Bright flash of light as life begins.

[Rockstar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...begins-when-s/

When you think about it thats kinda how the universe began. Not with any of the 92 known elements, no carbon, no oxygen, no photons, neutrons or electrons. Just an exquisitly intense flash of energy from nothing. The metaphysical transforming into the physical. Or so the theory goes.

[Skybird]

Modern astronomny and cosmology do not see the Big Bang as a singular event anymore, but more as just the latest in a series of Big Bangs, maybe, or one level of a mutli-levelled multiverse.

Link - Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing

Finished reading this just two weeks ago.

While being a fascinating attempt to explain why there was a Big Bang, there is a methodological dilemma here, and Krauss did not really convince me that his explanations solve it, or even cover it. If, as modern cosmologists claim, "Nothing" indeed is instabile and for reasons dealing with the quantum foam level necessarily always will sooner or later bring something into existence necessarily, and if - again as many cosmologists today claim - there is a chance that our universe indeed is a multiverse of growing and potentially infinete diversity, and every crossing in the decision tree forms new universes (one for every potential option possible as an outcome at such decision points), then you end up with having a model that explains EVERYTHING, and worse: you end up with a model saying that EVERYTHING is possible. But - that is not what a scientific theory should do: claiming that just evertyhing, anything is possible, that in one universe it is like this and in the other universe it is like that. A theory gets formed to be tested, to exclude, to make predictions, to see whether these predictions are valid or not, and by this to allow us of growing precision in our forecats and in our ways to master our life, our world, to form new tools, etc etc etc. A model saying "evertyhing is possible", effectively says nothing, and sort of ends all scientific debate, because it could be this way, but it could also be that way, and thus: our differentiation between what is possble and what not is no longer needed for intellectual debate. The pragmatic value of such a model is nill, zero, non-existent. Technological, medical advance on basis of such thinking, is impossible. Krauss' book did not convince me that the author seriously deals with this inherent implication.

His definition of "Nothing" however honours this problem somehow, for he chooses not an understanding of Nothingness in the meaning of an anti-thesis to "existence" in thwe widest and most absolute meaning of the word, but chooses the relatively empty space in astronomers' understanbding as the Nothingness to which he refers. That allows him to attribute qualities to "Nothing", but he denies that when you attach qualities to nothing, that nothing is not nothing anymore. Thats another problem I have issues with. Krauss denies the need to deal with the more metaphysical understanding of an absolute, total Nothingness, a Nothing that is so total that you cannot even describe it by a name like "nothing", sicne that already "is" something again. As I said, Krauss chooses pragmatically here, and it allows him to practice some impressive thoughts modelling.

Dawkins writes in his afterword that what Darwin delivered in crushing blows to metaphysicists in the realm of biology, Krauss' book now delivers in the realm of physics: a lethal blow to metaphysical ideas wanting to link answers to the question of why anything, something exists at all, to metaphysical conceptions of untested, untestable, unproven and in the end purely imaginary nature. Maybe the book does this indeed, it still is a good book. But its value lies in the easiness by which it gives an overview on the DRAMATIC advances and improvements in astronomy, cosmology and related physics in the last 15-20 years. What has happened in these fields in the past two decades, cannot be overrated, it is a revolution in our ways to see the world, the universe, and our quersations about why they are there.

Recommended reading, but take it with a grain of salt. Good to read since he writes easy, at least mostly, and often with a refreshing, ironic sense of humour. The implications of modern cosmologists' current views of things existing, is a grim one however.

On the other hand, we probably live in the best time of our universe's still so young lifetime cycle, its very childhood, and only here and now it is that we can even become aware of that we live in special times that allow us to know what we know. Or in Krauss' words: out times are special, becasue they are the only times our universe will have ever had that allows us to realise that they are special. Later generations - talking of billions of years - will necessarily lack the possibility to even realise that there is more out there than just one galaxy. I found it stunning to realise this conclusion: that in a couple of dozen of billion years any cosmologists then will be thrown back to a chance of understanding the universe that equals the backwardly conception of our ancestors centuries ago. Mind you, its just decades that our scientists still believed our galaxy is static, unique, and the only one of its kind. In the distant future the universe will have inflated so much and will continue to do so at speeds beyond the speed of light so that other galaxies will have no chance to send light to our galaxy that would unveil their existence to any observer inside our own. Its as if the universe seizes to exist, seen from any static point in space. These observers will have no chance to ever see another galaxy. Their understanding will be limited to this our own single galaxy. What a sober outlook! But as Dawkins also said in his afterword: the universe has no duty whatver to spend us comfort or consolation: things are like they are, and they will become increasingly bleak, it seems.

Gives a new meaning to the phrase "we live in a special moment of time". We indeed do.

Another stunning idea is the understanding that nature's laws probabaly are just random generations, and not attributed to inherent traits of things existing at all. They may not only differ from universe to universe (embedded in a growing multiverse), but may even be different in different corners of just the one universe we know of. Thats another one of this book's bites that it delivers to the reader.

