From an evolutionary perspective, wouldn't it have been easier to form nothing at all rather than anything at all?
(2 votes)
Loading...
(2 votes)Loading...
(2 votes)Loading...Similar Posts
Cell nucleus and chromosome in comparison?
ByApfel67
Which of these is the nucleus and which are the chromosomes? I looked on Google but couldn't find anything.
Mantid nymphs without fertilization?
Hi, I've been keeping a Deroplatys lobata female on my own for about 10 months in a large display case that is also used for plants. When I got her she was definitely not fully grown and she didn't have a plate either. I don't know her exact age though. A few weeks ago, she…
Is it possible to become an early riser?
My work starts at 8:15. I'm planning on changing jobs, where I'd have to start at 7:15. Is that possible if I usually like to sleep in on weekends?
How do vegans and cat owners tolerate the fact that their pets do exactly what they despise?
ByEpson100
So, killing and eating other animal species? After all, do vegans realize that higher mammals can't survive without meat? Humans are also among the higher mammals; strictly speaking, we are dry-nosed monkeys.
Mister he knows … abort … abort!!!
Ha ha is not true. But after all, we wanted you to be right now, and we are not in the end with you. Don’t worry about the others who don’t take this seriously anyway.
But good fun aside, do you know the theory of Musk? In his opinion, it could be that we are just the bootloader for the AI. Now think a little more. Imagine there was a species that was so highly developed that she wanted to colonise space, but as far as this is concerned has been pushed at borders because of the distance. Now they had an ingenious thought, not themselves, but to send life or much more the information of life into space. But the information itself is not enough, of course, unless you send the information on planets on which life is possible and find a way that life, that is, the information there is spreading. One day, one’s own civilization or better a copy of it would arrive at one’s own, because life would sprout throughout the universe. So one would also increase the chances that one of these civilizations solves the problem of distance.
But it could also be different, there could be a species on earth or better under the ice that is currently sleeping. This can have various reasons, the climate or its biology. This species has set up a process before the sleep time, which ensures that we humans develop and that ncith is 2 or 3 times. no this game already takes place million years. Since we are just ebim word game, that is exactly what we are for them, a game. For they like to hunt and love the Lord’s challenge, so they create intelligent food that fights and when they wake up the game begins.
But it could also be that what we know as a life is really just a biological interface of the actual existence that of machines. We were left behind because there was no time because there were not enough resources or simply because it was easier and time for machines doesn’t matter. We were only written the information in the code as we created a Tgae’s new machine and they would already know where to find their creators. If it is so, we and what we know as life will have become unnecessary.
But who knows, this is all here also just a very complex computer game played by a way of life that cannot die or it is their game of life that runs over generations on a public terminal where each one throws some money once can play God. Who knows, maybe it’s a kind of game, according to the motto “Who can’t eradicate humanity.”
But it is also true that our universe is only an atom that bursts through the body of an alien, or many even by a person like us.
I don’t know, but I hope we’ll get to know one day. I’m very tired now and I have to sleep. It is very exhausting to play “Humans”.
Peace
Everything must have come from somewhere. It’s not different.
Have some patience, I think we will get the answer soon;-)
I got it.
Why are stars and planets formed from gas clouds? Why are stars and planets forming solar systems? And from which galaxies again?
Why are molecules formed from atoms? And from molecules stuff like DNA and cells? And from cells higher living beings?
I don’t know! Apparently, the laws of nature are so that this (energetic?) is easier than not to do. Life is quite resistant and persistent after everything we know (which is not much …). On earth it seems as good as not erasable. Zig comets and outbreaks of giant volcanoes have survived and even comes clear with environmental conditions such as high temperatures in sulfur-contaminated, oxygenless water in the deep sea.
Beings are sensitive. Life itself is quite resistant.
For me, this is an indication that “life” for matter is a “light” attainable state. Just as water always collects at the lowest point or a spilled bucket of sand forms a pile (instead of a cloud of sand), life forms when a few criteria are fulfilled.
Gas clouds form stars and planets because of gravity. Even atoms attract each other. So there’s a driving force behind it. But it was there before. But where did they come from? Where did the material come for the Big Bang and who or what triggered the Big Bang?
