Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Tomdstone]

I propose that we hold in abeyance the adjectives, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, but first we work on the idea instead namely:

• whether or not the existence of the universe demands the existence of -]an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving*/-] a creator Being of the universe.

Why put in abeyance the attributes of all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving?

Because it is the more logical and intelligent issue to take up first: for what does it avail for us and for God if He had not before anything else created the universe in which we exist and move and have our residence?

KingCoil

But it would not be God, if the Creator were not all-knowing and all-powerful.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The infinite number of universes could have been created simultaneously. For example, there is no contradiction in conceptualizing an infinite number of natural numbers: {1,2,3,4,…}

How could an infinite number of anything be created? It would be to make creation a necessary attribute of God, and it is not. You may think it is conceivable, but it is not conceivable as far as I’m concerned. It would mean that if God were greater in terms of infinity than His creation, then His creation would not really be infinite. In other words, God cannot create Himself. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I still have not yet finished with page 1 of this thread.

The issue of this thread as formulated in the title is founded on what I call an invalid concept.

Here is the title: “Could the Universe have Created Itself?”

I wonder if the author is aware that the question he proposes is grounded on an invalid concept, but what is an invalid concept?

It is a thought in the mind of us humans that is effectively self-contradictory, like say the thought of a married bachelor.

Another example is that of a square circle.

A self-created universe, a married bachelor, a square circle, and all such self-contradictory concepts are invalid concepts.

The offshoot of an invalid concept is that it has no intrinsic possibility of realization in the actual objective reality of being or existing.

So that it has no potential neither from itself nor from another self of coming into existence at all: not from what I call active potency toward self-realization, i.e. itself making itself come into existence by itself, and neither from passive potency, i.e. it being made to come into existence by another self or thing that is already existing and thus not corresponding to an invalid concept in turn.

It is irrational and even insane for human beings as rational entities to engage in the discussion of the possibility of the existence of an invalid concept, not so that it has a corresponding object in the actual objective reality of being or existence.

On the above considerations, the thread “Could the Universe have Created Itself?” is an invalid thread.

I have not read the pages of this thread coming after page 1, but I will say now that posters involved in its discussion are both irrational and insane, unless they are exclusively into the analysis of how socalled physics cosmologists do try to convince folks that a universe could and did create itself.

So, posters here who are cautious on not thinking and writing irrationally and even insanely should rather be occupied with how the socalled physics cosmologists are into all manners of ambiguity, in producing mountains of words to amaze naive folks that no God is needed, the universe could and did create itself.

KingCoil

Yes, that is the whole point. It is what current " popular " cosmologists think and promote. So, the idea was that the validity or invalidity of the concept should be discussed here.

Linus2nd

 

[Tomdstone]

How could an infinite number of anything be created? It would be to make creation a necessary attribute of God, and it is not. You may think it is conceivable, but it is not conceivable as far as I’m concerned. It would mean that if God were greater in terms of infinity than His creation, then His creation would not really be infinite. In other words, God cannot create Himself. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

There are different levels of infinity.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

There are different levels of infinity.

Infinity is, like eternity and unique, an absolute - so how your different levels?

 

[Tomdstone]

Infinity is, like eternity and unique, an absolute - so how your different levels?

In what sense is infinity an absolute? I doubt that it is. For example, even if the universe is infinite, its temperature does not have to be absolute zero.
Also infinity is definitely not unique. Take for example the infinity of the natural numbers and the infinity of the real numbers. They are two different levels of infinity.
It is pretty obvious that there are an infinite level of infinities. Suppose for example that aleph0 is one level of infinity. Then you get an entirely different and higher level when you take 2^aleph0. And there is no reason why this process could not be continued indefinitely to obtain an infinite number of different levels of infinity.

 

[alevanpa]

Tombstone,
all the infinities that you can point to are a part of a single universe, they indicate nothing about infinities outside this universe–or even that they, themselves, are “different.” You must explain how they are “different?” How is numerical infinity “different” from, say, the infinity of whatever is outside of our universe?
Infinity, it seems to me, is a philosophical concept–an hypothesie, if you will. It, by definition, is a value that can never be measured. Although we can use an infinite series in a calculation, as if it were a real value, it is not “real” in the sense my age, or the age of the universe–a, measurable, start point and end point–is “real.”
Anyway, the whole gist of this polemic is to ask you to “prove” that there are “different” infinities–and not just different series that meet the same definition–like, I’m 70 years old and Harry is 25 years old. Harry, and I are two different series containing the same concept: age. Our ages are different, but the concept, age, is the same for both of us. How is the concept, “Age”, different between us? How are there different infinities, and not just different series containing the same concept?

