Creation of the Universe Theories

[Renrag39]

I think this is the crux chesters. Theories regarding the creation of the universe will not affect us. However the maths used to prove it may well be used to the benefit of mankind. Regardless, the knowledge gained is worth more than money spent on it (IMO).

Global warming however IS affecting us and the subsequent penalties levied against the general populace are based on theories that are unproven and this isn't right.

 

I had something else to say but it went... Bugger thats annoying!!!

 

Renrag

[ColinW]

Proving something is true is incredibly difficult.

 

A mathematician called Fermat stated in 1637 that he could prove that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than two. Now how simple is that? No global warming or biological complexity just schoolboy standard algebra. It was 1995, 358 years later before someone managed to prove what became known as Fermat's last theorem again, despite some of the greatest mathematicians in the world spending years trying to do it.

 

Disproving something is easy in comparison. If the theorem hadn't been true, then the mathematicians would have only had to use computers to find one example of numbers that satisifed the equation and that's it, disproved.

However, you could use computers to generate billions of combinations of numbers that didn't satisfy the equation and still have proved nothing.

[Austin]

I'm impressed you've managed to go from theroies on the creation of the universe to global warming in a fairly short space thats quite a reduction in lightyears.

 

I would suggest that the majority of people theorise on things they don't realise virtually daily, for instance an "educated guess" can be perceived as a theory as you are basing it on known facts. For instance if you calculate the area of a circle its not 100% accurate but its fairly close that doesn't mean that when you go to buy new tyres you can accuse the tyre fitter of selling you the wrong sized tyre based on the manufacturers calculations at the point of the creation of the moulds. Without theories there would be no new discoveries made. However i digress.

 

The first law of thermodymanics is the conservation of energy which states energy can never be created or destroyed, only changed in state. Assuming that the totality of the universe is an isolated system then there can only be so much energy available within that system

 

The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) means that any subsystems within the totality of the universe when interacting with each other are trying to reach a stable state or equilibrium

 

To me this means that if there is still energy being exchanged in the system then the initial reaction from the stable state then something such as a phase shift must have started (or restarted) this process therefore the big bang theory still holds water.

 

This thread has perked my interest to go and revisit some of the things i enjoyed reading a good few years ago now and the good thing about theories is they will all have changed or have been refined as more and more information and methods of measurement have been discovered.

 

On the other hand if its the creationism thing that you believe I have two questions

 

1 Can you ask god for the rib back

2 what are you going to do if the jews are right

[The Flying Tench]

How do you work that one out Jon?

I was hoping you'd make a post on this thread. I was dying to see what a real clergyman thought about this post.

I assume you mean 'about this thread'. Well it's got too diffuse and long in my view, so I'm not reading it all.

 

But as to why I think how the universe came to be is not a scientific question, here goes.

 

First, a matter of definition. As I understand it 'universe' is used by physicists in 2 ways:

 

a) everything that exists. Or rather, let's say everything physical that exists

everything that has come, for example, from the 'big bang'; on this definition there can be more than one universe.

 

When I say that how/why the universe came to exist is not a scientific question I am speaking of 'universe' in sense a) - as renrag has effectively pointed out.

 

So why is it not a scientific question? As I understand it the methodology of science is to observe what happens consistently, and as a result deduce scientific 'laws'. By definition this means what happens within the universe. How/why it came to exist is surely a different type of question.

 

I take the point that if, for example, it was proved that the universe was cyclic, and had no beginning or end, then it might be said to answer part of the question in that it didn't have a beginning. But that still doesn't answer the question of why it bothers to exist, why something rather than nothing.

[corydoras]

I assume you mean 'about this thread'. Well it's got too diffuse and long in my view, so I'm not reading it all.

 

But as to why I think how the universe came to be is not a scientific question, here goes.

 

First, a matter of definition. As I understand it 'universe' is used by physicists in 2 ways:

 

a) everything that exists. Or rather, let's say everything physical that exists

everything that has come, for example, from the 'big bang'; on this definition there can be more than one universe.

 

When I say that how/why the universe came to exist is not a scientific question I am speaking of 'universe' in sense a) - as renrag has effectively pointed out.

 

So why is it not a scientific question? As I understand it the methodology of science is to observe what happens consistently, and as a result deduce scientific 'laws'. By definition this means what happens within the universe. How/why it came to exist is surely a different type of question.

 

I take the point that if, for example, it was proved that the universe was cyclic, and had no beginning or end, then it might be said to answer part of the question in that it didn't have a beginning. But that still doesn't answer the question of why it bothers to exist, why something rather than nothing.

[corydoras]

But that still doesn't answer the question of why it bothers to exist, why something rather than nothing.

That to me is just a daft question. Asking "Why I am I here?" is like asking "What does the colour red smell like" or "What sound does the number 100 make?"

[Austin]

I dunno Cory its similar to a what purpose does it serve kind of question and opens up a whole new chapter of discussion on either intelligent design or evolution.

 

BTW the thermos flask keeps it hot keeps it cold, how does it know which one?

[corydoras]

I dunno Cory its similar to a what purpose does it serve kind of question and opens up a whole new chapter of discussion on either intelligent design or evolution.

 

BTW the thermos flask keeps it hot keeps it cold, how does it know which one?

Intelligent Design is Creationism by another name. I see no evidence for a Creator or of Intelligent Design. If the evolutionary clock were to be rewound and started anew the probability that Homo sapiens sapiens or any of the other species that we see on the planet today would evolve in their current form are slim indeed. This "Why are we here?" question is in my, opinion just a reflection of mankind's conceit. There is no 'evolutionary' ladder for us to be at the top of. We are here for the same reason a chimpanzee or a sea-cucumber is here.

 

A vacuum flask is an insulator. It insulates it's contents from the ambient temperature outside the flask. It doesn't 'know' anything. It's just physics.

[The Flying Tench]

That to me is just a daft question. Asking "Why I am I here?" is like asking "What does the colour red smell like" or "What sound does the number 100 make?"

 

You're missing the point, Cory. The phrase about the universe bothering to exist was a quote from Stephen Hawking who I think is a kind of rather open agnostic or maybe pantheist.

 

I take the point that the phrase 'Why am I here?' begs all sorts of questions, which I don't think is the same when you are talking about the universe. Rather than me argue it - and you're

bound to think I am pushing religion in some way - let me refer you to a discussion on what Hawking was getting at by Antony Flew. This is free of religion I do assure you! Infidels.org is an atheistic website, and Flew at that time (1998) was still an atheist, as well as being a respected philosopher.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ant...ew/hawking.html

[ColinW]

If the evolutionary clock were to be rewound and started anew the probability that Homo sapiens sapiens or any of the other species that we see on the planet today would evolve in their current form are slim indeed.

 

Don't be too sure about that! Look at this fossil of an ichthyosaur. This was swimming around in the sea at Lyme Regis 160 million years ago.

 

 

According to scientists, who know about this sort of thing , it's ancestors were land dwelling reptiles. This thing was hunting fish and squid (or their equivalents) 110 million years before our modern day dolphin's ancestors decided to take up swimming! What amazes me is how much the ichthyosaur looks like a dolphin, even under the skin, and yet it's not even from the same class, let alone species. It did the same things and evolution adapted it to the most suitable form, just like it did with the dolphin. It made them both end up looking like fish, even giving them both dorsal fins that seem to have sprouted from nowhere (neither has/had bones in this fin).

I think that whatever animal had evolved to "be us" in an alternative universe would look pretty much like we do. I can easily imagine bipedal reptiles catching the commuter train to work!