From the formation of the molecules, it stops with the unambiguous clarification. A cell is extremely complex and in it a variety of processes takes place in interaction. The question of how the content has come into the shell or how and why a shell should have formed around the content and how it can be that this is so complex before it is destroyed by external influences. Even the relationship of the DNA code to the processes that it controls is impossible to explain. Because, why should the DNA assume a certain configuration if there’s nothing around it that can control it? But even if there’s something around them, it must in turn reach the correct configuration and then be somehow initiated.
NatureLaws write. This is presupposes that something specific should be done. Where did they come from?
Where the laws of nature come from, I didn’t want to look at them. And I’m not saying we have a good explanation for everything.
But I think “life” is nothing special. Snowflakes form complex ice crystals – due to various natural laws. Dust forms complex structures, “galaxies”, of stones, rocks, planets and suns, because certain – relatively simple – nature laws are simply as they are. And life is due to the same reasons – because the laws of nature impose this in a certain way.
It’s a good thing. No one has these laws adopted. Rather, it is common that we humans have discovered and described certain regularities, “laws”, according to which nature seems to behave.
Nee, I meant that gravity was there without delay. She bends the whole space-time structure. It’s like when you put yourself on a trampoline, so the whole jumping mat will bend right through and the club will not spread. Gravitational waves, on the other hand, would be as if they would shake up and dissipate like a bed sheet, then in fact waves spread out in the jump mat. (very simplified)
Thank you.
You had mentioned gravitationality above as an example and meant that it would spread without delay. I had only tried to put this right and used as a tool the impossibility of over-light-fast information transmission – for which engraving could also be used. Then you brought Quantum Restriction into play. :
But let us leave it – we have probably gotten very far from the core of the real issue.
But it was a very refreshing discussion. Thanks for that!
Here’s something else:
https://www.scinexx.de/news/technik/quantenverschraenkung-ueber-150-million-km/
It was also not at all a question of producing over-light-fast information transmission by means of gravity. Quantum restriction is a completely different phenomenon that has nothing to do with gravity at all.
Quantum restriction and transmission of information with overhead speed: Here’s something else:
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/mysterioeseses-quantenomen-einsteins-spuk-ist-1000-male-faster-als-das-licht-a-572068.html
therefore:
In our universe there is gravitationality everywhere, because (intermediately) is distributed throughout the universe mass/material. But there is no over-light-fast transmission of information – also not by transmission of information by changes in the gravitational field (by enlargement/reduction of masses), since this is not delay-free, but is also bound to the speed of light.
In the method, one of the restricted photons (with maximum speed of light) must still be transported to the receiver. The special feature of the method is that listening tests – in which the wave function necessarily collapses – can be recognized on the other interlocked photon.
“No, but if we want to find out how fast gravitation is spreading, we must have a difference to the current gravitation – and that instantly to have a defined starting point for the signal.”
Gravity usually does not spread from one point to another, it is present and that immediately and everywhere in the universe. Gravitational waves thus arise: (From the corresponding wiki:)
“Generally, accelerated masses generate gravitational waves, or more general: any change in the distribution of mass and/or energy in the universe, in which at least thequadrupole torquevaries in time. The strength of the gravitational waves depends on the moving mass and to an even greater extent on its speed change (the amount and the direction). They are the strongest and most observable with very massive, highly accelerated astronomical objects. These are
I don’t know why you want to find out, we want to spread gravitational waves quickly. This has nothing to do with the subject.
Information can be transmitted via large distances through interlinked particles. See here:
https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000107940741/quantenverschraenkung-50-kilometer-wide-uetransmission-gelungen
Honestly, I don’t know why they want to build a morse transmitter with gravitational waves and what that should have to do with whether it would not have been easier from an evolutionary perspective to make nothing.
No, but if we want to find out how fast gravitation is spreading, we must have a difference to the current gravitation – and that instantly to have a defined starting point for the signal.
To measure the speed of sound, you need a unique acoustic signal. If this is recorded at a defined distance, the speed can be calculated using the time delay and the known distance. If the signal is too small/leise and the ambient noise is below, you can’t measure anything at the destination. A sufficiently strong signal, which, however, does not have a defined starting point (e.g. passing train), also does not help because the starting point of the transit time measurement is not unambiguous.
No. Particles can be restricted, but the current state of both interlinked particles is not known (cf. “Superposition”). Only by a measurement is the state manifested. That is, the transmitter cannot influence what it sends, since it is fixed only when it is sent.
