Creation of the Universe

>this is what heathens actually believe

Other urls found in this thread:

standard.co.uk/news/world/the-universe-should-not-exist-matter-and-antimatter-explosion-a3667246.html
sciencealert.com/physicists-find-no-sign-of-the-particle-that-made-the-universe-explode
simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger
plus.maths.org/content/physics-minute-double-slit-experiment-0
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number
youtu.be/XTeJ64KD5cg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>implying the answer cant be a combo of the big bang and god

>he believes in anything but himself

>implying god didnt spend time playing around with the mechanics of our plane of existence before he created us

Pic related

GO AWAY, BATIN

Hello, /sci/ fag here.

It has always been widely accepted that the fact that we (conscious beings) and the universe exist at all is a miracle and a marvel.

Now, the rabbit hole deepens...

>'The universe should not exist':
>"World-leading scientists claim Big Bang should have destroyed us"
standard.co.uk/news/world/the-universe-should-not-exist-matter-and-antimatter-explosion-a3667246.html

>'Physicists Find No Sign of The Particle That Made The Universe Explode':
>"A recent attempt to find a theoretical particle responsible for the Universe's early rapid expansion has come up empty handed, throwing a question mark over whether it really exists."

sciencealert.com/physicists-find-no-sign-of-the-particle-that-made-the-universe-explode

Electric Universe.

why do they work with the hypotesis that there was a "primordial particle"

I thought it was meant to be the impat of two universes in the multiv.

A Belgian Catholic priest came up with the Big Bang Theory

The multiverse theory is starting to pick up momentum amongst some scientists. The theory itself, is not laughed at ((as much)) as before. To me, it seems completely plausible, especially if you also adopt the concept that the past/present/future all exist simultaneously. Both ideas are also compatible with the 'Quantum Immortality' theory.

With all the above considered, I remember once reading how the universe and conciousnes are 'Ying & Yang' (so to speak) and neither should exist without the other (I apologise, I can't remember the name of this theory or author).

To summarise;
>Creation itself is a much much much more fascinating miracle than previously thought as cation SHOULD'VE been destroyed instaneously in the beginning.
>There's a single theorised particle that may exist, responsibe for creation but we cannot find it.
>Consciousness may be universal and after an individual's death, continues on through the multiverse theory/simultaneous time periods theory.

I've put this in layman's terms as best as possible. This, with a little more individual research, may help Nihilist/Atheist fags who have a depressive affliction with Death and non-existence.

Atheist: The Universe has no creator, it's eternal, 'self-created' and contains everything from the beginning to the end.
Believer: Hah, ridiculous bullshit.

Believer: God has no creator, he's eternal, 'self-created' and contains everything from the alpha to the omega.
Atheist: Hah, ridiculous bullshit.

Explain

saved

god I love the intanets

>'Quantum Immortality' theory.
explain

I made the thread just to post that, desu
still the big bang is probably bullshit

>god made everything from nothing
>god made the big bang to start a freshly new playground for his creations
>even our DNA code points towards a intelligent design
>everything in the universe needs to be meticulously well placed to allow life
>here we are
Convinced god is here.....but which one is it?

God made the big bang happen

s p o i l e r a l e r t

we are exist inside gods computer

>we are exist
yeah but who was phone

Universe=God

This coincides with the theory that the universe is a literal hologram, a theory that is widely respected in science circles. It does however contradict my theories.

Either way, science is finally catching up with other religions; afterlife may very well exist (current theories are in their infancy) and perhaps even God himself (far less accepted than the prior)

Bog Bang is a theory developed by a priest, and suggests the existence of a creator

Im totally ok with simulation theory, i like how it bridges science & religion. A lot of people like to shut it down with matrix jokes and things like that, but from I've read its actually believable.

>the universe is a literal hologram, a theory that is widely respected in science circles

It is not, it is a highly controversial theory even among string theorists, which again is a highly controversial field of study among physics

>especially if you also adopt the concept that the past/present/future all exist simultaneously.
As far as I'm aware the fact that time is a dimension suggests this is at least true about past and present. The interesting question is then why our conscioussness exists in a single moving point.

Sure! No problem, my Israeli frind.

Quantum Immortality is an idea in which it is put forward that the consciousness stays alive even though the conscious being dies. For example, someone sets off a bomb beside the victim, that victim survives in an alternate universe by being injured but living, or by the bomb not blowing up. However, in the original universe, the victim "dies" in the blast. The consciousness continues to exist in another, perhaps many alternate universes. This is related to the thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat (pic related).

>Link to Schrödinger's cat theory/experiment (aparently, the madman actually tested his theory):
simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

"user, who the flying fuckitty fuck is this Schrödinger dude??"

