Why this universe ? Toward a taxonomy of possible explanations.

c.dric · 06-28-2007

Very interesting article from Skeptic mag, referencing possible explanations for the existence of this universe. One and Multi universe models, nonphysical causes (theistic, pantheistic, spiritual, ...) and illusions (matrix, solipsism, ...).

Download (PDF) : http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/...c13-2_Kuhn.pdf

Quote:

One of the knottiest problems in all of cosmology (with deep implications for theology and metaphysics) is why our universe is structured the way it is and what that particular configuration of laws and constants of nature means. As you will see in reading this brilliant summation and classification of the numerous answers to the question — “Why This Universe?” — there are many well-thought out answers but little consensus among the experts about which one is the most likely to be true. Here we see science on the borderlands between, say, physics and metaphysics, between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation.

yaaarrrgg · 06-28-2007

That's an interesting article... I wonder the same thing.

Also, Buddhism has another answer to the question that I didn't see in the article (probably closest to answer 1.1).

Buddhism often rejects dualistic logic... the idea that we can talk about X and not-X, or partition a set of objects/properties into two distinct groups. Arguably, reality itself does not contain these kinds of distinctions, we insert them in our *analysis* of reality.

The idea of 'nothingness' is a negative concept; it's the negation of what we are familiar with:

nothingness == not-somethingness

So what's weird, rejecting dualistic logic, both concepts collapse to a single thing, and 'nothingness == existence' is true. In general, X == not-X.

Not that I agree entirely with the answer, but it's one of the most unusual answers I've heard.

c.dric · 06-28-2007

i found this one quite stunning :

Quote:

4.2 Simulation in Actual Reality.

We exist merely or marginally in someone’s or some-thing’s simulation, in an artificial world that actually exists in terms of having physical particles and forces and galaxies and stars, but that entirety is not what it seems because that entirety is derivative not original. Andre Linde analyzes “baby universe formation” and then asks, “Does this mean that our universe was created not by a divine design but by a physicist hacker?”

Paul Davies speaks of “fake universes,” and of those beings who created them as “false gods;” and he ponders that if multiple universes really exist, the great majority of them may be fakes because some of them (there are so many) would have spawned, at some time or another, unthinkably superior beings who would have had the capacity to create these fake universes and once they could have done so they would have done so, creating immensely many fake universes and thereby swamping the real ones.

metaphor- · 06-28-2007

yikes, i think we have all at some point pondered, Is this the matrix? did the machines pull a double fake and create movies to throw us off??

Jasper84 · 06-28-2007

@c.dric: ye that one is stunning, that might mean that universes might be very arbitrary; meaning that there is not meaning to this specific one. Some of the other hypothesis said similar.
This is rather a hard thread to reply to in a productive manner. I do think that some of the 'cyclic in time' multiverse thingies seem to ignore that arbitrariness is in the special property of time itself. (in general relativity it stems from the rotational symmetry of the 'spatial dimensions')

c.dric · 06-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

yikes, i think we have all at some point pondered, Is this the matrix? did the machines pull a double fake and create movies to throw us off??

are you referring to my post on 'Simulation in Actual Reality' ?
if so, it's not comparable to the matrix, we would make the movies ourselves like we're doing now ...

for a matrix style explanation, you should check 4.3 Simulation in Virtual Reality on the PDF.

metaphor- · 06-28-2007

yes i was.

If humans could create a virtual world would you assimilate into it? would you say "Plug me in scotty!" I think it would be interesting, until some hacker on a powertrip changes everything and we all end up as balls in a large confused vitual game of pong...

c.dric · 06-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

yes i was.

If humans could create a virtual world would you assimilate into it? would you say "Plug me in scotty!" I think it would be interesting, until some hacker on a powertrip changes everything and we all end up as balls in a large confused vitual game of pong...

well, we have second life already ... and i'm not a big fan ... i log in once every six months to see how it evolves (and how it works on linux)

seisen · 06-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by c.dric

well, we have second life already ... and i'm not a big fan ... i log in once every six months to see how it evolves (and how it works on linux)

Second Life has taken off to the point where corporations are selling goods on their now and people are spending real money on their also.

yaaarrrgg · 06-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by seisen

Second Life has taken off to the point where corporations are selling goods on their now and people are spending real money on their also.