Example: Transmitter wants to send the bit sequence 1011. So he makes the wave spark of his segment of the first interlinked particle pair collapse… and it comes out “0”. The receiver also sees “0”. But that was not wanted by the transmitter – how does he inform the receiver that he should ignore this first bit?
My Morseapperate with gravity waves? I send signals – instead of sound waves or electromagnetic waves with gravitational waves (changes in the strength of a gravitational field). This has nothing to do with “restriction.” On the contrary – this is an example that nothing is restricted, but limited by speed of light.
Natural laws do not lay down. They’re acting. Only one intelligence can determine.
“We can’t let enough matter come out of energy on Earth as we could measure the gravity that occurs with it.”
We also do not have to let matter arise from energy in order to be able to measure gravity on the basis of already existing matter.
“However, no information can be transmitted by means of quantum restriction and thus the causality principle is not violated.”
If it is possible to change the state of particles A so that the condition is also changed at the same time and without loss of time, it is quite possible in this way to transmit information. For example, by a binary code. If, with my counterpart, there is some right-turning 1 from his point of view and left-turning 0, then in any case it is possible to transfer information through the quantum restriction. Because there is an effect of a cause, the causality principle is not violated.
What you have written about the gravitation would require a “gravitation restriction”. In my knowledge, it has not yet been proven and not even theoretically established.
That’s different. Nature laws do not determine what is possible, but they only describe what is possible.
Yes. I just meant that we can only experimentally determine gravitational changes or gravitational changes in the gravitational force that prevails locally here, if this exceeds a certain strength. We cannot let enough matter emerge from energy on Earth, as if we could measure the gravitation that occurs with it. Therefore, my example with the gravity waves.
Okay, I said I was wrong. What I meant is: nothing that carries information can move faster than with speed of light. This would violate the causality principle and cause->effect could be paradoxically reversed. However, no information can be transmitted by means of quantum restriction, and thus the causality principle is not violated.
But different from gravitation: it carries information in itself: “here a mass has suddenly emerged”.
Einstein says matter and energy are equivalent – matter can be converted into energy and energy into matter. We do not have the necessary technology (yet?) to produce matter in a sufficient amount of energy, but it would be conceivable to have a kind of morse transmitter that emits signals in the form of gravitational waves by generating matter and converting it back into energy. If these signals were faster than light… that would contradict everything we’ve discovered in the last hundred years since Einstein’s theory of relativity.
One can indeed draw a certain comparison between the concept of mathematics and an empty universe with existing natural laws. But the one can only be carried out mentally, while the other acts or is potentially present. Mathematics can be found out. Natural laws can also be found but in contrast to mathematics, they affect the system. The latter therefore have a control function.
I can ask how much you have been dedicated to the knowledge of gravitation? Because it is proven that any matter, whether it is so tiny, causes attraction, even a hydrogen atom and below. In addition, gravity has an infinitely wide effect, but becomes weaker, the further one is removed from the mass. The more mass is present, the more gravity acts, in contrast to less mass. This could also be demonstrated.
https://www.wissenschaft.de/astronomie-physik/physiker-messen-die-bislang-small-gravitationkraft/#:~:text=F%C3%BCr%20the%20eigentliche%20Mess%20wird,Pfaff%20of%20the%20Universit%C3%A4t%20Wien.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#:~:text=The%20Gravitation%20(of%20lateinisch%20gravitas,ab%2C%20aber%20unlimited%20range.
Whether large masses suddenly arise or do not arise is not the point. But the point is that if large masses suddenly arise, gravity then also develops an immediate, higher effect.
“And in general: _nichts_ in the universe is instant – nothing can be faster than speed of light.”
That’s not true. Quantum restriction proves the opposite. Physically, nothing can be faster than the speed of light. But within restricted particle systems, things can be faster than light, things can be transferred without any time loss.
https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/uniview/research/detail/artikel/billion-year-old-light-best-best-best-densed-quantenverschraenkung/#:~:text=With%20help%20des%20billion%20years,its%20selling%20smuten%20ph%20
‘-> But why is this energy? Right?”
Right.
“Well, maybe that’s why. I don’t know.”
This would have to be a symmetrical one, which would have been arranged so that no further progress would be possible. Only inequality, the unequal relationship between antimatter and matter, for example, was it that made life possible and that gave life driving springs.