 

[Tomdstone]

Anyway, the whole gist of this polemic is to ask you to “prove” that there are “different” infinities–and not just different series that meet the same definition–like, I’m 70 years old and Harry is 25 years old.

It has been proven by Cantor that the infinity of the real numbers is larger than the infinity of the natural numbers.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tombstone,
all the infinities that you can point to are a part of a single universe,…

It is not clear that there is a single universe and not a multiverse.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is not clear that there is a single universe and not a multiverse.

Undeniable single universe vs a vague ‘possibility’ of a multiverse as an imaginative proposition.

Clearly there is one universe, beyond that there is only nebulous lack of clarity.

Indubitable clarity and far-fetched possibility are not on par regarding what is “clear.”

 

[Aloysium]

It is not clear that there is a single universe and not a multiverse.

I understand the difference, but I don’t quite get the significance or what the implications would be.
Does it make any difference to us as human beings?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That " multiverses " actually exist or could possibly exist is nothing but science fictiona. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for such a possibility nor is it even possible for such evidence to exist. Thus, multiverse = science fiction.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

It has been proven by Cantor that the infinity of the real numbers is larger than the infinity of the natural numbers.

Since there is an infinite set of rational numbers between the “finite” set of 1 and 2, it could be equally argued that infinity is finite (a logical contradiction.) That could mean the concept of “infinity” is incoherent, in which case Cantor is simply mistaken in claiming that one infinite set can be larger than another infinite set.

 

[Tomdstone]

That " multiverses " actually exist or could possibly exist is nothing but science fictiona. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for such a possibility nor is it even possible for such evidence to exist. Thus, multiverse = science fiction.

Linus2nd

Not true. Scientists have found several cosmic bruises in the CMB which is evidence that our universe has collided with other universes at least four times.
humansarefree.com/2013/05/solid-scientific-evidence-of-multiple.html

 

[Tomdstone]

Clearly there is one universe, beyond that there is only nebulous lack of clarity.

Indubitable clarity and far-fetched possibility are not on par regarding what is “clear.”

Not true. See previous post.

 

[Tomdstone]

Since there is an infinite set of rational numbers between the “finite” set of 1 and 2, it could be equally argued that infinity is finite (a logical contradiction.) That could mean the concept of “infinity” is incoherent, in which case Cantor is simply mistaken in claiming that one infinite set can be larger than another infinite set.

Please show us the mistake in the proof that the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not true. See previous post.

From your article:

The findings, by Stephen Feeney from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at University College London, are likely to be controversial. A number of cosmologists have already written in response to the paper that** it is too easy to jump to conclusions about what can be seen in the CMB. **

The team behind the paper accept that ‘it is rather easy to find all sorts of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB’.

In short, too early to tell if this even has any relevance at all regarding the highly speculative possibility of a multiverse. It can’t even be considered as physical evidence of any kind, as yet, if ever at all.

 

[Tomdstone]

From your article:

In short, too early to tell if this even has any relevance at all regarding the highly speculative possibility of a multiverse. It can’t even be considered as physical evidence of any kind, as yet, if ever at all.

I hope that people read the entire article and not just the snippet which you have posted.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please show us the mistake in the proof that the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

Do you understand what the proof actually means?

Explain, if you do, because the implications from a “proof” that real numbers are a larger infinite than algebraic numbers or natural numbers because they are in theory “uncountable,” whereas natural numbers “in theory” are countable are largely trivial. How could anyone know that a countable set of infinite numbers could even be compared to an uncountable set, especially if “infinite” is incoherent to begin with?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I hope that people read the entire article and not just the snippet which you have posted.

The whole article doesn’t invalidate the snippet. It merely plays up the infinitesimally small probability.

People should read the entire article, but not at the risk of ignoring the significance of the snippet.

By the way, the article is in no way authoritative as should be noted by the number of spelling and grammatical errors. No attribution, either.

To wit:

The findings are based on the complex theory of eternal inflation for our universe. This theory holds that **out **universe if only one bubble in a larger cosmos and that other universes,which will have different physics to our own, all exist at the same time.

This is also know as the the multiverse theory. Where these universe bubbles crash against each other they leave signature traces in the background radiation, some scientists believe.