Study: Our 3D Universe Could Have Originated From a 4D Black Hole 337
New submitter TaleSlinger sends this quote from Nature:
"Afshordi's team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do: they explode as supernovae, violently ejecting their outer layers, while their inner layers collapse into a black hole. In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary inside a black hole, in the bulk universe the event horizon of a 4D black hole would be a 3D object — a shape called a hypersphere. When Afshordi's team modeled the death of a 4D star, they found that the ejected material would form a 3D brane surrounding that 3D event horizon, and slowly expand. The authors postulate that the 3D universe we live in might be just such a brane — and that we detect the brane's growth as cosmic expansion. 'Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang — but that is just a mirage,' says Afshordi."
Sorry (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Turtles all the way down.
Funny, but also Insightful? Turtles all the way down, or turtles all the way up? If we inhabit the 3D manifold that resides in a black hole within a 4D bulk universe, and observe 3D black holes (with a 2D event horizon), does this imply 1D black holes inside of the black holes that we observe (with 0D black holes inside...). Is the 4D bulk universe a black hole in a 5D hyper-bulk universe within a 6D ...
Is there a physicist in the house that can shed more light on this than the article/paper?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NO! (Score:3, Funny)
His noodliness wishes to inform you that string theory is closer to the truth but the full truth is that the universe is made of strings of spaghetti.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Funny)
Falling into a black hole you are stretched like strands of spaghetti.
The tendrils of a sun's magnetic fields are like great bands of spaghetti as well.
However, this is merely confirmation bias. Clearly, with all the roundness everywhere His meaty balls have the most influence.
Re: (Score:3)
And divine sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Dark matter is the Divine Sauce which creates most of the mass of the Great Pastafarian Feast known as the universe.
Re: (Score:3)
Saute the infidel!
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds good to me... (Score:2)
... but what do I know?
I personally like the turtles explanation better than spaghetti but I'm just along for the ride.
Get out the bong (Score:2, Insightful)
seriously, it's time
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Get out the bong (Score:5, Informative)
That would be Cypress Hill, not ICP.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be Cypress Hill, not ICP.
though 'Riddlebox' is also appropriate.
Re:Get out the bong (Score:5, Insightful)
ICP could be playing CH, it's his head, his rules.
but if the clown posse is playing cypress hill songs in his head he might not need another hit for a while...
Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Funny)
So whatever a 4D star is, when it explodes there is a 3D layer that represents the event horizon. We live in this layer. One side of the layer is a 4D black hole, and the other side of the layer is some other kind of nothingness. Yeah?
Is there someone here I can offer monetary compensation to for them to comprehend this summary for me?
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I understood it correctly they mean that on the other side is a universe with 4 spatial dimensions.
Think of it this way: in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions a black hole has a 2-d surface (shaped roughly like the surface of a sphere) as its event horizon. On the inside of the surface is the black hole. On the outside is the rest of the universe. Generalizing this to a hypothetical universe with 4 spatial dimension, a black hole in such a universe would have a 3-d "surface" surrounding it with the black hole inside of the surface and the rest of the universe outside of it.
By the way, there is already an idea floating around about how the edge of the visible universe seems be a bit like the event horizon of a black hole. Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us, a bit like when something passes the event horizon of a black hole.
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Interesting)
A common misconception is that black holes require singularities. Simple thought experiments show it differently.. for example, imagine living in a universe with a mass about that of a black hole that would have an event horizon that is just a little bit smaller than the universe. Now imagine that universe contracting. You can see that as it contracts it will eventually become small enough to form an event horizon without a singularity.
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not quite right: according to the Penrose singularity theorem, the existence of an event horizon implies that spacetime is singular (more precisely: geodesically incomplete).
You have overstepped the theorem. The theorem states that a singularity must eventually form if there is an event horizon, not that a singularity must exist at all points in time that the event horizon exists.
Remember than in a hollow sphere of any mass, gravity is neutral at all points that arent edge points. The sphere can be massive enough that the schwarzschild radius (aka the event horizon) can be outside the sphere, yet inside gravity is neutral and space-time remains flat. Entropy will eventually collapse the sphere, but thats eventually... not immediately.