Yeah, okay. The concept of e.g. “Gravitation” is independent of whether material actually exists that could have gravity. If there is matter in an empty universe (which in all aspects corresponds to how we know it) _gäbe_, then _hätte_ they also gravitation.
But these natural laws of mathematics are similar: the concepts are valid, even if they may not have any relevance in certain cases. Gravity cannot be observed in an empty universe, just as “two” things cannot be observed.
But imo still applies: mathematics and natural laws can only be found or observed. They only describe what is there or what could be, but they do not control what is possible.
In order to measure gravitation, really large masses have to be present. Such masses do not just suddenly arise like this – at least we do not have a chance to do so. But only a few years ago, the scientists have detected gravitational waves that arise during the collision of black holes. These gravitational waves do not move instantly, but also “only” with speed of light. And also in general: _nichts_ in the universe is instant – nothing can be faster than speed of light.
I understand what you mean. My “pulsing universe” is almost just energy that sometimes “condenses” in space/time/matter while it expands after a big bang and then “evaporates” again into energy before a new cycle begins. -> But why is this energy? Right?
Well, maybe that’s why. I don’t know.
Just because of the possibility that it cannot exist. Sorry.
Moment, moment, that is exactly what the laws of nature differ from mathematics: Even in a completely empty universe, which consists only of space and time and in which there is neither energy nor matter, the laws of nature would still be there, even if there was nothing to influence them. Imagine natural laws like a computer program. It can only be like this, because if there were not always something that would be in readiness, so to speak, we would not observe the effect of the laws of nature on the things that exist. Finally, a heavy field does not build up slowly but as soon as a mass change occurs, as soon as the mass increases, the heavy field surrounding it becomes stronger even without any delay.
“No, why? My pulsating universe is eternal. Was always and will always be.”
That would be like saying that a river would not have a source. But as we know, each river has a beginning, a source. The river is not infinite against its direction of flow. That’s not possible, the water has to come here somewhere. In the pulsating universe, the first bang must have taken place at some point, the whole thing must have been somehow initiated. It’s not different. The truck engine does not always run, it has also been started at some point, otherwise it would not run at all.
Personally, I don’t even believe in a simulation. I think that’s all real and actually three-dimensional. I imagine that so that God will overlay the whole, and that the material universe is almost his physis.
It is therefore possible that God has emerged from himself, simply the impossibility for it not to exist. (Maybe.) Since there was no time yet, there was not the beginning.
But in fact, I think it is plausible that God observes and perceives us, our course, our thoughts and our theories.
Natural laws are also only there if something is there that they can relate to. Supposed in a theoretical universe, the objects have no mass in it. Maybe there is no matter, but only radiation or something. Or it’s completely empty. Then there is no gravitation. The concept, the natural law that attracts matter to each other, is irrelevant and not present if there is no matter in the universe.
Our universe was not created or constructed or “began to exit” (or as always you want to formulate it) to function according to defined natural pussies. The universe began to exist and the way it exists, and the way it exists. The universe is not as it is because it pretends the laws of nature, but the laws of nature are as they are, because the universe is as it is.
The laws of nature exist because the universe exists. Okay, so the question is why the universe exists. Answer: because it was created with the Big Bang. Okay, well, then, why was there the Big Bang? Because (a possible theory) the Big Bang was the end of another and the beginning of a new universe. And who initiated this process of pulsating universes? Nobody! This has always been and will always be so – the process is infinite.
No, why? My “pulsing universe” is eternal. Always been and will always be.
That’s an interesting idea. Otherwise all always go out of an almighty and omniscient God. :
Yes, quite exciting consideration – perhaps we are just as much as a simulation and God hopes to find out more about himself and the world. Just as we do simulation calculations…
There are also corresponding hypotheses. What if we all exist in a simulation… 🙂
(But there is also the question: what about the programmer of the simulation that we call “God”? Where does he come from? Or is it just part of an even greater simulation? )
All right, well, let’s look at the sample universes from the outside. Two objects or as many are there. Distance is there. These things are just there and there are always the same ways to calculate them. Mathematics is something that simply results from the matter. But she’s not “here.” This is different in nature laws, which are real existent and present everywhere. But you write yourself that something has to be there for the first time so that things can be calculated. But that something is there, presupposes a author because of nothing comes. Otherwise there would not even be empty space. This state would not even remain the whole time because time would not exist. This state remained unchanged.
