The map of ideas how the universe appeared from nothing [pdf]

http://immortality-roadmap.com/universeorigin7.pdf

by hunvreus • 10 years ago

33 62 10 years ago

OtterCoder6• 10 years ago

It's an overview, but not a particularly deep or accurate one. Good on you for starting to think about the big questions, but don't be so dismissive. Serious people with serious reasons have believed every one of these. Don't discount them until you know why they were believed.

fiatjaf5• 10 years ago

It seems to be the classical first-grade-teacher mentality: "look at this shit people used to believe 1000 years ago, they were so stupid!".

But if and when you go there and read the work in which these old people said what they believed you got convinced -- and you barely know that you are convinced of the same points you in the past found ridiculous under the guidance of your primary teacher.

OtterCoder6• 10 years ago

This is why I'm religious.

SomeStupidPoint7• 10 years ago

Also, understanding what went wrong with their ideas is often very illuminating.

For example, the failire of the Michelson-Morley experiment is the basis for relativity and their test equipment was essential for QM!

LIGO, for all its complexity, is just the Michelson-Morley experiment again, this time sensitive enough to detect waves in the ether rather than drag from our motion. Of course we've switched a lot of terminology around since then, but the idea is the same.

Similarly, interferometery is integral to QM studies, and is a critical tool of modern science.

redial10• 10 years ago

Don't discount them until you know why they were believed.

It seems you already discounted most of them and chose the one most comfortable to you.

OtterCoder6• 10 years ago

That's quite a leap from a few hundred characters of comments.

azatris• 10 years ago

Perhaps there should be some sort of a collaborative peer-reviewed page of all ideas like that, so we don't miss out on anything.

amriksohata5• 10 years ago

Great scientists including Oppenheimer and Einstein drew inspiration from Hindu texts, the Vedas and Srimad Bhagvatam goes into very specific detail of how the Universe was created. They go into detail of how many Universes actually exist in the causal ocean, these are created and destroyed in an instant, but their lifetimes seem an eternity to us inside the Universe. i.e space time being curved and all that. Hindu texts went into this detail long before any other scientists "discovered it" and Aryabhatta a Hindu scientist also elaborated on this.

WhitneyLand5• 10 years ago

Putting quotes around Einstein discovering spacetime is insulting and totally incorrect.

Hindu cosmology is based on religion and supernatural concepts, it is not science. It's interesting that Hindu mythology included references to a multiverse and other concepts that sound similar to modern theories. It's also interesting that science fiction writers have foreshadowed future achievements, but Jules Verne is not a scientist.

A lot of scientists are inspired by fiction, that doesn't mean you start putting their accomplishments in quotes.

catawbasam3• 10 years ago

Minkowski, not Einstein.

DougN72• 10 years ago

I think you're really just saying "your belief system is totally wrong and mine is the right one." If you're Hindu (if I understood the parent), it was known as much before as it was later known by Einstein.

This is something that always intrigues me. People that believe in science (me included) don't see how much faith they too have in what they are taught. And that over time and with more understanding, what they were taught also ends up being false. For example, I was taught the ultimate truth by scientists that electrons orbited an atomic nucleus. I had blind faith. Turns out we were all wrong.

amriksohata5• 10 years ago

@WhitneyLand Sorry for insulting you with the truth lol!

The specific thing I am talking about is not based on supernatural concepts, as @DougN7 said, turns out half the Science that comes out has to be revised when they realise its not true.

There was a time when Scientists said in the 60s that smoking was good for you, then there were the Harvard Scientists that were bought out to say that sugar has no effect on our weight. Now tell me, if such great scientists can get it wrong, how can you be insulted?

Comparing ideas that great scientists read up on as fiction is insulting to both their theories and you're only fooling people.

negamax2• 10 years ago

Ohh man, as an Indian and who's aware of these texts. They are pure speculation. Although a good one. Question raised here is legitimate and ocean, blah and blah; doesn't answer the question why something exists.

amriksohata5• 10 years ago

@negamax, the scripts specify exactly why we exist.

quickben• 10 years ago

This will be an everlasting topic, as being inside this system we call a universe, prevents us from looking outside of it, and thus deriving the outer rules that drives it.

Universe, uni verse, one song.

ovibos• 10 years ago

This point of view is addressed in 6.3

meric5• 10 years ago

My religious belief is based on several categories in this post - the universe is created by God's observation of it, as God's experience, and this universe exists [in comparison to God] as much as our own experience of our reflection is real. And God is the ultimate reality, and our reality is merely a reflection of Him/Her. I.e. By analogy, As a man observes himself in the mirror, a reflection is created.

