe, maybe if we keep posting here for long enough somebody will hit on the answer. Like the one about the monkey bashing on a keypad for zillions of years and eventually typing the works of Shakespeare.

I guess we just don't have a bloody clue really, and that's the bottom line. Why is there a universe at all, as opposed to there not being one? What was there before it? Was there anything? Nothing at all? Is absolute nothingness possible? Was there even a 'before' in any meaningful sense? Is the big bang singularity a brick wall beyond which we will never know? Are we just temporarily animated assemblies of matter getting ideas above our station by even asking such questions?

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Thats because most of philosophy is a dead end.

Philosopher: What are the ramifications of when a human fails to follow their conscience?
Me: Uh, none outside the social context in which it evolved. They may be arrested or shunned.
Philosopher: But that is a redundant position, it says nothing philosophically.
Me: Yes, exactly. Philosophy usually fails to say anything.

Philosophy is more about the journey than the answer. It chooses to try and answer unanswerable questions .. it might not come to scientific conclusions on the questions it poses but it is fundamental to the development of knowledge. Philosophical thought has shaped the world we live in and there would not have been much 'progress' without it.

Zillah wrote:

Both a human and a computer are systems interacting with other systems. When I do indulge in philosophy, its usually disquietingly Nihilistic (Although I prefer the term "deconstruction", people tend to make all sorts of silly assumptions about Nihilism).

hmmm for someone who claims to be nihilistic or deconstructionist you seem to be quite sure of the validity of a scientific position. Surely science and its assumptions can be deconstructed to the meaningless like anything else? I cant understand why a nihilist or deconstrutionist would put so much faith in science when the philosphy of deconstructionism can be seen as an attack on scientific values. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean or am incorrectly remembering my Derrida and Neitzche?

Zillah wrote:

Functionally they are the same; a computer is a system that takes in data, processes it, stores it (long term and short term) and provides out puts. The human brain does the same. Perhaps the base code is different, and the method of programming is extremely different, but fundamentally they're the same sort of system.

This is what I was saying earlier. We model the human mind/brain in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, AI etc. on a computer system in order to understand it. Just becuase we model a system on another system does not mean that is in fact the way it operates.

Zillah wrote:

To the best of the human ability to perceive, any metaphysical argument is useless until there is any verifiable reason to even consider it. We may as well say "Universe = X" until one can quantify whatever God-nonesense is the myth of the day.

Useless to whom? Useless to you maybe but not to others. You are applying strict scientific criteria to rational argument. Just because something is unverifiable does not mean it is useless and worthless to consider. There are many postulates in science which are unverifiable so far. There are many things which were once considered unverifiable which were later verified. Why do human beings believe in a soul ... why and how did the idea arise .. why does the idea exist practically in every culture. There must be something that exists within the human experience that indicates the existence of this thing. Is the idea not worth investegating for those reasons alone?

Crucifix

monkeyfudge wrote:

It's thought that the laws of physics weren't determined until a few seconds after the big bang.

In the popular theory at least the laws of physics are there as far back as it goes, they were just mad and unified and shit til everything calmed down a bit.

kleefarr

The thing is, where does it all ended? The universe could be just a small part of a much much bigger thing!

What's it all about?

Not the sort of thing you want to think about too much, it could have strange effects on your mind. :eek:

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Philosophy is more about the journey than the answer. It chooses to try and answer unanswerable questions .. it might not come to scientific conclusions on the questions it poses but it is fundamental to the development of knowledge.

How? Everything philosophy has achieved could have been achieved by other means, better and faster. Saying its the journey rather than the destination is rather meaningless, theres always a result, even if its just a side effect of the process.

hmmm for someone who claims to be nihilistic or deconstructionist you seem to be quite sure of the validity of a scientific position. Surely science and its assumptions can be deconstructed to the meaningless like anything else? I cant understand why a nihilist or deconstrutionist would put so much faith in science when the philosphy of deconstructionism can be seen as an attack on scientific values. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean or am incorrectly remembering my Derrida and Neitzche?

I didn't say I was a Nihilist, simply that I has such leanings. In a world that is ultimately relative, then observable results are all that I can trust. Hence, science. And nihilism isn't something to which one subscribes, its a way of describing similar outlooks.

Just because something is unverifiable does not mean it is useless and worthless to consider.

Yes it does. It is completely pointless to consider something that is unverifiable. Unless you just want a logic work out.

There are many postulates in science which are unverifiable so far. There are many things which were once considered unverifiable which were later verified.

But none that are fundamentally unverifiable. As opposed to something like God. Its a crucial element in the scientific process; its called falsifiability. Something must have a reasonable method by which it can be proven false for it to be a scientific theory.

Why do human beings believe in a soul ... why and how did the idea arise .. why does the idea exist practically in every culture. There must be something that exists within the human experience that indicates the existence of this thing. Is the idea not worth investegating for those reasons alone?

Analysing the origins of human belief in the supernatural is part of the fascinating science of Anthropology. Philosophy doesn't do that.

And widespread belief in the soul is not evidence for its existence.