“But that doesn’t say anything about whether it hasn’t been pulsating since an infinitely long time ago _hat_”
This is even theoretically completely impossible. This would presume that the time would go to the past. But it goes towards the future.
I assume that God has created and can generate things from pure will.
“For if God enters into the universe, it cannot be separated from it – it is part of it and should therefore be taken into account in a model we can achieve.”
That’s exactly what I believe in.
“A God is not the answer, but part of the question…”
Probably he asks himself how his existence was actually possible and can come about and why he can do these things. That could be a cofounder why we exist. Enlightenment.
This is only about _theoretical_ reflections, about _abstracte_ _Examples_! These example universes are not universes with which we would be connected in any form – because they are not even real.
Again: only because nobody is there to observe something directly is still real. Two things from something are now _two_ things, whether someone sees it or not.
Right! These concepts exist because they emerge directly from how the universe is. But no one is necessary to look at these concepts or think about them.
Theoretical(!) Example: in a theoretical universe in which only two objects exist, these objects have some distance from each other. This distance can change over time due to the movement of the objects and the objects can possibly also collide. This concept of “distance” is independent of whether someone sees the two objects (or they may see each other). Even if there is no one, there is “distance” between the two objects.
The fact that it is “two” objects and not “three” or “one” does not change whether someone counts the objects.
The example is down. In principle, there has always been movement. A pendulum always swings back and forth, a planet always circles around its sun, etc. However, part of the energy is always converted into heat by friction. The pendulum eventually loses speed udn always swings weaker – due to the friction with the air (air resistance) and at the suspension point. Air friction could be minimized by means of vacuum, but also not 100% off.
This means that such systems lose energy in the form of heat. So my “pulsing universe” may eventually stop pulsing.
But that doesn’t say anything about whether it hasn’t been pulsating since an infinitely long time ago _hat_. It could have an end, but not necessarily a beginning. “End” would also be discussed again. Does pulsation really stop? Or is it only _infinite_ slow?
“Inside” and “fix” are two different things. We, our spirit, do not “inspire” natural laws, but models that describe nature. Your God, on the other hand, creates natural laws and thus affects nature.
But if we want to understand how nature works, then we need to incorporate models that describe the nature created by God – and that of God itself. For if God enters the universe, it cannot be separated from it – it is part of it and must therefore be taken into account in a model that we can achieve.
A God is therefore not the answer, but part of the question …
How is it supposed to work if there’s no one here who records it or calculates it? We have already clarified that it is not self-existing in the universe.
For example universes are always the universes in which we live, for at some point in this universe or universes, but the totality of these universes is again as the We can look at universe, we live.
A Perpetuum Mobile does not come out from the outside without supply, cannot maintain its movements by itself. And thus no universe can arise without being “injected” in any way.
If everything that exists now is basically pure energy, energy can also be spirit. If the mind understands that the smallest elementary particle is to be a string that is to oscillate in a frequency range of such and so and that is to be so long, so often duplicate, etc., then it is plausible. If God has now determined through his will that and that which and that should be done, it is plausible. For if the nature of the universe also means manifestations from God, then God is the main actor who causes these manifestations. Just because his mind is everywhere and because his mind can influence everything in it.
No, whether or not you can capture or understand the concept is irrelevant. Even if you don’t understand, mathematics still works:)
I only referred to the sample universes that we consider here in our discussion. For example, when I spoke of a “empty universe” or something. These are only theoretical examples to illustrate the principle and we are not part of these examples.
That’s different. An eternally existing (in my opinion pulsating) universe was always there and will always be there and therefore does not need a switch. This explanation is _at least_ as good as an eternally exiting God who does not need a switch …
And even if we assume that there are still open questions – then imo “God” is not an answer that gives us knowledge growth. This is also just another formulation for “I _white_ it not”.
A God would only be interesting in this context if his activity were to explain how he made the Big Bang. How did he do that? Without answer, it makes no difference whether we do not know how God has organized the Big Bang, or we do not know how any other effect this has done.
Hmm, “one” or “two”, but for this one needs the corresponding program to be able to recognize it as such or to be able to detect this numerical value at all.
“In some ways, the thought model is directly connected to the object of observation – or even one.”
