Here's one explanation:

https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html

It's not nearly as good as Guth's though. I'll try to type up Guth's proof tomorrow if I have a chance. I couldn't find it online.

As for what negative energy is, it's just energy that has a negative value, rather than a positive value. I assume that means that it generates gravitational repulsion, rather than attraction, but that's beyond my realm of knowledge.

|>ouglas

Indeed. Take for example art, music and math, all of which, confer no Darwinian biological advantages. — 3017amen

I think you are under the impression that natural selection is the only mechanism for evolution. It is simply not true that organisms evolve only those traits that provide it biological advantages. Evolution is simply gradual changes that accumulate over time. These changes can be completely random and may not be naturally selected for. Math could also be a consequence of increased reasoning capabilites (which certainly confer an organism biological advantage). Simply because a trait doesnt give an advantage doesnt mean the trait didnt evolve through other mechanisms.

Also, the claim that art, music, and math provide no evolutionary advantage is absurd on the face of it.

Music and art allow for groups of people to bond, which helps their survival and math is a useful tool which helps with survival.

|>ouglas

If the atheist can actually make a human and create consciousness, case closed. In the meantime, the phenomenon of 'self aware beings' certainly not only suggests a metaphysical existence or will of sorts, but continues to provide for a sense of wonderment that causes us to think about things like art, music, math, philosophy, cosmology, love et al. all of which confer little to no biological survival value. — 3017amen

Certainly, the phenomenon of self aware beings suggests a metaphysical existence just how the phenomenon of lightning served as proof of metaphysical existence long ago.



And again you assume that art, music, math and philosophy provide no survival advantage and even if they dont, it doesnt mean they can't have evolved gradually.

I added that link to my journal. Thank you!

I finally got a chance to read your paper a bit more thoroughly. One thought I came away with is the common notion of the paradox of time and eternity. Meaning, how do we reconcile a timeless eternal force with our temporal time-dependent existence.

In other words does your theory account for 4th dimension space-time? Should the timeless existence of space-time, be regarded as an atemporal form of creation?

The reason why I asked is because some have argued that the idea of God bringing the universe into existence from nothing cannot be regarded as a temporal act since it involves the creation of time. Hawking even stated that so long as the universe had a beginning we could suppose it had a Creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. That in turn would suggest if no origin in time is required then there is no appeal to a supernatural act of creation ex nihilo.

Does your theory then consider an eternal Creator existing outside of time (eternity), be one in the same energy source as a self contained universe that has neither beginning nor end, similar to Spinoza's pantheism? That at least in theory would combine the two problems associated with time, I think.

Math could also be a consequence of increased reasoning capabilites (which certainly confer an organism biological advantage). Simply because a trait doesnt give an advantage doesnt mean the trait didnt evolve through other mechanisms. — StarsFromMemory

Thank you Stars for your thoughts. Of course my initial reaction is relative to the argument over the existence of mathematics itself and the laws of gravity. Meaning, survival in the jungle does not require knowledge of mathematics and the laws of gravity in order to avoid falling objects.

Mathematics are essentially metaphysical abstracts. Why should we have two ways to avoid falling objects when one confers no biological survival advantage? In other words, mathematics is a pure intellectual abstract exercise, a priori. How did that evolve? (While some lower life-forms exhibit rudimentary mathematical abilities, that's as far as it goes.)

And again you assume that art, music, math and philosophy provide no survival advantage and even if they dont, it doesnt mean they can't have evolved gradually. — StarsFromMemory

Thanks Stars, what is your proposed theory there?

Why should we have two ways to avoid falling objects when one confers no biological survival advantage? — 3017amen

Asking why is again implying that evolution must have a purpose or a direction Why not have two ways of doing so?

Besides, I think development of mathematics is simply a consqeuence of human intelligence. As humans evolved to become more and more intelligence, which helped them survive, plan and adapt better to their environment, mathematics developed naturally. Once humans developed intelligence to spot patterns and make sense of them, to plan their endeavours etc, development of maths was bound to follow. It doesnt matter if maths actually helped the early man.