And since all the intelligence and conciousness on Earth is part of this reality we experience, and Earth is such a small part of this reality, being more stars in the universe than sand on Earth, this reality is very intelligent and conscious. And this only illuminates and reflects the eternal and infinite power of God, the One, the most High.

WhitneyLand5• 10 years ago

If you travelled back in time to ancient Greece, what would say to people who described polytheism with great reverence and said they believe in Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades because they represent the ultimate truth?

OtterCoder6• 10 years ago

I'd say the same thing I say to atheists who are convinced we are in a simulation: "That's one way to look at it."

catawbasam3• 10 years ago

Look past the labels and you will find some familiar ideas:

"The life of the unmoved mover is self-contemplative thought ("νοήσεως νόησις (noeseos noesis)", i.e. "thought of thought").[1][2] According to Aristotle, the gods cannot potentially be distracted from this eternal self-contemplation because, in that instant, they would cease to exist." from Wikipedia on Aristotle's Metaphysics

meric5• 10 years ago

I wouldn't, history clearly shows God intended their descendants to believe in his oneness, I lift not one finger and their idea of how the universe came about grew to God the One over time, on no action on my part. There's no need to proselytise IMO, and when I talk about it, it's more for sharing intellectual curiosity.

fiatjaf5• 10 years ago

The way Greeks treated their polytheism is very different from the fundamental Christian attitude towards God.

You should had predicted this if you were actually gave a sincere thought to the matter instead of just repeating this atheistic arguments.

jordanlev• 10 years ago

I appreciate your explanation and have a question for you (and I mean this with genuine curiosity): what about where God came from then? Is he/she/it a reflection of some other entity's perception? Or does it just not matter (like, this God is a singularity of cosmological understanding -- it is not possible to know what's beyond that level)?

This same question can of course be asked of any explanation of how the universe came to be (religious, scientific, or otherwise)... which is what makes this question so fascinating to me.

It makes me realize that some things just can't be understood by causal logic alone.

meric5• 10 years ago

Sometimes things like numbers, which we cannot observe in the real world, have implications for the calculations we do make. We cannot observe them, and yet they have real implications for how we do things. And yet, where did mathematical laws come from? It's almost as if they're more discovered and remembered than invented...timeless, and everywhere. And that's how I think God is. It's the unified theory of everything for me.

EDIT: removed imaginary it was distracting the point

SomeStupidPoint7• 10 years ago

I think of it like this:

It's fairly straight forward to build the other numbers from a starting value, 1, but defining 1 itself requires a full understanding of the infinite structure, and the other things it can build. So you can view 1 as both more basic than the other numbers and also more complex than any of them.

Similarly, the argument would be that God is both things: nothing but the fundamental notion that the universe does stuff (or is), and also the full complexity of structure built from that fundamental doing.

In the same way that mathematics ultimately tried to eat its own tail -- using advanced theory and structures to loop back and define its base structure -- science is attempting to tell the story of how a singular type of fundamental perturbation self-acting can give rise to the plethora of structures and phenomena we see, and must inevitably do so.

That we keep running in to the same sorts of definitional loops, fractal structures, notions of duality, etc across both efforts suggests something of the nature of God -- or at least the computational structure of the universe we live in, as it is built atop a singularity.

Getting a little further afield -- modern physics suggests that reality can be interpreted as a quantum computer operating on universal scale and timelimes, so in a very real sense, we're just a subset of the singularity computing. I would argue that many primitive people intuited this fact before we had the terminology to really articulate it, and that we see this splashed across religion, covered by later political additions.

ZeroFries• 10 years ago

I think the great mystics would say, God is beyond beginning and endings, beginnings and endings are in the mind, not reality, although reality makes the appearance of beginnings and endings possible.

based2• 10 years ago

typo reserch

niels_olson• 10 years ago

I can't connect, and the Google cache is unreadable. Can anyone repost on a mirror?

senectus1• 10 years ago

This really does suffer from a significant flaw... That the universe (as we're aware of it) came from "nothing".

Not to mention that we "know" what "nothing" is... we have no examples of "nothing". Not sure how we could really define it properly to begin with.

The map of ideas how the universe appeared from nothing [pdf]

Related Stories