Like in the esoteric. Maybe because we all get the same intelligence? Which has applied the same standards? Cats can also count.
“we are not part of these sample universes”
Yes, we are! We are part of this universe, so we are with the universe. There is actually no “outer” because outside the universe or hypothetical universes is nothing. Thus, there is only this view of “inside”, even if it can be portrayed as “from outside”, although there is not. “Two” can be derived, but the prerequisite for this is that one has experienced “one”. And there is no point in the fact that this experience is not without origin.
Since, as already described, there is no model of explanation for the formation of the universe, without switch-on, we must assume that the formation of the universe cannot be achieved without God.
No, that’s not a thing or even a “thing.” And yes, she is not independent in the strict sense. In an empty universe, the concept of “one” or “two” simply makes no sense. But as soon as there is something you can make abstract models of it. As seen in a certain way, the thought model is directly connected – or even one – to the object of observation.
This is also my point: the laws of nature cannot be viewed separately from reality. They give themselves out of reality, but they do not define what or how reality is.
We must separate here – between the examples we are investigating here and as observers of these examples. We look at the whole of “outside”, we are not part of these sample universes. But even in a universe without observers, these abstract models still meet. Even if no one is there to count: “two” is still twice as much as “one”. This is completely independent of the universe or any observer who may formulate this as a thought in his head.
Of course. But I already said that this is far from a recognized theory.
All in all, we actually know very little about the universe. But after all, _what_ we know, it seems that a “God” does not necessarily have to be necessary for it, or a “God” is also not a better explanation for everything we (still) do not know.
Of course, mathematics can only be operated by purely mental separations or only by thought games. Therefore, it does not exist as an independent thing in the cosmos. The prerequisite for being able to operate them mentally is that the corresponding sense impressions have been experienced at first. And they must have come here somewhere.
“I have no answer to that.”
Oh!
“Science has different approaches to thinking, but not yet a truly resilient approach to explaining it. One is, for example, that the Big Bang was not the beginning of our universe, but at the same time the end of the ‘preherent’.”
My theory: God destroys and renews the universe until the attempt has been successful and until the living beings have learned to achieve a lasting state of good quality of life. But I don’t care. Finally, the one new big bang, beautiful and good, but it must have all had a start and must come somewhere. This only describes a continuous mechanism, but does not explain the question of its origin.
Hmm, we also know that we do not see the present when we look at the starry sky or use a telescope. Thus, the expansion of the universe could have long been stopped and the universe could have long since assumed its final expansion without seeing it at the moment. Thus, it may be questioned whether there is an end bang at all.
“Where did this Creator God come from?”
That is what I mentioned earlier.
That’s just for “things.” Mathematics is not bound to physically existing things, but it also works abstractly, without physical reality.
It may be difficult to discover Mathematical concepts if you have no physical reality – how could you think about how to handle numbers if there is nothing obvious to count? But that’s all a different subject, imo. I am only concerned with the example that there are laws that can only be the way they are and that other phenomena are virtually automatically derived from these laws.
Against question: mathematics, why is it?
In my opinion, there are natural laws or mathematics, because we are in a universe that is not empty. When there is matter, energy, what-also-always, there is also relationships between all this “content”. If a universe is, for example, full of matter particles, then concepts such as “distance”, “direction”, “speed”, etc. automatically exist between them. If these particles of matter still have mass, one can think about “pulse retention”, etc., and, for example, together with “direction” and “speed” predict the behavior of the particles (“What happens in a collision?”). This is in principle only logic and mathematics, and we build a model, a “scientific theory”, as this universe works –> we discover natural laws.
Okay, so how does it happen that exit material particles in our sample universe? Why does our sample universe exist?
I have no answer to that. Science has different approaches to thinking, but not yet a truly resilient approach to explaining it. One is, however, that the Big Bang was not the beginning of our universe, but at the same time the end of the “preherent”.
In the above-mentioned theory, “pulses” the universe/universe. We know our universe has been expanding since the Big Bang. Some scientists now say that the expansion goes so far until the space itself is almost “distorted” because at some point the energy density is too low. The room “evaporates” so to speak. But the energy is not lost, but creates a new universe with a new Big Bang.
Or, in other words, there is only energy that “condenses” into a universe for a certain time and then “evaporates” back into energy at some point. Time and again – for all eternity.
