Why Does The Universe Exist?

[JirinPanthosa]

The reason there is something rather than nothing is probably unknowable. Maybe some day we'll be able to say "This is exactly what was there at the very beginning of the universe, and this is exactly what happened after and why". But it's unknowable why that first thing was there instead of not there.

Even if you believe in God and say that God put it there, you can't say why there is a God rather than no God. You can only say "There just is".

The very nature of science requires you to observe an effect and posit a cause. Therefore science can never find an effect with no cause.

The universe, however, simply does not find anything special about us.

 

[StarCruiser]

We're all floating 'round in God's eye...like a Mote maybe..?

 

[Dryson]

The reason there is something rather than nothing is probably unknowable. Maybe some day we'll be able to say "This is exactly what was there at the very beginning of the universe, and this is exactly what happened after and why". But it's unknowable why that first thing was there instead of not there.

1. Even if you believe in God and say that God put it there, you can't say why there is a God rather than no God. You can only say "There just is".

The very nature of science requires you to observe an effect and posit a cause. Therefore science can never find an effect with no cause.

2.The universe, however, simply does not find anything special about us.

1. There is no such thing as "It is what it is" which "There just is" is the same version of. Semantics that is an illusion before the mind of the lazy.

2. If the Universe has the ability to find anything special like you have stated then you are implying that the Universe itself is sentient. So why, if the Universe is sentient and created life, wouldn't the Universe find humanity interesting? This is a discussion and not an episode involving Q.

 

[Santaman]

Yeah yeah a bunch of stupid, agressive, greedy primates with nukes and a big mouth are interesting?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

What do you propose makes humans special, then? Your tone is getting rather derisive, not the right tone for a discussion.

The universe is not sentient. Life is molecules that can produce copies of themselves, intelligent life is molecules that got really good at it.

Suggesting that one’s self or one’s own kind is the most amazing spectacular thing in the entire giant universe to such an extent that the entire thing exists just for them is an exercise in ego.

 

[Skellington]

In related news, it appears that a Hawking Point may have been found in the CMB, which if verified would point to the observable universe having begun in a Big Bounce.

https://www.iflscience.com/space/dead-black-holes-may-suggest-this-is-not-the-first-universe/

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Amd, no, saying something is unknowable is not the same as saying ‘It is what it is.’ It’s just acknowledging limitations.

‘I think therefore I am special’ is not an argument. It’s essentially biological narcissism. It is a statement designed to make us feel special in a way without any conditions to be proven or disproven.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

In related news, it appears that a Hawking Point may have been found in the CMB, which if verified would point to the observable universe having begun in a Big Bounce.

https://www.iflscience.com/space/dead-black-holes-may-suggest-this-is-not-the-first-universe/

Not quite, conformal cyclic cosmology doesn't require a big crunch, just a conformal rescaling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

In other news, physicists at CERN are on the lookout for a new particle (a variant of the previously proposed axion called the flaxion or the axiflavon - the name is still in flux) that might clear up several outstanding mysteries in physics:

• Charge-parity (CP) symmetry in strong force interactions
• The wide range of quark masses
• The inflationary era of the universe during the Big Bang
• The origin and nature of dark matter
• The light mass of the Higgs boson

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-could-solve-five-mega-mysteries-of-physics/ (behind a paywall, unfortunately)

The Axiflavon:

We show that solving the flavor problem of the Standard Model with a simple U(1)H flavor symmetry naturally leads to an axion that solves the strong CP problem and constitutes a viable Dark Matter candidate. In this framework, the ratio of the axion mass and its coupling to photons is related to the SM fermion masses and predicted within a small range, as a direct result of the observed hierarchies in quark and charged lepton masses. The same hierarchies determine the axion couplings to fermions, making the framework very predictive and experimentally testable by future axion and precision flavor experiments

https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08040
A Common Source For Scalars: Axiflavon-Higgs Unification:

We propose a unified model of scalar particles that addresses the flavour hierarchies, solves the strong CP problem, delivers a dark matter candidate, and provides the trigger for electroweak symmetry breaking [aka Higgs mechanism]. Besides furnishing a unification of the recently proposed axiflavon with a Goldstone-Higgs sector, the scenario can also be seen as adding a model of flavour (and strong CP conservation along with axion dark matter) to elementary Goldstone-Higgs setups. In particular, we derive bounds on the axion decay constant from the need to generate a SM-like Higgs potential at low energies, which we confront with constraints from flavour physics and cosmology. In the minimal implementation, we find that the axion decay constant is restricted to a thin stripe of fa ≈ (10^11 − 10^12) GeV, while adding right-handed neutrinos allows to realize a heavy-axion model
at lower energies, down to fa ∼ 10 TeV.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10156
Axiflavon Theory - CERN Indico:

