Many worlds theory

[Sethomas]

Personally, I never liked it because it's not aesthetically pleasing and as a theologian it would give me shitload of work to rationalize. But more specifically, I don't see how it could possibly be explained in regards to the law of conservation of energy. I mean, if there's a universe out there that has me listening to each of my albums at this very moment, thinking conversely wouldn't that eventually mean that the nugget of the big bang would have had to have an infinite mass? Seeing as most cosmological models have the nugget being at various sizes within about ten orders of magnitude of the planck length, I don't see how anyone could seriously believe that every quantum function produces new multiverses. I ask since there are a great many people who take this theory very seriously, including Deutsch and other big names.

[conus]

Which big bang?

[kahljorn]

the one at the popsickle factory, big meltdown.

[Helm]

Read a few things about fault emulation.

[Zhukov]

I guess your problem is assuming the Big Bang is more than just a theory.

I actually like infinity. Personaly.

[AChimp]

What if you found a portal to a parallel universe?

What if you could slide into a thousand different worlds
where it's the same year and you're the same person,
but everything else is different?

And what if you couldn't find your way home?

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

But more specifically, I don't see how it could possibly be explained in regards to the law of conservation of energy.

I'm still waiting to find a proof of the law of conservation of energy.

I've looked, and the best one I've found so far is "since no one has built a perpetual motion machine, it must be impossible."

Care to share something a little more solid?

[Sethomas]

Common fucking sense, I'd say. If you want to pull energy/matter out of oblivion, you'd better have a damn good explanation for from whence it came or from what process it came about.

It does get a little more sticky at the quantum level, but when you take the averages over all the processes of quantum foam you always end up with just as much energy at the end as at the beginning of the observation.

And Zhukov, considering all the minute details and magnificant predictions the big bang model has predicted to incredible detail, I find it's not worth my time to consider it anything less than the real deal. Specifically, what evidence is out there that contradicts the big bang, really?

[kahljorn]

Actually, I'm not absolutely positive if it's absolutely true, but I have heard of someone building a perpetual motion machine. I'll have to ask for the artical. I heard it wasn't sponsored because it would undermine years of scientific "Fact".

[kahljorn]

nope, my friend says he doesnt have the artical anymore, it was prolly shammy anyway.

But on the topic....

There's a few flaws with your sentiments of the Many World's Theory. First off, you presume our universe is somehow the most important one, and thus, different worlds would coalesce from our universe. While chances our, our universe was born of another, in the case of "Many Worlds".
Secondly, all the ideas of science and logic falter when it comes to existance actually being existance. Everything came from absolute nothing, and not the nothing of an empty pot. The nothing of eternal nothing, where there could be no future or past. The illogical consequence of the u niverse still somehow managing to exist would somehow seem to signify that, somewhere beyond the borders of our existance, other existances would most likely have sprung up like bermuda grass.
Of course, not being in our existance(at the current point in time) makes them nonexistant.

This would lapse into my "theory" of "Cellular Division" perse. Evolution of existance, or whatever word is above existance, and above GOD.

[Ant10708]

Didn't some Christian monk come up with the big bang theory as proof God existed?

[kahljorn]

Probably some Rosicrucian motherfucker.

[Sethomas]

Are you talking about Aquinas' notion of the "unmoved mover"? That's all I know of as far as using such logic to prove God's existence.

And Kahl, the primacy of this universe over any others is irrelevant to the point that it constitutes a shitload of matter that must have come from something, and adding to that parallel universes of infinite quantities you have present more matter than for which a singular big bang could account. This prompts the observation that big bangs technically happen over and over again, but you have to keep in mind that there must have been a first bang that set everything off and established a precedent for all the following bangs.

[kahljorn]

I prefer the idea that big bangs are merely some kind of toaist cycling of life. Also, I don't personally think the initial creation would've came from a big bang, and answering as to if there was even an initial big bing bang would be pointless... because you would still have to answer as how the original mass of big bangables got there in the first place.
The idea that the universe is just one big fuel canister, and that there is a limit to how much energy and mass it can hold is kind of funny.

Oh yea, and even if there was one big bang in the "very begining", that big bang would've been brought about by other big bangs. Like the whole "Eternity" thing. Some kind of systematic tying of end over end into an hourglass shape... like japanese kites.

[Sethomas]

Actually, to have an eternal cycle of big bangs-big crunches-big bangs would violate the laws of thermodynamics, as it turns out. If that's what you're thinking.

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

Common fucking sense, I'd say. If you want to pull energy/matter out of oblivion, you'd better have a damn good explanation for from whence it came or from what process it came about.

Except there's a lot of science that goes counter to common sense - wave/particle duality being one of the most obvious. The fact that "it makes sense" that energy and matter are conserved is by no means an acceptable scientific proof. It also made sense to a lot of smart people for a long time that the world was flat.

[kahljorn]

Like I previously mentioned, the laws of Thermodynamics don't come into play when getting involved with any form of creation theories. Why? Because thermodynamics does not allow for the energy of the first initial big bang to even exist. Energy does not come from nothing.

Cycles are cycles, beginings are ends, to a rough degree the centipede knows this. Inhibited in a spiral.

[Helm]

Finally something intelligent in this thread!

[Sethomas]

Current big bang models don't try to explain the source of the primeval matter, they merely describe what happens at certain points in time ATB in regards to energy levels, mass, matter-antimatter ratios, and the like. So yes, thermodynamics are indeed rather important at such levels, so your point is moot.

And Pern, wave particle duality is something that's actually been witnessed, by light slit experiments and lots of other fun things. You would have a point if there had ever been an experiment wherein energy comes from nothing. Science has to be anchored by both reason and observation. Not only do the laws of thermodynamics make rational sense, but it has been witnessed in the lab innumerable times.

[kahljorn]

anything can be witnessed in a lab innumerable times, any person can prove any theory if given enough time to stir over it. It's more a matter of them becoming convinced that their results are real, rather than the law is true.

The simple fact of the matter, sethomas, is we can sit around and discuss how thermodynamics took place in the actual big bang, but that does absolutely nothing to explain how the energy got there in the first place. It's just like, "If god created the universe, whom created God"?
Quite simply, thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. Yet, scientists have this giant lump of clay energy they somehow believe "created the universe" as we know it, yet they cannot explain what created the lump of clay because it defies every single set of scientific laws they have. So you can attire in symantics, that somehow thermodynamics have an importance because they play a part in the already created universe, but just try to keep your mind focused on the difference between "Created" and "Non created". "Initial" and "Proceeding".

[Preechr]

You're both right, I think.

Known and knowable Physics governed the process of the big bang, but can't be relied on to describe what happened prior to the beginning of that process. We can assume everything up until that point of beginning was governed by Physics as we can know it, but there is a wall at that one point in time we can never see through.

IN MY OPINION.

[Preechr]

...which has nothing to do with Sethomas' topic, which would be governed by Physics.

[AChimp]

It is LOL when people without doctorates in physics start feeling they are qualified to argue for or against physics theorems because they have read a philosophy book.

[kahljorn]

Anyway, to go "On topic" every single one of the other universes could have had their own big bangs. If energy magically appeared here, then it could magically appear elsewhere-- past the borders of our existance.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by AChimp

It is LOL when people without doctorates in physics start feeling they are qualified to argue for or against physics theorems because they have read a philosophy book.

THAT'S HATE SPEECH!!!