Also we are better off knowing the exact mechanism of gravity than just knowing that objects fall This grants us the ability to predict exactly when objects will fall that gives us not only a better chance at escaping but also a means to perhaps harness the energy of a falling object. (Again, this is basically intelligence)

Hence, mathematics and physics are simply a consequence of human intelligence and I think that maths did help the early man, although that doesnt matter.

It's not 'nonsense'.

What you're saying is nonsense; writing like no is the answer to the question, was the universe created, when there's 0 evidence, to suggest that.

I've said the matter is hazy, we're dealing with an anomaly - something.

My reason to opt for yes, over no, is that there's a lot of strangeness(unknowingness, pure strangeness, super-massive nature, statistical anomalies); so, external to the universe, is probably not nothing, but, some kind of life.

Who's holding back this sort of phenomena?

I haven't claimed it's scientifically proven to be yes, I said it's probably yes.

There's nothing that points to no, but a plethora of strange things that point to yes.

Some strange: no-one is truly an expert on our universe; the chances of someone who knows more are high. Humans gain knowledge and make new technology; I've just applied my knowledge.

An explanation for why the universe came to be is something had the knowledge and resources.

It came from nothing is half an explanation, but the answer can be something or nothing, and a reasonable hypothesis can exist for yes and no.

Does 0 evidence for something or nothing, plus universal strangeness, equate probably something?

You and I definitely didn't create the universe. It must have been something else.

My reason to opt for yes, over no, is that there's a lot of strangeness(unknowingness, pure strangeness, super-massive nature, statistical anomalies); so, external to the universe, is probably not nothing, but, some kind of life — Qwex

Why should strangeness (what is pure strangeness??) be seen as an indication of an existence beyond the universe? Why can't strangeness be seen as a limitation of our intelligence to apprehend some of the contents of an old and massive universe?

Lightning, fires and rain were all strange to us not so many years ago. But it is now clear that this strangeness was only due to limitations of our knowledge, intelligence and resources.

What's stopping things from happening when, per se, power such as a universe exists? What's to stop a much simpler world from manifesting?

So, beyond the universe, is nothing?

Nothing does exist or can exist?

Even if this something is not like us at all?

Given 1. Super Massive Nature: there could easily be a parasite that feeds off of the energy.

And that's one strange element, given all strange elements the possibilities for other existences is high.

'What is pure strangeness?' Strange matter and force.

What's stopping things from happening when, per se, power such as a universe exists? What's to stop a much simpler world from manifesting? — Qwex

Why should things that are strange to us not happen on their own and need a external being? Why should a universe, that seems simpler to us be more likely to exist, in the absence of an external being, than a universe that is filled with anomalies and strangeness?

SImply because there are processes we cannot understand doesnt mean those processes need to be sustained by some higher power in the absence of which, only processes we can comprehend can exist.

The way I see it is that you are taking strangeness which is merely a limitation of the human mind, to argue for some external being holding that strange and complicated process in place. That is simply put- ridiculous.

An analogy might help:
Suppose there are group of chimps that live in a forest. They perceive the world and try to make sense of it to the best of their abilities. Now lets say they stumble across a river, something they have never seen before and are puzzled as to how the water is flowing even though the plain is fairly flat. This is very strange to them because they have never seen water flow on its own at this speed. They thus conclude that there must be some external intelligent being that is sustaining this strange mechanism (perhaps by pushing the water if that makes sense).

As humans we know that this is not unusual or caused by an intelligent creature. The flow of the river was merely due to its descent from a steep mountain (something the chimps have no knowledge about).

The point here being, strangeness is merely a limitation of our knowledge and intelligence. Had the chimps known about mountains and gravity and all that, the event would not have been strange to them but precisely because of this limitation, they found it very strange and were quick to attribute it to a intelligent being sustaining that flow.