> Erwin Schrödinger is a Nobel prize winning Physicist. Very well respected. See link:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger

To me, it is a plausible theory. Which, as I've said previously in thread (& )
, can coincide with other scientific theories/facts.

Tell me where these extra universes are user.

I think atheists and catholics are fucking delusional in my opinion.

A sane person would accept scientific fact, explore theories and be open-minded at the possible of a single person's consciousness continuing after physical death.

Atheist scientists are obnoxious and won't even entertain exploring the matter.

The difference being that you can't deny the universe's existence without sounding like a complete retard

Give me a for and against argument for your comment.

You'll find you'll be able to give me both.

Yes, there's people who question it and are sceptica,l but on the opposite there's also people theorising and trying to proof it. My point stands; it is an accepted theory within science circles. (But contested).

If you read my post, I did say that it contradicts my beliefs and theories. Therefore, I don't particular follow the Holographic Universe theory.

They exist as possibilities. You only see you the universe you are in because thats the one you are in. If you were in a different one then you would see that one instead.

Anytime anything happens, all possibilities for that happening are realized in some universe. If a particle shits out an electron in one direction, there is a universe in which this occurs. If it shits out the electron in the other direction, there is another universe where this occurs instead.

The idea is that your consciousness tends to follow a path through the multiverse where it continues to exist. If you put a gun to your head, it is overwhelmingly likely that you'll die, and you will indeed die in most possible universes. Since you are dead in this universes, you don't experience them. However, there is a possibility for you to survive: the gun jams, etc. You are able to experience this possibility, and by necessity you will experience it. Basically, its impossible to die since you will be forced to experience the scenario in which you don't die. You will continue to survive and larger and larger odds for eternity.

...

>>'Physicists Find No Sign of The Particle That Made The Universe Explode':
Wow, what a shock. Next thing you know, they will tell you that they can't prove the universe just popped out of nowhere.

...

So you have no clue. Cut the hippie bullshit until you have a testable hypothesis.

So we godhead now?

Suck my balls faggot

Go watch some more BBT or rick and morty you new age retard

Well this guy sums it up.

So, with each universe, you'll have particles (much like our "current" universe). However, in the Double Slit Experiment, it seems particles react differently when observed.

plus.maths.org/content/physics-minute-double-slit-experiment-0

So, this is plausible for our current universe if we forget the multiverse a second. Creation exists through an observer (conscious). Now, my theory is that all universes in the multiverse existing simultaneously as well as time (past, present and future), when the physical body that broadcasts your consciousness in this universes dies, it observes another universe similar to the last but slightly miniscule (the amount of universes are infinite and this ties in with shrodingers car and quantum immortality). Consciousness continues on infinitely to observe creation itself and particles to interact.

Guys bear with me. I'm phone posting and trying to cook dinner at the same time.

It is very simple, string theory requires you to make the assumption that the topology of the universe is n-dimensional in nature.

Any theory that follows a string theory model will therefor suffer from the same criticism that string theory does.

I did not say it was not acceptable, I just said that it was wrong to say it is widely respected in the scientific community. It is an extremely narrow field of study, that most people who are physicists do not get into because it is extremely theoretical even for theoretical physics. You have to be a big brain like Shenker or else you will never be given the time to study something that involves zero experimentation.

>Creation exists through an observer (conscious)

QM has nothing to do with consciousness.
Physical observation is not consciousness.
Physical laws do not depend on whether a conscious being is present or not.

except that we know that the universe operates under cause and effect. Causality is BUIILT INTO the universe.
That being the case, how could the universe have "always existed", given that the universe must have a cause?

God is under no such requirement, being OUTSIDE the universe.

atheists BTFO

How do you know that physical laws do not depend on a conscious observer?

If there were no conscious observers then who would be around to verify the validity of physical laws?

You really should try to find some testable hypotheses instead of just making stuff up.

Reminder that bandwagon newfags will continue to make shit worse for everyone.

You are the one making this claim. Burden of proof is on you.

The universe was just kinda always here
It’s whole deal is that it exists
absolute nothing is a punchline to a bad joke

Well, consciousness is the most logical point of collapse. The dual split experiment is even more interesting when you realize that the entire testing apparatus is made up of particles that exist at the quantum level. In fact, everything exists from particles at the quantum level. Yet everything collapses under observation except for that which isn't observed. The Heisenberg Cut still isn't definitively known but it's probably consciousness.

bruh

I believe it's quite the opposite. QM itself exists because of conscious observation.

Nice.

>. However, in the Double Slit Experiment, it seems particles react differently when observed.

No they do not, the double-split meme is interesting for other reasons but people seem to think that it is interesting because of the 'observer effect'.

What is happening in reality is that measurement of a system, even of a simple photon, will interfere with the system regardless of what kind of measurement tool you use. It is simply impossible to measure something without interfering with what you are measuring.