Where does this energy come from? When did the whole thing start? I don’t know. At least if you are entertained with someone who believes in a kind of Creator God who is to exist forever and have created the universe, you can ask: where did this Creator God come from? Why is it okay for a God to be “eternal” but not for a universe?
I know what you want, 2+2 is always 4, no matter how you call it. The sum or the numerical value is always the same. In my opinion, however, this is a logical consequence when the conditions for things to be separated from each other and thus taken for themselves. In my opinion, mathematics is also a consequence of this. that even lengths, widths and depths or different points can be determined by a given spatial extension, and that further calculation possibilities and feasibility results therefrom. But the prerequisites for things to exist separate from one another and that this spatial extension exists, where did they come from?
Yeah, well, water collects down, oil drives up. But why (!) this happens – more profoundly analyzed than that only the laws of nature are responsible for it. Because: Natural laws, why are they? What is it that they can exist? For: They came only with the Big Bang, before that there were neither space, time or matter. Anyway, I don’t think I’m denying the Big Bang.
I think I know what you want to say to me, namely that there could have been a number of forerunner approaches before our universe and that, of course, it would have been selected until a model had been created in which it voted. The problem is: all such explanation approaches or Models or theories, do not come out without the switch.
It’s not about the ability to calculate something. Mathematics exists without us, without anyone who applies it. If you have 2 things and there are 3 things to do, then these are 5 things – not 4 and not 6. And it doesn’t matter if there’s someone who predicted/calculated the 5 things, or if there’s someone there to count the 5 things.
No, I don’t think so. Such an order can be an emergent feature of a system. For example, if you mix water and oil and pour into a glass – after a while the water will settle down and as oil on top, cleanly separated from each other. An ordered system – author: the natural laws. And there was no one who has so calibrated these laws of nature that this ordered system could emerge.
There may also have been any number of unsuccessful attempts, with a variety of liquids that were not successful (not automatically demixed again). But as soon as the correct liquids were used by chance, the ordered system was created (pronounced: “Life created”).
Of the countless failed attempts, we only get nothing it – because they have just failed and we have not emerged to investigate them.
The ability to calculate things first presupposes a mind, a consciousness. That must have come in humans at least, somewhere. However, I believe that it is possible that God – so spirit – was actually simply there, because it may not be that nothing exists. But ordered systems always require a copyright. Otherwise there would be something completely chaotic and mutually exterminating, something that would otherwise make the foundations for life impossible. Why is it not always that new basic forces are added? According to the theory of evolution, we would have to constantly and permanently experience how the TV disappears into nothing. But these are things that don’t happen.
Who or what did it have, that 2 + 3 is 5? Or the 10 divided by 2 is also 5? Strange coincidence, right? No, it’s just that, it’s logic.
And so it is similar to the laws of nature. Matter attracts – gas clouds form lumps and when they become bigger, round planets and stars. The planets are spherical, no one has so “set up” – that’s what happens automatically.
And so, uh, it’s in life, imo, too. The various laws of nature that play a role here – this automatically results in what we call life can arise.
“Leaving” is not the right description. “Realized” is the better word. But that doesn’t just matter.
Nature always makes something even the smallest particles.
From what incentive? And what was before the smallest particles and where did they come from? And how can that be? Because there is this, it also means the higher effort, in contrast, that there would be nothing.
They came out of space. And don’t say God would have done it there.
Switching. Split, push. But never touch the core directly.
I believe in God but in a different way than you.
Don’t be. I understand before you wrote this.
What shouldn’t be, that can’t be.
Predestined… The word means “determined”. Predict a author.
Because they are predestined to do this, that is nature.
All alone?
Things develop.
Who or what else would it have been, and how could it have done itself?
Hello! Evolution does not ask for simple or difficult, that is no criterion
Those animals of a species survive best adapted to the prevailing living conditions/environmental conditions. You also have most descendants.
This is – simpler said – evolution
Where come the elementary particles, the quarks, the quantum loops or strings etc., from where come space and time? It would have been easier if there had been nothing left.
Where all this comes, we’ll never be able to answer. We can only observe.
They are convertible, but they do not disappear into nothing but remain preserved, only in a different form. And that doesn’t make both forms unoriginal.
After all, energy can become mass – and vice versa.
Or we simply accept the fact that the whole thing does not go without a copyright. And do not force people to believe that nothing comes from them.