Our existence bases on a fragile and precious balance of factors and variables that mostly are unknown to us. And if somehting happens at the very lowest quantum level, it could change the essential nature of the universe we live in from one moment to the next. When I put the book aside, finished, I took an old DVD to TV and watched it again, with one of my favourite movies: The Quiet Earth.

My old mentor, trainer and teacher used to say that life means to accept utmost and total and absolute uncertainty about anything, and that this is not for the weak of hearts. Its the way of the warrior. I sometimes got accused by religious believers that I were a coward for not trusting in their idols. I always saw it exactly the other way around: that it takes utmost courage to accept living a life basing on total uncertainty and lacking understanding about the why and how and where-to.

And maybe something like a meaning of life or a sense of things does not even exist. That is maybe the toughest consequence to accept from this book.

Good, but in a way: tough.

P.S. Krauss' disassembly of string-theory is worth to be given special appreciation. I first frowned, then laughed.

[Aktungbby]

Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg

Well they don't call it a BIG BANG Theory fer nuthin'!

[Jimbuna]

I prefer my eggs unfertilised.

[Rockstar]

At the moment there are for some, speculation as to how the Big Bang in this universe happened. What some call a miracle, science calls a one time event. Multi-universe theory aside, science does know the big bang of this universe was a one time event and some how or another the origin of life from non living matter.

The idea of us existing because of random chance is I think the least of all probabilities. Harold Horowitz computed to create bacterium would require more time than the universe has exsisted. Paul Davies thought life was built into the scheme of things in a very basic way. Simon Conway Morris professor of evolutionary paleobiology found the existence of life on earth appears to be surrounded by improbablities. Science as we know it today was even enough to persuade the late Mr. Antony Flew to change his mind.

The basic question of wether science and religion are mutaully exclusive reduces to wether there is a place for the metaphysical to be brought within what was once purely materialistic science. The discovery of the big bang, creation of time space and energy, the metamorphisis of that energy of creation into particles and the transformation of those particles into sentient beings alive with feelings of joy, the transcendental ecstasy of love (or as Aktungbby calls it "big bang" ) and self awarness, all cry out for an expalnation that seems to find its roots in something other than the material. Physical particles from which living bodies are constructed , the atoms and molecules show not one hint of sentience. How can we explain that a bundle of inert energy (super powerful rays of light) became alive?

[Skybird]

Krauss and multiverse-theoreticists would argue that if there are many universes, a multiverse, and thus there is always a place where any option is possible, it would not be a surprise at all that life exists in our universe - the universe in which - and nowhere else - life like ours and that on Earth to be set to form up. One could as well be surprised at that fishes can breathe underwater and that birds flying have wings.

It also is totally possible that Eath shows the only kind of life, or that our universe is the only one amongst many universes where biological life in our understanding has formed up.

This one is another grim implication of this concept of multiverses, and theories of Everything: that maybe indeed life is almost - or in fact - unique for our place, and that we are embedded in a universe or multiverse that else is a lifeless desert, an empty void of non-living material things taking place that nobody witnesses and will see.

Austrian author Adalbert Stifter - LINK - had written some of the most poetic and beautiful descriptions of nature I have ever read (and also some that easily outlasts the breath of the reader , he is no easy writer to read, imo ) . But he was neither a romanticist, nor was he sentimental or implied nature is sentimental. In a way, the picture he forms of nature, is horrific, despite the beautiful poetry of his words. Not many readers seem to get this note in his work, however. It is quite subtle, and underlying his work at a very deep level only. Difficult reading.

Sorry, for somewhat hijacking your thread, Rockstar, I only red your article and saw "light", "bright sparkle" and "big bang" - and BANG! there went all the switches in my head clicking... I washed away in one flush what your article originally was about. At least we talk on science here.

[Skybird]

The mentioned afterword to Krauss' book can be freely and legally had here: LINK.

[Rockstar]

If there is one thing I love to read about is our understanding of the universe and its origins. Not to sound preachy but also I love reading how some of what we know can be tied in with a certain book written 3000 years ago.

Ive read about the multi universe theory too none of which including modern physics do I completely understand its all too mind boggling for me, but its that which makes my mind hungry for more.

As for multi universe theory when in my mind I boil it down to the basics I come away with the idea, nothing is real.

[Rockstar]

i just read dawkins on krauss. He (Dawkins) seems to me to a very angry and close minded man brushing aside some very serious questions but may be thats just who he is, Im fine with that. Personally I look at all possibilities including the idea that we are not humans seeking a spiritual experience but rather spiritual beings having a human experience. Unfortunetlay at the moment there seems to be only way to prove if that is true but, Im fine with that too.

Anyway I will be sure to read Krauss. Dawkins? Well the way I see it he's just like me, a man with an opinion based on some elses work. Fortunately Im content with my own as we all should be

sorry seems I might have gotten of the path of science a bit.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

At the moment there are for some, speculation as to how the Big Bang in this universe happened. What some call a miracle, science calls a one time event. Multi-universe theory aside, science does know the big bang of this universe was a one time event and some how or another the origin of life from non living matter.