This.

I absolutely agree. It's quite easy to say "Oh no no no. That's wrong!" But at leaSt back it up with a testable and tangible hypothesis.

The wavefunction collapses because in order to detect which slit the particle travels through it has to interact with another particle (photons). This interaction is what collapses the wavefunction, not the fact that you are standing besides looking at your detector. This is basic intro level QM. Have you finished high school?

You need to stop with the weed and graduate from high school.

>Implying the origins of the universe are not a complete mystery to all of us
>Implying that they won't always be

Another "muh burden of proof" prick!

You are engaging in a debate, in which you are also making counter claims against our. I think therefore, the burden of proof should be shared with you. Please, pass the ketchup?

isnt the multi universe meme a proff that God exist?

You are claiming that consciousness alters physical laws. Please tell me which laws are changed and how.

Well I can't argue with quad 7!

>The wavefunction collapses because in order to detect which slit the particle travels through it has to interact with another particle (photons).
Okay, and considering that photons exist at the quantum level, why is it that those photons collapse at all? What about the source of the photons? Why did that collapse in the first place? I think you don't understand the whole controversy over the Heisenberg Cut and why it's important.

>Heisenberg Cut
>hypothetical interface between quantum events and an observer's information

OK... I'm with you...

The difference being, one is an anthropomorphic metaphor for the other.

Ok at this point you are probably just trolling.

But you are the claimant, it's your burden of proof.

Possibly? I mean it definitely points to conciousnes surviving and continuing after death.

I'm not too focused on proving (whether to myself or some Swedish gaytheist user who's mad at the world because his wife is fucking Jamal) whether God exists, I'm more interested in the continuation of consciousness through the many plausible scientific hypothesis that is out there.

Is that your excuse for not being able to answer? The Many-Worlds interpretation gets around this problem by speculating that the wave function never collapses, but that the universe splits. But if you accept that the wave function collapses at all, the Heisenberg Cut is something you have to take into account.

It's settled then.

I guess I will give my two cents on this, too. If there is no such thing as some form of creation that was initiated to jumpstart the universe, then either it has always existed and has no beginning or/and end, or it existed but in a way that we could not observe currently.
It could be possible that this was created in this way, but we know as much about the origins of this alleged creation as we do about how life on earth was first formed. So we cannot say that there is, 100%, no such thing as some creative force in the mix, or that there was, but that in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the introduction of some form of deity of creation is highly implausible, so although we cannot prove it for sure, it's safe to say that it is unlikely.
But this begs the question: if these things were not officially created by some deity, then have they always existed? Is anything ever created, or has it always simply been? Doesn't that mean the Universe must be infinite?

Thread finished.

Kek has decided I'm right and the afterlife and continuation of conscious exists!!

Swedish gaytheist BTFO.

Thread complete.

I do not have any stakes in whether many-worlds is correct or not. What bothers me is high school faggots pushing untestable shit they don't have any clue about by misunderstanding basic physics,

>Doesn't that mean the Universe must be infinite?

No.

But then also yes.

The universe will eventual

Fact: given enough time, hydrogen becomes self aware and begins to observe the Universe. You are proof.

I had an epiphany as I experienced Deja vu yesterday. I realized this universe is just one among many. It's all happened before and I'm just playing it out again. There are also infinite different universes with infinite possibilities. There are countless versions of myself living through life in different ways. It felt like I was seeing myself from outside of my body. Like a denationalization and derealization event. For a moment I left my ego behind and was able to see behind the curtains. It was humbling but incredibly beautiful. The existence of reality itself.

But if there is no origin, what does that mean? The universe exists for us, we can observe and examine it. I won't get into the whole 'what is true/exists', let the philosophers circlejerk how much they can deconstruct things, I think it's a secondary stance.
But the conclusion is that it must not have a beginning or an end, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is one of the general concepts of infinity. That would logically follow if there is no origin but it does exist in some sense (that we can observe it). The universe doesn't have to be logical, though.

It all came from the darkness.

Your perverse God has been used to enslave the weak for to long.

>Prepare your anus christcuck

> #
>Doesn't that mean the Universe must be infinite?

No.

But then also yes.

The universe will eventually diminish to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that increase entropy.
(((Basically heat death of the universe)))

However, if you believe in graham's number aka the longest number/time, then it's literally the universe will exist again at some point after a heat death.

See here

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

And here

youtu.be/XTeJ64KD5cg

It's a beautiful idea.

>No.
>But then also yes.
That's the illogical portion of it. How can it be the two things at the same time.
>The universe will eventually diminish to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that increase entropy.
>(((Basically heat death of the universe)))
Who cares, simply because the universe is inhabitable to life as we know it does not mean that it will not exist. It isn't a 'death', the universe is not alive in any way. It could damage many processes, but it would still exist somehow.
>then it's literally the universe will exist again at some point after a heat death.
Yeah, there's that, too. That could be our circumstance right now.