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, there is already an idea floating around about how the edge of the visible universe seems be a bit like the event horizon of a black hole. Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us
Because we can only see things that have sent light back towards us, AND that return light has already reached us. If something is further away from earth, than the distance that light could have possibly travelled back from the object towards earth from the time that the object was at that distance, then by induction: we cannot see the object yet.
Because near the rim of the universe.... the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light; so it's far enough, that light would take longer to travel back to where earth is, than the duration the universe has existed.
Furthemore: since the universe can continue to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light --- the light travelling back towards earth, can never overtake the rate of the universe's expansion, and find its way back to us.
It is kind of like an infinite treadmkill ---- very similar to the concept of a gravitational well that is so deep not even light can escape.
We have an outer rim of our universe expanding so quickly, that not even the very timespace; the spatial dimensions or the passage of time can escape it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because near the rim of the universe.... the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light; so it's far enough, that light would take longer to travel back to where earth is, than the duration the universe has existed. Furthemore: since the universe can continue to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light --- the light travelling back towards earth, can never overtake the rate of the universe's expansion, and find its way back to us.
I don't really see why you have to bring FTL into it. If the universe is 13.8 billion years old and we're in the middle of it (close enough approximation) we'll only see events up to 6.9 billion years away. Sure, in another 6.9 billion years we'll be able to observe the entire current universe but by then it'll have expanded another 6.9 billion light years. It has a head start on us and our "observable universe" will never catch up to the real universe, because our ability to observe expands at the same rat
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Informative)
Umm... No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip [wikipedia.org]
We have no idea how large the universe is. But the current estimates of the radius of the observable universe is about 45 billion light years. That's how "far" we can see. And this is indeed due to the expansion of the universe essentially moving distances apart faster than light can travel. Furthermore, it's not just that we won't "catch up"... It seems rather likely that it's gonna get worse over time - to the point we won't be able to see much at all (relatively speaking).
Re: (Score:2)
did you just claim faster than light?
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. universal expansion [wikipedia.org] occurs at a speed faster than the speed of light.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not actual motion, it's the space expanding. And one of the results of that expansion is that the frequency of radiation transiting it drops. If it's beyond the observable edge (actual, not current technology) then the wave length has shifted down until the signal strength is below the noise level. Note also that as the frequency drops, the amount of information that the signal can carry per unit time drops. When it drops below the noise level, you just can't ever detect it. I think there
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Informative)
Replying to myself, sorry. Actually orbits are stable in dimension d=2 and 3 and no other. In both orbits are elliptical. With d=2 the center of mass is the center of the ellipse. For d=3 the center of mass is at one of the focal points.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50142/gravity-in-other-dimensions-than-3-and-stable-orbits
Re: (Score:2)
a black hole in such a universe would have a 3-d "surface"
I'm trying to decide whether this makes any more sense than a square circle. 3D surface is a contradiction in terms. A surface is 2 dimensional by definition.
Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us
Only until we build a bigger telescope.
a bit like when something passes the event horizon of a black hole.
It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist. There is no way for anyone with any sort of conceivable detector to observe what no longer exists. Even if the collapsed star's gravity did not stop the photons from exiting it would effectively vanish out of existence.
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Insightful)
a black hole in such a universe would have a 3-d "surface"
I'm trying to decide whether this makes any more sense than a square circle. 3D surface is a contradiction in terms. A surface is 2 dimensional by definition.
The term "surface" normally refers to a two-dimensional shape in 3D space, but it can be generalized to any number of dimensions (a hypersurface). One example would be a hypersphere (x**2 + y**2 + z**2 + w**2 = 1), which has three orthogonal directions of movement along the hypersurface and encloses a four-dimensional space. Movement tangent to the hypersphere it would seem like movement in normal 3D Euclidean space, except that if you travel far enough in any direction you'll eventually end up back where you started.
Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us
Only until we build a bigger telescope.
It's not a matter of how large or sensitive the telescope is; if something is far enough away, the expansion of the space between the object and ourselves causes the distance between us to increase faster than the speed of light, meaning light from the object can never reach us. Once something reaches that distance it's cut off from us for good (or at least as long as the universe continues to expand).