• Axiflavon solves simultaneously several of the problems of the [standard model] within a very minimal and predictive model.
• Solution to flavor puzzle considerably restricts axion properties, [flavor-changing neutral currents] → axion = window to generation of flavor hierarchies.
• Complementary information from flavor, cosmology, axion searches: probing interesting parameter space in the future and potentially telling apart general axion solution from axiflavon.

https://indico.cern.ch/event/653347.../attachments/1529611/2393399/FGFlavorDark.pdf

 

[XCV330]

Yeah yeah a bunch of stupid, agressive, greedy primates with nukes and a big mouth are interesting?

If they are constantly improving and may eventually reach a point where they can build better universes of their own, sure

 

[Dryson]

Acknowledging limitations of the mind and the creation of the Universe is not being sentient.

Dreams are a living and breathing entity that do not have any mass. Yet the entity that we create in our dreams comes from objects with mass. Rocks, trees, the water, light, all have some form of mass. Our brain is able to convert the mass that we see on daily basis into mass less entities. Each dream being a daily reconnect to events that have taken place in our lives and then sometimes events that have not taken place at all.

How is it possible that the mind can convert an object or energy with mass into a mass less dimension inside of our minds?

Each object in a dream has to be comprised of the same mineral and elemental structures that the objects are comprised of in the real world. DNA and RNA would also have to be present in the flora and fauna and sentient beings that are represented in each dream. A dream wouldn’t exist if our minds did not know how to reconstruct each object and organic object if those patterns weren’t stored in our minds, somewhere. Our mind takes in the light of that world that we see. If all our mind did was store light in a dream then all we would see in our dreams are objects represented as light and not the actual object itself.

Since a dream is the storage data bank that exists without mass that stores the patterns to construct objects from light the human mind in a primordial state had to understand the patterns necessary to rearrange matter from the mass less into particles with mass.

The Higgs-Boson is thought to add mass to other particles that then allow construction of atoms and then the elements to take place. The state of the dream must exist somewhere right below the Higgs-Boson. Mass less yet able to motivate life to move mountains, to build a space station in space, to move a mountain across space. A mass less living entity able to distort and rearrange mass inside of the mind to then work the non dream environment into a reality.

If a dream is a mass less entity similar to the Higgs-Boson and can and does exist as a living state of matter comprised of DNA, RNA and elements then a dream would be able to pass into a black hole and be able to survive because it does not have mass. The dream would exist inside of the black hole pass to the core of the black hole where it then encounters the singularity of the black hole.

Any mass which crosses the event horizon will accelerate inwards toward the singularity. But a dream is mass less but still contains mass encoded in the dream itself.

Once at the singularity the dream would be able to re-arrange the singularity into the Big Bang where the causalities and effects stored within the dream such as the patterns needed for DNA, RNA and elemental composition would then structure the Big Bang in such a way to create life. Once the black hole dissipates the dream to Big Bang sequence would be complete thus creating a new Universe some place else.

Each dream that we might not understand passing through the singularity of a black hole that creates life. Life that starts out as an evolutionary ape and will then eventually evolve into the people that we see in our dreams. Their actions directed by an outside force that they are uncertain of where it is coming from or what it is exactly, but direction that has been given to them from our dreams to build the world that we have shown them in ours.

Humans mostly think of life and death as being organic based. A human is born lives for x amount of years and then dies. Humans rarely think about about the life and death of light. When light enters into a black hole it shifts into a different entity that cannot escape the pull of the black hole. The same thing happens when light enters through the human eye. It cannot escape but is converted into mass less objects that contain the patterns for life and the rearrangement of particles to create cause and effect, hence the Big Bang.

What was even more interesting is that after writing this I went up stairs and the t.v. was on. National Treasure, the part when John Voigt brushes the dust off of the amulet that reveals the eye and sun was playing. Give that I have a disability that slows my walking, it took me about a minute to get upstairs. Right before the show went to commercial break Nicholas Cage broke through the tombstone shaped ornament on the wall, I then went backstairs to type this.