Yeah, that's pretty weird. I saw an article about people buying and selling "virtual" real estate.

USATODAY.com - Virtual real estate boom draws real dollars

c.dric · 07-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper84

I do think that some of the 'cyclic in time' multiverse thingies seem to ignore that arbitrariness is in the special property of time itself. (in general relativity it stems from the rotational symmetry of the 'spatial dimensions')

Seed Mag just published an detailed article on cyclic universe :
Seed: A Cyclic Universe

Quote:

(...) Recently, though, a small but growing number of theorists have begun to challenge this conventional belief and to pursue a radical new history of the universe. According to this new idea, there was a big bang, but this was not the beginning of space and time. In fact, in the version proposed by Neil Turok and myself, the big bang has occurred myriad times in our universe's past, repeating at regular intervals during which galaxies, stars, planets, and life form anew. The result is a "cyclic universe" in which cycles extend far into the past and into the future—and perhaps forever. (...)

getaceres · 07-05-2007

An interesting theory of a cyclic universe that also deals with randomness:

Bad Astronomy Blog » What happened before the Big Bang?

06-28-2007	#2 (permalink)
yaaarrrgg Eligible for a custom title Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indiana, USA Posts: 750	Re: Why this universe ? Toward a taxonomy of possible explanations. That's an interesting article... I wonder the same thing. Also, Buddhism has another answer to the question that I didn't see in the article (probably closest to answer 1.1). Buddhism often rejects dualistic logic... the idea that we can talk about X and not-X, or partition a set of objects/properties into two distinct groups. Arguably, reality itself does not contain these kinds of distinctions, we insert them in our analysis of reality. The idea of 'nothingness' is a negative concept; it's the negation of what we are familiar with: nothingness == not-somethingness So what's weird, rejecting dualistic logic, both concepts collapse to a single thing, and 'nothingness == existence' is true. In general, X == not-X. Not that I agree entirely with the answer, but it's one of the most unusual answers I've heard. Last edited by yaaarrrgg : 06-28-2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason: can't spell :)

06-28-2007	#4 (permalink)
metaphor- Sith Lord on Steroids. Join Date: May 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 295	Re: Why this universe ? Toward a taxonomy of possible explanations. yikes, i think we have all at some point pondered, Is this the matrix? did the machines pull a double fake and create movies to throw us off??
	guinness: easy to pour and sweet as a nut!

06-28-2007	#5 (permalink)
Jasper84 under construction Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands Posts: 593	Re: Why this universe ? Toward a taxonomy of possible explanations. @c.dric: ye that one is stunning, that might mean that universes might be very arbitrary; meaning that there is not meaning to this specific one. Some of the other hypothesis said similar. This is rather a hard thread to reply to in a productive manner. I do think that some of the 'cyclic in time' multiverse thingies seem to ignore that arbitrariness is in the special property of time itself. (in general relativity it stems from the rotational symmetry of the 'spatial dimensions')

06-28-2007	#7 (permalink)
metaphor- Sith Lord on Steroids. Join Date: May 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 295	Re: Why this universe ? Toward a taxonomy of possible explanations. yes i was. If humans could create a virtual world would you assimilate into it? would you say "Plug me in scotty!" I think it would be interesting, until some hacker on a powertrip changes everything and we all end up as balls in a large confused vitual game of pong...
	guinness: easy to pour and sweet as a nut!

07-05-2007	#12 (permalink)
getaceres Interested participant Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 24	Re: Why this universe ? Toward a taxonomy of possible explanations. An interesting theory of a cyclic universe that also deals with randomness: Bad Astronomy Blog » What happened before the Big Bang?