Please see .. I kinda fucked up the post first time round.

The youtube video I just linked sums it up perfectly.

WE WUZ NOTHING AND SHIIIEET!

I've already watched it, I am subbed to Numberphile already.

The universe is not created. It always exists.

Yeah so basically. The universe will always exist, Graham's magic number coupled with the rules of probability would suggest if the big bang happened once, then it can happen again after heat death of this current universe a gorrillion years from now. Its not impossible. Nor would it be impossible for the universe's Big Bang #2: Cosmic Boogaloo to create life once more.

Verdict??

Because you keept putting Time into the equation.
Time was the very last physical law ''implemented'' on the Universe. We know the Universe was all energy and mass constituting it right now concentrated in one tridimensionnal point, ever on the verge of actually destabilizing and exploding. That's the point. The Universe ALWAYS exploded and is always exploding and will ALWAYS explode, because even if Time actually weakens and die, the tridimensional picture will still remain, because otherwise we'd go back BEFORE or AFTER Time, and that is illogical. Imagine a tesseract gif which you've stopped two times with an interval between the two, never to touch them again. That's the Universe. While the tesseract is SUPPOSED to be moving in those two stops, it isn't: it just stays there, ever suspended in tridimensionnal space.

Then the Universe is infinite if it will always come to be and has no absolute 'origin' (a point where there was 'no universe').
On what? It's true, what can I say.
>That's the point. The Universe ALWAYS exploded and is always exploding and will ALWAYS explode
Then there is no actual 'origin' point. Wouldn't that mean that it is infinite, by definition?
>limitless or endless in space, extent, or size
I am simply saying that the absence of a limit extends to the lack of an origin, too.

Very plausible.

Go back to my comment on Graham's number, if the big bang happened before - it could happen again, maybe even happened an infinite amount of times before that (and this is just one universe out of an infinite number of universes within the multiverse and the multiverse itself is infinite and might be a particle within a grain of salt within a beach on an island on a planet, part of a solar system part of a galaxy, part of a universe which is part of a multiverse. )

It increasingly looks like space kikes' whole deal is referring to an increasingly self-referential system of lies.

Yes, the Universe IS infinite, and any retard actually pretending the contrary is a contrarian.
The Universe IS, and there is NOTHING, BY DEFINITION, that ISN'T.
Read Parmenide, even the Ancient Greeks two milleniums and a half ago understood that principle.

everytime i do something stupid or drive dream while driving or stuff with an shock moment i think..
>> damn i just died in some parallel universes"

u stupid the universe is finite and expanding READ PARMENIDES HE WUZ RIGHT DURRR

Great, then we agree.

Top fucking Kek

depends on how you see it. if you see it logical there is a "NOT IS" behind the IS. Every information contains the information of its negation. So even the NOT IS contains the IS therefore NOT is and IS are both a part of a polarity pair.

Fuck this... I'ma smoke a joint and get back to you...

The Universe is still only a tridimensional point, you know.
It's just that the matter/energy inside actually organized with more complexity.
The Universe is infinite and unchanging. Only Time make it seem as it was. The quantity of matter and energy in the Universe is set. The perfect system. And absolutely infinite in Reality (Read : EVRYTHING), since it's the only thing that is.

May I ask what religion do you follow? Or spirituality?

The universe wasn't created and it didn't "start". It just exists because that is it's nature. If the universe didn't exist then it wouldn't be the universe.
You need to understand that it is static and that time is only a dimension.
The fourth dimensional reality is like a big, infinite, solid foam.
The impossibility of infinite space being reached necessitates a time dimension, so that spatial infinity can be manifested through exponential expansion.

The big bang and the expansion of the universe are only the physical manifestation of mathematical infinity.

But nothing is really ever empty. The Glass always has some water in it, whether you recognize the quantity in it as EMPTY. Emptiness, and because of that, ''NOTHING'' is only an illusion, a categorization created by an effectively limited mind.
Let's say you take a chair. The chair is formed of atoms. These atoms are made of particles, and even if you remove the chair, some elemental particles of that chair will stay at the spot which it has occupied, while the majority of them will just be moved.
Apply this to Reality, now. Let's say you actually find a border to the Universe. You go outside. What happens? You bring the particles constituting you and your surrounding apparatus and everything else attached to you with you. Therefore, you expanded the Universe; you never went outside, simply because there is no outside.

I believe in the infinite continuation of consciousness.

But what would happen if you should die because you're too old ? Does our consciousness flee to an universe where we're immortal ? Is there a universe where I rule over the world ?
Pretty chilling to think about all that