There are others out there in the Universe.

 

[Skellington]

My thoughts:

Electrons have mass; therefore, electrical impulses in the brain depend on a material element. And there’s no substantial evidence that thoughts can persist in the absence of a substrate such as the brain. Also, all information entering the singularity of a black hole is destroyed anyway.,

Apologies if that seems abrupt, but it’s usually instructive to identify and address one’s own assumptions or for others to do so.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

My thoughts:

Electrons have mass; therefore, electrical impulses in the brain depend on a material element. And there’s no substantial evidence that thoughts can persist in the absence of a substrate such as the brain. Also, all information entering the singularity of a black hole is destroyed anyway.,

Apologies if that seems abrupt, but it’s usually instructive to identify and address one’s own assumptions or for others to do so.

Black holes do not destroy information in current thinking (although Roger Penrose disagrees). Instead, the information leaks from a black hole entangled with Hawking radiation as the black hole evaporates. Hawking himself came round to this point of view several years ago and settled a bet he had made against it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

[Skellington]

Black holes do not destroy information in current thinking (although Roger Penrose disagrees). Instead, the information leaks from a black hole entangled with Hawking radiation as the black hole evaporates. Hawking himself came round to this point of view several years ago and settled a bet he had made against it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Okay, point taken and I appreciate the correctIon. What I meant to convey, anyway, was that information doesn’t survive through a singularity, ie any new cosmos arising from the singularity would not receive information from the old.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Okay, point taken and I appreciate the correctIon. What I meant to convey, anyway, was that information doesn’t survive through a singularity, ie any new cosmos arising from the singularity would not receive information from the old.

That would also go against unitarity in the current view accepted by many cosmologists. As I mentioned, some disagree, including Penrose. He claims to have demonstrated evidence for events such as the evaporation of supermassive black holes in a past universe appearing as imprinted patterns on the cosmic microwave background.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology

 

[Butters]

I can usually con

That would also go against unitarity in the current view accepted by many cosmologists. As I mentioned, some disagree, including Penrose. He claims to have demonstrated evidence for events such as the evaporation of supermassive black holes in a past universe appearing as imprinted patterns on the cosmic microwave background.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology

i can usually conceptualise most cosmological theories if it doesn’t require mathematics, but this one I just don’t follow.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I can usually con

i can usually conceptualise most cosmological theories if it doesn’t require mathematics, but this one I just don’t follow.

The Wikipedia article is indeed very opaque due to its brevity. An understanding of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) requires reading Penrose's book "Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe" but I admit CCC might still seem totally baffling without the benefit of having the appropriate physics and mathematics background.

 

[Butters]

The Wikipedia article is indeed very opaque due to its brevity. An understanding of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) requires reading Penrose's book "Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe" but I admit CCC might still seem totally baffling without the benefit of having the appropriate physics and mathematics background.

I guess it’s one of those things that will make sense eventually with a Sky At Night infographic.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The explanation by Penrose in this video might help.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

ETA: I don't subscribe to this theory myself. Even though it appears to solve some difficulties that some other theories have (such as with entropy), it requires several things that seem problematic to me:

• An unspecified process for conformally mapping the timelike infinity of a previous aeon to the following big bang singularity.
• No explanation for when and why big bang singularities occur.
• The tendency of particle masses to vanish over time.

I also don't see any reason why the apparent evidence in the CMB for supermassive black hole mergers in previous aeons might not have other causes such as interaction with other universes.

 

[Jayson1]

I have a question. If Infinity has no end then doesn't that mean that anything that is destroyed will someday reform exactly like it had been simply because if Infinity has no end then how can you not have repeating patterns. I was thinking of it like shooting basketballs at a basket. What If you make shot where you hit the front end of the goal and it bounces up 5 inches and then falls in without hitting the net. If you kepth shooting baskets at that basket for infinity isn't it likely that the ball will eventually go inside the net in that exact same way out of sheer luck because infinity is so long you bound to repeat that action.

Jason

 

[C.E. Evans]

It could be a kind of human arrogance to think that there is a purpose for the Universe to exist. It really could be that it exists simply because it does and that we are simply a byproduct of it. Science is our way of figuring out how it works and what it's made of, but there really may be no true purpose to its existence. Religions could be our way of seeking or attaching a purpose to it, however.