Simply put, strangeness is not a fundamental characteristic of the universe, it only exists from our perspective. There might be other intelligent life in the universe for whom different events are strange or less events are strange or no events are strange (if such intellifgence is even possible)

I have not claimed God. I have claimed creator.

That means, resources were ordered so that a big bang would occur, I guess in the form of noxious clouds.

This doesn't mean the spirit of the creator passed into the fray and it become omnipotent. It means it had know-how and resources.

It's more reasonable that, pop, the big bang happened from nothing - it's the only guess - nonsensical - you miss out a vital part, how.

You'll soon see that you(no argument), are the whimsical one's who think life is ultra special and someone high up loves us.

I have not claimed God. I have claimed creator.

That means, resources were ordered so that a big bang would occur, I guess in the form of noxious clouds.

This doesn't mean the spirit of the creator passed into the fray and it become omnipotent. It means it had know-how and resources. — Qwex

This post really doesnt help.

I understand that you don't mean god as depicted in the holy scriptures but arguing for the existence of a creator on the lines that there exists events that we cannot understand or explain is futile.


Strangeness implies we are yet to learn the ways of the universe and nothing more.

To be clear, I dont claim that a creator does not exist, all I am saying is that strangeness cannot be seen even as a faint indication of an external being, be it an omnipotent god or an indifferent creator.

Yeah but you assumed I posit that this person is sat there as the moderator or something when all I'm suggesting is it's the catalyst.

It's not a higher power in so much as a builder is a higher power at building.

I think you're wrong about strangeness but I agree my explanation is insufficent, I'll change that soon.

Yeah but you assumed I posit that this person is sat there as the moderator or something when all I'm suggesting is he's the catalyst. — Qwex

I am sorry if I did so, could you point out where so I could perhaps rectify. Besides the analogy should still hold. The chimps attribute the flow to an intelligent creature that started it and it has continued ever since. However, this intelligent creature turns out to be an all knowing mountain.

processes need to be sustained by some higher power in the absence of

When I made the OP, I had a small glimpse of a big idea, yes I need to perfect the OP with more information. I'll come back at a later date with a lot of thought put into it. Where I'm stuck is the specific meaning of strangeness I had at the time.

What's stopping things from happening when, per se, power such as a universe exists? What's to stop a much simpler world from manifesting? — Qwex

That was because I assumed here that you meant that strange processes must be caused and sustained by a creator without which they cannot exist.

I apologise, but I dont think that makes any difference to my argument here that strangeness is no indication of a creator

When I made the OP I had a small glimpse of a big idea, yes I need to perfect the OP with more information. I'll come back at a later date with a lot of thought put into it. — Qwex

Please do try. It would fascinating to see this idea being developed. However, you would have to try to look from beyond the human persepctive and see things objectively. When you do, you find that there is nothing strange, nor beautiful at all. Those are merely objects of human perceptions and cannot be used to objectively argue for a creator.

Where I'm stuck is the specific meaning of strangeness I had at the time. — Qwex

I would think that the strangeness you speak of is simply that which we cannot explain. I don't think strangeness can be defined objectively i.e such that is holds for an hypothetical creature way smarter than us.

Complexity perhaps can offer little hope as things might just be objectively complex given we use a suitable defination for complexity. But I think even that is a futile endeavour.

I'm going to need to think before I reply to this.

I had thought strangeness was more shallow than it is, in fact it's much deeper than first thought. I've got to think it through.

My guess, for now, is that you too have shallow understanding of something deep. What is your understanding of strangeness(lightning, etc)? If I could sum it up I probably could contest you.

Give me a few hours.

I was conceiving strangeness cohesively, so much so a layer was projected in my mind. I thought, does X strange layered on the non-strange point to more existences. Was there this much strange at the time before the universe? Is nothing this strange?

So there's nothing right? You think nothing can happen now, but all evidence suggests something, bar the phenomenon of death. The nothing that exists out of our universe cannot be something. And strangeness isn't our only link?

Things are just the energy side of the matter- simple logic.

Deep down, wouldn't the worst hell be nothing? You'll never be jealous of those who see again?!

