Why is there anything? - AgnosticWeb.com

Another mental foraging into the philosophic jungle of why is there anything. A good review:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.100-existence-why-is-there-a-universe.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg21128221.100

Another mental foraging into the philosophic jungle of why is there anything. A good review: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.100-existence-why-is-there-a-universe.ht... shocked no one else here has responded to this one! -The article discusses something here that Seth Lloyd discussed in "Programming the Universe."-"It tells us that nothingness is a precarious state of affairs. "You can form a state that has no quarks and antiquarks in it, and it's totally unstable," says Wilczek. "It spontaneously starts producing quark-antiquark pairs." The perfect symmetry of nothingness is broken. That leads to an unexpected conclusion, says Victor Stenger, a physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder: despite entropy, "something is the more natural state than nothing"."-(Emphasis added was all mine.) Though I know you don't like Stenger, two facts about the universe are clear: There is about 1:1000000000 more particles of matter in the universe than antiparticles; and that the universe seems "fine-tuned" from order. The difficult part here is the question, "What divining rod can be used to point to a creator here?"

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Though I know you don't like Stenger, two facts about the universe are clear: There is about 1:1000000000 more particles of matter in the universe than antiparticles; and that the universe seems "fine-tuned" from order. The difficult part here is the question, "What divining rod can be used to point to a creator here?"'-The fine tuning. (See Leslie, Universes)) And then there is this article which proposes that the universe has angular momentum and spins, and then further suggests that it might spin in empty space:-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

That leads to an unexpected conclusion, says Victor Stenger, a physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder: despite entropy, "something is the more natural state than nothing"." > > (Emphasis added was all mine.) > Though I know you don't like Stenger, two facts about the universe are clear: There is about 1:1000000000 more particles of matter in the universe than antiparticles; and that the universe seems "fine-tuned" from order. The difficult part here is the question, "What divining rod can be used to point to a creator here?"-To me, this simply means the universe IS the creator - God (as some might call it). Just sayin'.-bb

BBELLA: To me, this simply means the universe IS the creator - God (as some might call it). Just sayin'. We have certainly had this conversation before, but it's worth repeating. Consciousness is the key. If we all agree that the universe is the creator, we must then inevitably ask whether it is aware of what it is doing. If it isn't, there would seem to be nothing beyond the material world of the atheists, so why even mention the word God? The universe is the only name you need!

"But that implies that the laws of physics were somehow encoded into the fabric of our universe before it existed. How can physical laws exist outside of space and time and without a cause of their own?"- I think this pretty well sums it up for me. In order for any of our theories to work, regardless of the theory the laws of physics had to be in operation prior to their being anything. What better divining rod could be asked for?

"But that implies that the laws of physics were somehow encoded into the fabric of our universe before it existed. How can physical laws exist outside of space and time and without a cause of their own?" > > > I think this pretty well sums it up for me. In order for any of our theories to work, regardless of the theory the laws of physics had to be in operation prior to their being anything. What better divining rod could be asked for?-The big bang model posits however an initial reality where literally no laws of physics existed except for quantum nondeterminism. The laws of physics don't exist prior to the singularity, they require there to be space and particles first. This is why "The laws of physics break down" at the moment of singularity, because everything there ever was was shoved into the tiniest of spaces. This is, in fact, why we can even have the debate in the first place. (If material laws came into existence with the prime cause, we literally have ex-nihilo.)