The idea of us existing because of random chance is I think the least of all probabilities. Harold Horowitz computed to create bacterium would require more time than the universe has exsisted. Paul Davies thought life was built into the scheme of things in a very basic way. Simon Conway Morris professor of evolutionary paleobiology found the existence of life on earth appears to be surrounded by improbablities. Science as we know it today was even enough to persuade the late Mr. Antony Flew to change his mind.

The basic question of wether science and religion are mutaully exclusive reduces to wether there is a place for the metaphysical to be brought within what was once purely materialistic science. The discovery of the big bang, creation of time space and energy, the metamorphisis of that energy of creation into particles and the transformation of those particles into sentient beings alive with feelings of joy, the transcendental ecstasy of love (or as Aktungbby calls it "big bang" ) and self awarness, all cry out for an expalnation that seems to find its roots in something other than the material. Physical particles from which living bodies are constructed , the atoms and molecules show not one hint of sentience. How can we explain that a bundle of inert energy (super powerful rays of light) became alive?

God said 'let there be light' so the Fallen Angel and his many minions would have a suitable purgatory...
Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt. I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

[Rockin Robbins]

Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence for multi-dimensional universes, multiple big bangs followed by big crunches, or anything at all beyond 13 and a fraction billion years ago.

Whatever is said about those things is not science at all. It is baseless speculation. Many have some kind of a love affair with mathematics, thinking that if something is mathematically consistent, it must be true. It is true that baseless speculation can set you on a course of investigation to find the true nature of things. But it is not true that reality must yield to the power of baseless speculation.

Well, that is false. Mathematics is a descriptive language, like English or German. All three languages have the ability to describe internally consistent falsehood as well as truthfulness. Imagine the foolishness of saying "It is said in English (or German) so it MUST be true." Nobody would buy that bag of horse squeezings. But they write a blank check to mathematical theory. It is utter foolishness.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Many have some kind of a love affair with mathematics, thinking that if something is mathematically consistent, it must be true. It is true that baseless speculation can set you on a course of investigation to find the true nature of things. But it is not true that reality must yield to the power of baseless speculation.

I agree. Speculation is speculation, nothing more.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality."
-Albert Einstein, Geometry and Experience

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

i just read dawkins on krauss. He (Dawkins) seems to me to a very angry and close minded man brushing aside some very serious questions but may be thats just who he is, Im fine with that. Personally I look at all possibilities including the idea that we are not humans seeking a spiritual experience but rather spiritual beings having a human experience. Unfortunetlay at the moment there seems to be only way to prove if that is true but, Im fine with that too.

Anyway I will be sure to read Krauss. Dawkins? Well the way I see it he's just like me, a man with an opinion based on some elses work. Fortunately Im content with my own as we all should be

sorry seems I might have gotten of the path of science a bit.

I read Dawkin's God-Delusion book and liked it - but also his book on evolution, The Selfish Gene. He knows his stuff as a biologist. The first book is a battleground, obviously, and it is intended to be that, but his Selfish Gene is different but brilliant from an academic POV. There is a reason why it gets predominantly extremely positive reviews only - from 30 years back until today. Don't take him as a light-weight, he isn't. There are a few more books by him as well, popular science books.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence for multi-dimensional universes, multiple big bangs followed by big crunches, or anything at all beyond 13 and a fraction billion years ago.

Whatever is said about those things is not science at all. It is baseless speculation. Many have some kind of a love affair with mathematics, thinking that if something is mathematically consistent, it must be true. It is true that baseless speculation can set you on a course of investigation to find the true nature of things. But it is not true that reality must yield to the power of baseless speculation.

Well, that is false. Mathematics is a descriptive language, like English or German. All three languages have the ability to describe internally consistent falsehood as well as truthfulness. Imagine the foolishness of saying "It is said in English (or German) so it MUST be true." Nobody would buy that bag of horse squeezings. But they write a blank check to mathematical theory. It is utter foolishness.

I dont understand your argument because I dont believe anyone here said 'theory' is truth or law, it is just a theory. I just said I was open to all possibilities and I do agree that without an imagination we would still be beliving we are the center of the universe and it all revolved around us.

Keep in mind too 13 billion years isnt an absolute. Thanks to the brains and imagination of man his math and theory time is seen as something relative to ones frame of reference. .

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I dont understand your argument because I dont believe anyone here said 'theory' is truth or law, it is just a theory. I just said I was open to all possibilities and I do agree that without an imagination we would still be beliving the sun revolved around the earth.

A scientific theory is confined to things for which evidence exists. No evidence exists for multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery.

Therefore, nothing said about any of them merits the distinction of being called a theory. Theories are explanations of a collection of evidence, not speculation based on imaginative fantasies. Elevating imaginative fantasies to the status of theory would be the end of science.

Just to give you one example of why these fantasies don't deserve to be called theories, a theory, in order to be called such, must be falsifiable. If you posit the theory that the force of gravity between two objects is related to the sum of the masses and the distance of their centers of mass, then merely showing one example where that is not true is enough to falsify that theory. The theory was built on evidence and it will die by evidence.

But there is no evidence of the list above, multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery. Therefore they are not falsifiable. Therefore they are not theories. Well, maybe on-time mail delivery can be falsified.