Asking why is again implying that evolution must have a purpose or a direction Why not have two ways of doing so? — StarsFromMemory

You would have to support your argument with the exclusive virtues of survival, purposelessness, randomness and chance, to say the least.

Accordingly, mathematics then becomes redundant since it is not needed for anything, as it specifically relates to that Darwinian criteria. We don't need it to survive.

Then, of course, add art, music, philosophy, wonderment, love, the will, and all other related features of self-awareness from consciousness, that are also beyond logical existence as it were(subconsciousness/un-consciousness) or unexplained phenomena. The evidence points to something beyond said criteria.

Ultimately, maybe then, this simple judgement rears its ugly head again here: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? Is that statement an axiom for scientific discovery? Why should you care to explore its tenants? Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it?

Thoughts?

I guess it's about numbers, someone had accumulated enough numbers to determine at least the distance away from big event.

I imagine the resource was noxious clouds that formed a clean cloud, donut shaped, that reacted massively with rock and weight in some kind of chemically infused noxious element. A purer elemental trick.

How energy can be converted, potential new technology here. More art. That's where you find new matter.

You would have to support your argument with the exclusive virtues of survival, purposelessness, randomness and chance, to say the least.

Accordingly, mathematics then becomes redundant since it is not needed for anything, as it specifically relates to that Darwinian criteria. We don't need it to survive.

Then, of course, add art, music, philosophy, wonderment, love, the will, and all other related features of self-awareness from consciousness, that are also beyond logical existence as it were(subconsciousness/un-consciousness) or unexplained phenomena. The evidence points to something beyond said criteria. — 3017amen

Support what argument? It is well proven that traits can evolve from mechanisms other than natural selection.

Mathematics does not become redundant. Mathematics is an incredibly useful tool. It is generally very hard to discuss reasons for evolution of traits since the details and specifics of the conditions long ago are not very well know. It is not enough to say that maths is not needed for survival in the jungle and hence it couldn't have evolved.

Like I said, it is hard to pin point exact reasons but surely I could find a couple uses of maths in ancient times. I suppose the ability to count would confer an advantage to a group or tribe of humans in keeping track of members. Ability to count would also help early settlers to keep track of cattle.

Thus it is not wise to assume that maths didn't provide an advantage. However, the maths you are refering to is perhaps abstract maths. Stuff like linear algebra and number theory which have relatively less practical applications. However, like I said, these naturally developed once human intelligence did.

Regarding art and music, like Alan pointed out, these also conferred a survival advantage by helping groups bond together.


The argument then essentially boils down to evolution of intelligence and more importantly that of consciousness. Why do you assume that consciousness is beyond logic? Why is philosophy, love and a sense of wonder beyond logic? It is just because we haven't understood them fully yet?

Time has no beginning so the universe couldn’t have been created. Creation happens in time but before time nothing is all that is possible.

The big bang was the beginning, the universe is at most offset in a multi-verse.

It is a 'thrown' phenomenon. Time lest not be nothing at the time. More like something, then. If it always is.

A type of space was probably around before the big bang, true or false? If false, then what about a more accurately defined higher energy species? What's it false on account on, potential logic?

You're saying cannot at a time where they statistically can.

What logic could have existed prior? Is a more modern philosophy.

The dimensions and shapes learned through these lessons are quintessential for any serious progress to be made technologically.

A good technology, a sensory tracker TV that shifts and exploits sense to create intensely pleasurable games and programs.

Another technology is a quantum computer where quantum is more about the mechanics, it doesn't require energy because the shape is centred around capturing energy in a certain way - it produces random motion in current as it computes. It does require battery energy but not energy beyond shape.

Time has no beginning so the universe couldn’t have been created. Creation happens in time but before time nothing is all that is possible. — Leviosa

Just goes to show how hard it is to even ask the right question when we talk about such topics. Is it correct to talk about 'creation' of universe? Because the universe has always existed. It has been there since the start of time and will be there till the end of it. When was it ,then, created?

Does create even have meaning that is time independant?