It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist. ... Even if the collapsed star's gravity did not stop the photons from exiting it would effectively vanish out of existence.
These are one and the same thing. Black holes are not particularly special; the event horizon isn't some solid barrier things crash into. It's merely the point of no return, beyond which escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Objects which enter a black hole "cease to exist" in exactly the same sense as objects which pass beyond the visible universe: any effect involving the object would need to propagate faster than the speed of light to reach us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist. There is no way for anyone with any sort of conceivable detector to observe what no longer exists. Even if the collapsed star's gravity did not stop the photons from exiting it would effectively vanish out of existence.
This is not true. Hawkings proved this already; Look up Hawking radiation. Black holes will eventually evaporate if it cannot attract enough matter to sustain its size. Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole, and it's also been proven that not only does matter in the accretion disc accelerate to the speed of light before crossing the horizon, but that the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light creating relativistic frame dragging.
All of this would not be occurrin
Several errors. (Score:5, Informative)
In no particular order:
Hawking proved... No, he did not. Hawking has a mathematical description that's consistent with quantum mechanics and general relativity, but that doesn't mean the universe actually works this way. There have been a large number of highly promising theoretical constructs that have never been observed in reality and are believed to not exist. Hawking radiation may be one of them. Most physicists believe Hawking radiation exists and is a real phenomena, but it has never been observed in reality. (We have, however, observed analogues to Hawking radiation from acoustic 'black holes'.)
Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole... No, they are not. Those jets are made of matter that was about to cross the event horizon until they suddenly and violently thought better of it. The area around an accreting black hole is perhaps the most violent spot imaginable in the universe; it should be no surprise whatsoever that once something has gone around the accretion disc a few million times it would have enough kinetic energy to go like hell off in another direction as soon as it collides with another particle. One of the billiard-balls rockets across the event horizon and the other uses its kinetic energy to escape from the accretion disc. (This is handwaving a lot of astrophysics, but is basically accurate.)
the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light... No, it is not. Black holes have to obey the cosmic speed limit just like everything else. Also, not all black holes possess angular momentum. General relativity gives perfectly satisfactory predictions for stationary black holes.
The information, that is the quantum state, of mass and energy that is eaten by a blackhole is later ejected as what could be termed high energy 'noise'; x-rays and gamma rays. Not in the slightest. Hawking radiation is about the longest-wavelength (which means lowest-energy) stuff in the universe. The reason for this is really simple: although it started off as unbelievably energetic, it had to expend virtually all of its energy escaping from where it was created a nanometer beyond the event horizon.
No offense, but you need to sit down with a good book on general relativity. (I like Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry. YMMV.)
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. This is the last I'll be writing on the subject, because you're apparently not even bothering to read your own links.
Unless, of course, He did. The physics checks out; We've recreated the conditions in the lab. Not hardly. Check your own link: it says several times that an analogue of a gravitic event horizon was used, not an actual event horizon. We haven't recreated a gravitic event horizon in the lab. To the best of our knowledge we've never created a gravitic event horizon in a lab. Fina
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Insightful)
A surface is 2 dimensional by definition.
No, it isn't. It's two-dimensional only by everyday common experience.
Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us
Only until we build a bigger telescope.
No, we'll never see it. The light from there will never reach us.
It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist.
No, it won't.
YANAP
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm not a physicist either and I could be wrong but I think that there are two equivalent views of what a black hole is. The holographic view is pretty strange...
The stuff that supposedly sits at the event horizon in the holographic view is not matter; it is information. My understanding is that the event horizon of a black hole can basically be though of as a data storage device that stores scrambled information about everything that the hole has swallowed, except for the information about the stuff that it has since spit out.
I imagine it works something like this: when the black hole swallows some matter the information content in that matter (that is the entropy) gets stored on the horizon and the horizon expands to make room for it. When the hole spits out a particle the horizon "erases" the information/entropy of that particle and the horizon contracts to make sure there isn't any empty "disk space".
