If the universe was created from nothing... Aren't we also born the same way ourselves ?

[DIALECTIC]

I have been thinking of the universe lately...



Following those predicates:

- It is said to be born from nothing and constantly expanding into nothing (as it represents everything that exists), but now slowing down...

- They say time and space didn't exist before it and were created with the very birth of the universe ("the Big Bang"), also that everything / all the matter that ever exists today once used to be concentrated in something the size of pea...

- One persistent recent theory even says that the universe could have been created / "syphoned" from a "parent universe" through a black hole / worm hole...


Then i thought, isn't the same way we are all born ? Our parents create us through their union (sperm and egg inside our mother's body), so before that very creation we just didn't exist yet as such (or maybe just as a thought / an idea), therefore time and space from our very "universe" (our body) didn't exist either... Our body's time and space were created the very moment there was fusion between the egg and the sperm...

Therefore, we developped from nothing (besides that something being already inside the very body of our mother) into something (our own body), first our growth was very fast, then it slowed down after a while... Then decay / entropy sets in, until death... ("The Big Crunch" ?).

Also, if time / life expectancy is relative to size, an average 75 human years could be equivalent to the average life expectancy of the universe...
The same way the average 24 hours life expectancy of a fly would be equivalent to 75 human years... When we look at stars in the night sky, we are told they are billions of years old, maybe in respect of the life expectancy of the universe (if it's "alive") it is equivalent to just a few hours ?

Also your body / universe is basically a "parallel universe" (with its own time, space and specific "health" determining its own principles: a body in good health will have different "principles" / rules as a body with cancer or diabetes) in respect to other bodies: partner, parents, friends, neighbours, strangers etc... All those bodies / universes are "parallel" to each others but somehow all interconnected through behaviour, emotions and changes of our common environment...

Any thoughts ?


PS: sorry for the poor English but English is not my mother tongue...

 

[The Introvert]

Relativity, man.

*Puffs and passes*

 

[Architect]

Your first cells as a zygote, or pre-zygote are literally formed from the DNA of your parents. Half from one, half from the other. Replication and energy required come from your mom, so we don't come from nothing.

On the universe, our knowledge of cosmology is still in the early stages, I wouldn't get too wrapped up about it. Once we're permanently in space we'll be able to do some really ambitious experiments.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Replication and energy required come from your mom, so we don't come from nothing.

Yes i do understand that but before this replication where was i ? Where were my very own time and space ? That's what i mean by comparing our body (before we were thought of / engineered and after / now) and the universe's "body" / time / space...

 

[GodOfOrder]

Yes i do understand that but before this replication where was i ? Where were my very own time and space ? That's what i mean by comparing our body (before we were thought of / engineered and after / now) and the universe's "body" / time / space...

You as you are weren't anywhere. 1+1+2, before one and one two did not exist, but it came from somewhere. For two to have come into existence from nothing would require 0+0=2, which is not possible. But just because two, as an entity, did not exist previously does not mean the concept of two came from nowhere. We derive it from synthesis, two concepts combine to form a new one.

 

[defghi]

Your time and space existed, just not in its present form. Your physical being is made up of atoms that were previously scattered throughout the universe, but apparently on a trajectory to eventually become you.

The universe does tend to follow the same patterns even on wildly different scales, so the comparison between our methods of reproduction/existence and the universes is very good.

The main flaw here is that the universe was not created from nothing- there is no such thing as nothing, everything is something. There has never been any indication that nothing is even a possible state of existence- the very idea of it is a contradiction. So I think you need a better way to phrase/conceptualize that. Of course, you weren't created from nothing either, so I guess the parallel remains intact.

 

[Vrecknidj]

- It is said to be born from nothing and constantly expanding into nothing (as it represents everything that exists), but now slowing down...

Rather than speak in passive voice, you'd be better served to say "Jim says the universe was born from nothing..." or, if not Jim, at least tell us who you're referring to. Not everyone is an absolutist regarding time, not everyone is a relativist. Among those who agree with what appear to be the consequences of general relativity that conclude that at t=0 there was no spacetime there are some who claim this means one thing, some who claim it means another. There are those who point out that general relativity isn't equipped to deal with the non-existence of time, others who suggest perhaps this puzzle is one that will be solved if ever quantum theory and relativity theory can be accommodated in a more encompassing theory.

- They say time and space didn't exist before it and were created with the very birth of the universe ("the Big Bang"), also that everything / all the matter that ever exists today once used to be concentrated in something the size of pea...

See my previous comment. They who?

...

Then i thought, isn't the same way we are all born ? Our parents create us through their union (sperm and egg inside our mother's body), so before that very creation we just didn't exist yet as such (or maybe just as a thought / an idea), therefore time and space from our very "universe" (our body) didn't exist either... Our body's time and space were created the very moment there was fusion between the egg and the sperm...

The "my time" and "your time" thing really confuses issues. Again, depending upon the theory, there are both relative and absolute time reference frames, and all kinds of interesting results come about when we examine them. There's a reason why, when you're on an airplane going 600 miles per hour, that when you hand someone something, it doesn't fly off at 600 miles per hour from you. Anyway, your notion here serves as an equivocation on the term 'time.'

Therefore, we developped from nothing (besides that something being already inside the very body of our mother) into something (our own body), first our growth was very fast, then it slowed down after a while... Then decay / entropy sets in, until death... ("The Big Crunch" ?).

This categorical error could result from taking the previous equivocation axiomatically, or it could come about through other means.

Good conversation though.

 

[DIALECTIC]

The main flaw here is that the universe was not created from nothing- there is no such thing as nothing, everything is something. There has never been any indication that nothing is even a possible state of existence- the very idea of it is a contradiction.