Re: (Score:3)
I THINK that is the way it went.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So wouldn't that make the whole time dilation/relativistic travel thing a non-issue by default?
Re: (Score:2)
A two dimensional sphere?
That's like a square from the 8th dimension!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not so. Black holes are formed from collapsing stars and there's a lot of matter inside at the moment they reach critical density.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If we can accept that the universe exists without demanding to know how it started
Then you're not being very scientific about it.
Physics needs get over this notion that when cosmology can't explain something we just gather it and put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it and call it a theory.
What's the alternative? If we can't explain it, don't even try? No. You gather it up, you put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it, and then you let the rest of the community do their best to come up with something which explains the world better. And that's science.
**SOMETHING** started the universe...who cares if it was God or something else...
I care. I want to know.
Re: (Score:3)
The field of ideas is separate from what we call reality, so in any case, I was not considering Plato. It's quicker to turn the problem upside down.
In the context of a videogame, I am my avatar. I might be picking my nose while the avatar nukes a city, my behavior has no whatsoever effect except for my inputs to the game. So, are we going to call real my nose picking, which cannot be detected at all and has no whatsoever bearing to the action, or are we going to call real whatever happens in the game? We ar
Don't get too confused (Score:3, Informative)
The article is about string theory (I think more properly called "M-Theory" these days but not sure). It is the outcome of a lot of very crazy math and complicated equations that are hard to visualize.
But, what this theory sorely lacks is evidence. By which I mean any evidence at all. It is popular in the physics world because it can resolve the discrepancies between quantum mechanics (for which there is quite a lot of solid, verifiable evidence) and general relativity (for which there is also quite a lo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it said that we live in the event horizon. We're the nebula, right? And since it is a 4D nebula, we're only a tiny slice of it.
I love/hate these developments b/c I don't understand them but they're interesting, and why really? Why are they sometimes interesting even though I don't understand them?
Puff puff pass.
Maybe that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the part I don't understand about the model. In order for our universe to be the 3D surface of a 4D black hole, everything in our universe would have to somehow be constrained to move along the event horizon. Otherwise the event horizon would be just one of many possible 3D subspaces to consider within the larger 4D universe.
What is it that forces matter and energy in our universe to stay on the event horizon, rather than either escaping or falling into the black hole? I don't recall hearing about a
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they are just making this crap up to mess with us at this point.
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Funny)
Damn! Just when 3D printers started getting reasonably priced, now I have to go out and buy a 4D printer? And to print a 4D universe you're telling me I'll need a 5D printer?
Theoretically, would a 4D printer use "strings" instead of "filament"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score:5, Funny)
All the way up to 20D, at which point the DM's mother informs him it's time for dinner (corndogs and mac'n'cheese yet again).
We live inside a black hole? (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, the universe we see is the inside of a black hole, and the big bang is the time that black hole created its singularity.
Now I can imagine that in each black hole we see there is another universe. Or is it always the same universe that is found inside all different black holes? And I still have trouble to imagine what happens to someone taking a dive into a black hole. Is it possible to enter the universe inside a black hole?
Re:We live inside a black hole? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it possible to enter the universe inside a black hole?
Arguably... to enter the universe inside a blackhole; you have only to enter the event horizon, and merge with it.
Once you merge with the event horizon; you can never leave the black hole or ever be visible to an outside observer again. Also; you will get squashed into 2 dimensions, and your particles will be scrambled ---- so although the matter that comprises you merges with the universe inside the blackhole: your physical body does not survive.
Physicists cannot say what happens to your immortal soul --- whether it escapes the pull; or whether it too becomes entrapped in the event horizon of that featureless pocket universe for the rest of eternity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
During entry into a 3D black hole, I bet you get squished pretty much into a speck indistinguishable from a "point".
It's not a paper in Nature (Score:5, Informative)
It's a news story on their website talking about a preprint paper posted on Arxiv.
Re: (Score:2)
How was that a criticism? It was a straightforward statement of fact - something that wasn't mentioned in the summary.
What's their point? (Score:5, Funny)
What's their point? There's not a singular thing I can see there.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:3, Funny)
"I just had an awesome idea. [xkcd.com] Suppose the entire observable universe exists as a 3d brane on the edge of a 4 dimensional black hole."