Nothing (non existence) is the opposite of something / being (existence): one defines the other, the same way black defines white or life defines death etc.

There has never been any indication that nothing is even a possible state of existence- the very idea of it is a contradiction. So I think you need a better way to phrase/conceptualize that. Of course, you weren't created from nothing either, so I guess the parallel remains intact.

Okay, ill try again: before being created as such i was not determined yet, i didn't exist "in fact" / in actuality at that time; i was indetermined, i was an abstraction, i existed purely "in theory" as a (wave of) possibility (of being first concepted / thought of, then conceived) ?

 

[DIALECTIC]

.

You argue on semantics, the interesting part (i thought) was the context / pragmatics. I am no scientist, more of a philosophy dilletante, that's why this thread was posted here, not in the science section. I am sure who i intended by "they" and whether my personal concept of time's relativistic or absolutistic has little impact on the general meaning of (the rest of) my little story ?

 

[Architect]

Yes i do understand that but before this replication where was i ? Where were my very own time and space ? That's what i mean by comparing our body (before we were thought of / engineered and after / now) and the universe's "body" / time / space...

The "I" you are talking about is an illusion. I think the old time Buddhists were on to something, in my thinking about ego and "I" I've come to suspect that the way the brain works the ego is some kind of illusion.

For example, I believe that when we sleep the self is gone. Waking up is a process of the brain recreating the I through hierarchical pattern recognizers that were dormant all night. Further, the "I" is something that changes. I've worked to document the I of 2011. The "I" of 2013 is quite different, so much that while there is continuity of some sense there isn't cohesiveness, in the sense that a rock from 2011 is the same exact rock of today.

Your "I" slowly grew together as a child, and that person isn't you as you are today in my estimation.

 

[gilliatt]

I wanted to get back to Objective Reality. The way I understand it is, reality exists as an objective absolute-facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Existence exists means that nature, for example, the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. I understand there can be some transformations, A changes to B., but the atoms, the elements stay. An atom is itself and so is the universe. And 'nothing', there is no such thing as nothing. Everything is indestructible. Destruction of anything would involve its disappearance (change into nothing, and there is no nothing. What is, is eternal.

 

[The Introvert]

I wanted to get back to Objective Reality. The way I understand it is, reality exists as an objective absolute-facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Existence exists means that nature, for example, the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. I understand there can be some transformations, A changes to B., but the atoms, the elements stay. An atom is itself and so is the universe. And 'nothing', there is no such thing as nothing. Everything is indestructible. Destruction of anything would involve its disappearance (change into nothing, and there is no nothing. What is, is eternal.

And what about what is not?

What about something that is on a different plane of existence? Is that something, or nothing?

 

[gilliatt]

These two premises, first, 'What is, is' and second, 'What is not, is not. These are self-evidently truth. What is not, is not means that there is no nothing, that the word 'nothing' does not name anything. Ex: Try to think about nothing. No, you are thinking about something. You are thinking about a unicorn, some fictitious animal. Anytime you think at all, you are thinking about something, some object etc. "Thou canst not know nor utter what is not-that is impossible." "Nothing exists," is self-contradictory. There is no nothing that can be the subject of that sentence. Another one, 'What is was created'. OK, it was created from (a) out of nothing (b) out of something. (a) there is no nothing for there is no nothing, (b) out of something else, no, there is only 'what is'. So, what is, is uncreated.

 

[DIALECTIC]

These two premises, first, 'What is, is' and second, 'What is not, is not. These are self-evidently truth. What is not, is not means that there is no nothing, that the word 'nothing' does not name anything. Ex: Try to think about nothing. No, you are thinking about something. You are thinking about a unicorn, some fictitious animal. Anytime you think at all, you are thinking about something, some object etc. "Thou canst not know nor utter what is not-that is impossible." "Nothing exists," is self-contradictory. There is no nothing that can be the subject of that sentence. Another one, 'What is was created'. OK, it was created from (a) out of nothing (b) out of something. (a) there is no nothing for there is no nothing, (b) out of something else, no, there is only 'what is'. So, what is, is uncreated.

"Nothing" (non-existence / the void) and "Something" (existence) being both relative are they just 2 sides of the same coin ? "Nothing" being not manifested (yet ) but still being potential and "Something" being manifested / actual (until it's not so anymore)... Are they both part of evolution ?

"The conception and its existence are two sides, distinct yet united, like soul and body. The body is the same life as the soul, and yet the two can be named independently. A soul without a body would not be a living thing, and vice versa. Thus the visible existence of the conception is its body, just as the body obeys the soul which produced it."

HEGEL - Philosophy of Right (1821)

 

[gilliatt]

The point is, the way in which man knows the world is not the way in which the world naturally exists, because knowledge is an expression of universals, while in nature only particular & individual things are found. So knowledge, is not at the same time an analysis of the world as known. We do know the individual substances of which the world is made, but the intelligible structure that we study in science etc. is a structure of knowledge but not of the world. The world needs no such structure to be what it is, it is man who needs it in his mind to know the world. Concepts, principles, meanings, universals are intentions of the mind, and not of the essence of things, they are instruments of the mind in knowing, but they are not by themselves the ultimate objects of knowing. To sum, the world is what it is without being known. Thought is not the measure of being: it is the interpretation of human experience. (Let say we began understanding 'an electron balanced by an antielectron, or positron. And an electron & a positron combine, there is a mutual annihilation of the two particles. No mass is left. It becomes energy-gamma rays. A proton & a antiproton will combine to lose mass & form energy, same will neutron/antineutron. There was nothing left after the annihilation.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Relativity, man.

*Puffs and passes*