"Okay. What would that imply?"
"I dunno."
That's easy for you to say .. (Score:3, Funny)
Vindication! (Score:2)
I've been saying just this for years.
I'm having a little trouble with the geometry (Score:2)
In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary
How is a sphere two dimensional? Surely they meant circular?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compare a cube and a tesseract
After you.
Branes versus String Theory (Score:2)
questions... (Score:2)
Not sure that the idea of an event horizon as being a 2D object in 3D space is valid. The Event Horizon is not a surface, it's the description of a place in space where information can not pass, because you can't pass information beyond the speed of light. There is no physical surface there. It's not like you could put your hand against this and pull back a stump.
The next question is are the 'D's between the 4D space as a source, and the resulting 3D space related or concurrent? I.e. does our 3D space x,y,z
Re: (Score:2)
Or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
The behavior of a black hole mirrors the behavior you'd expect of a two-dimensional object.
'Two dimensional object' is a contradiction in terms. If it can be called an object at all then it must have at least 3 spatial dimensions. Even an object only 1 atom thick would have 3 spatial dimensions. One of those dimensions would just be very small.
Whether something can have more than 3 spatial dimensions is pure speculation. It could be argued that such an idea is non-falsifiable. The whole concept of perpendicularity seems to break down when applied to a 3 dimensional (aka real) object.
Maybe we're in 2D space.
If 3 spatial
What did one flatlander say to the other? (Score:2)
Dimension of us never got around.....
Good stuff (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I've heard that story before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who [wikipedia.org]!
Ah, I see (Score:2)
No, actually, I dont see at all. Someone call in an autistic savant to deal with this.
the math that proves it (Score:4, Insightful)
Baseless claim/theory with zero evidence + inability for anyone anywhere to disprove it = book deal + huge $$$ grant + discovery channel special
You know, like the theory that the entire universe is a gigantic is a simulation similar to the matrix. There was a very elaborate, college-funded experiment to test that actually (as seen on slashdot)
Interactions between 4D and 3D (Score:2)
The main problem I have with this the 4D universe could (and would) still interact with our 3D hypersphere. Consider a black hole in our 3D universe. It has an event horizon, the 2D surface of which is analogous to the 3D hypersphere. Mass from our 3D universe does cross through that surface and has a profound effect on the structure and behavior of whatever mass is "living" in that boundary. Thus we would expect to see objects instantly materialize as they cross into our 3D hypersphere, and interact wi
Re: (Score:2)
Like a quasar?
Re: (Score:3)
Too homogeneous and perfectly distributed across all galaxies. Whatever it is it is pervasive and mixed in with observable matter.
eh? (Score:2)
'Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang — but that is just a mirage,'
I am sure a black hole forming would count as a big bang..
The Ant God (Score:2)
God is the 4D dude who bought the Make Your Own Universe Kit and set it running in his mom's basement.
If you tick him off by not kissing up to him etc., he'll delete you from his "ant farm". So, sing those hymns, guys! "You are the grandest and mightiest, oh wondrous Father of all we know!"
He can see you yanking off also, and will blind you if caught; he hates the yanking while he's having sandwiches, ruins his appetite.
4D Black Holes? (Score:2)
I'll stick with the turtles story, thanks anyway.
And just think... (Score:2)
In the 4D universe is a book called Cubeland and the readers struggle to understand how creatures might exist in a hypothetical space limited to just width,height and depth. Ie. How their digestive tract is just a tube through them.
5Dimensions and so on ad infinitum (Score:2)
One could extrapolate that the 4D universe is just a black hole in a 5D universe then. Maybe go up to as many dimensions as String theory expects.
The trouble with mathematical models (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an illustration of where mathematical models can run amok.
Every kind of model has its limits. Bohr, for example, envisioned atoms as a nucleus of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons, with orbiting electrons. The model works well because it's something people can grasp. But the model has its limits, and there are many aspects of quantum behavior that cannot be explained by the Bohr model. The model is still useful because it does lead to many accurate scientific predictions.
A newer mathematical model, quantum mechanics, seeks to be even more accurate in its predictions than Bohr's model. It succeeded in many ways, and like the Bohr model, has led to many interesting discoveries. But it too has its limits.
In pure mathematics, exceeding three dimensions is effortless. Calculations involving four or more dimensions can easily be solved. But just because the mathematical model can do it, doesn't mean that the physical reality it attempts to model, can also do it. A model is designed to represent reality, but it is not itself reality. I suspect that all such mathematical models of the universe, which point to other dimensions, will eventually be shown to be purely mathematical.
Re:The trouble with mathematical models (Score:4, Funny)
This is an illustration of where mathematical models can run amok.
My favourite is:
There are 4 people in a room, then 7 people leave. How many people have to enter the room for it to be empty again?
Re:The trouble with mathematical models (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Pardon my complete ignorance ... whats the answer, or could you explain the point of the question more? My only response is 'thats a stupid question, it can't work that way unless they are breeding in the room, in which case, I have no idea how many are left?', so can someone enlighten me as to the purpose here?
This is just an example of a mathematical abstraction that does not map well to the real world.
Room contents = 4
Room Contents=Room Contents -7
What is Room Contents?
We know that a room cannot have a negative number of people, but math has no such limitations when it comes to representing a room.
The same way Math has no limitations when representing higher dimensions.
(which may or may not exist in reality, but the OP suspects not)
Trying to visualize this ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I shouldn't answer your question because it is completely off topic, but that argument is just horrible. How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
Not knowing some things is OK. It's certainly better than fooling yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll readily admit that I don't know everything. But, the theory that our universe could simply be a very large, complex computer simulation has been around for a while and scientists have come up with ways to potentially test various aspects of it.
If the universe is a simulation, I suppose what we call God would be the creator. So to answer your question:
How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
That's an interesting question, but one that is irrelevant. God would exist before and after our universe, outside of what we call time and space, yet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
Supernatural = anything goes. That is, God needs to be something that doesn't need or have an explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
1) There is not necessarily a beginning to all things. Weird things happen when we come close to the big bang, and time might exist only within our own "bubble".
2) Event the causality principle is not something that is 100% certain
3) Prolongating the reasoning, what caused the first-cause? What makes it exempt from the need for a cause ? Why does everything else need a cause ?
4) Assuming that first-cause exists, absolutely nothing says it would be the same thing as what religions call "god".
Re: (Score:2)
2) Event the causality principle is not something that is 100% certain
Any hints to the nature of a non-causal existence?
3) Prolongating the reasoning, what caused the first-cause? What makes it exempt from the need for a cause ? Why does everything else need a cause ?
4) Assuming that first-cause exists, absolutely nothing says it would be the same thing as what religions call "god".
The most comprehensible way for something be exempt from causality is for it to be eternal and supernatural. Add sentient and you've arrived at Deism. That is, if you need a first cause, something like a god is a parsimonious explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
That argument is useless because:
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
AND
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - th
Re: (Score:2)
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
There was once no time in our universe. Or if you're talking about any universe, you need something "out of time".
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
Isn't this spooky action at a distance a violation of General Relativity rather than causality?
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
As physics currently stands, that's right, the problem is under-constrained. So it can help to consider Occam's razor and religious literature that claims access to the supernatural.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
Well unless physics comes up with something better, the first cause has to be eternal and powerfully instrumental. So God
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an argument for existence, it's just another definition of God. A God so defined may or may not exist, and it may or may not have any resemblance to the other metaphors the word 'god' is used for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll give it a shot - my theology degree doesn't get used here much. Calling the unknowable first-cause 'God' is all fine and good from a philosophical standpoint, but the God of most religions is usually much more personally involved in their creation than that so you're not really talking about the same sort of 'God' that modern religions are talking about. Religion as we know it today (apart from Evangelical America) descends from transcendent ideas of God, and replaced the previous dominant model a c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Sadly it will probably never get modded up to be visible to get the attention it deserves.
Why do you think Max Planck said:
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Lots of *great* quotes! http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck [wikiquote.org]
--
Only cowards censor.