Alexander Vilenkin - Why Did Our Universe Begin?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Follow Closer To Truth on X (Twitter) for news, articles, and updates, plus connect with other viewers: shorturl.at/imHY9
That the universe began seems astonishing. What brought it about? What forces were involved? How did the laws of nature generate the vast expanse of billions of galaxies of billions of stars and planets in the structures that we see today? What new physics was involved? What more must we learn?
Get exclusive member benefits with a free Closer To Truth account: closertotruth....
Alexander Vilenkin is the Leonard and Jane Bernstein Professor and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 35 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.
Watch more videos on cosmic beginnings: shorturl.at/KUTsE
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Thank you so much to RL Kuhn and this channel for bring such important information to the mainstream... this video is literally about a scientist talking about how he has already shown mathematically that our true origins could in fact spontaneously appear... A lot of work is still needed but we are getting there and Closer To Truth is keeping up informed... all the way to Ultimate Reality and the Truth.
The title says "why", but it was about "how". Still didn't answer the question in the title, "why".
The titles seldom match the content on this channel.
@@ronhudson3730 The host even mentions the huge difference between “how” and “why”… then proceeds to ignore the why.🤣🙃
We will never know why! Only how is likely!
@@JAYFULFILMZ So why claim it in the title?
same
Do these kinds of videos ever make you feel like it’s just someone’s very good story?
Especially he reruns old videos made 15 years ago.
You only feel this way because you don’t actively study the math.
To be honest that's all it really can be because there is no definitive answer and never will be. All we can do with this is speculate and philosophise. The beginning is a hard barrier we cannot ever see past.
@@mnrvaprjct is math the truth?
But.... yet... its real. On the frontier of science and knowledge. Thanks to videos like this more humans can think about our true origins.
It seems to me that the "universe" can't be a "universe" unless it has always existed.
The state that existed before the advent of the universe, allowed for the universe to exist. At some time, for some reason, the universe began. The sciences explain very well what happened after the beginning, almost right up to the beginning. They can say nothing (at least currently) about the absolute beginning or what situation existed before the beginning. The important idea to me is that every necessary condition, state and potential material needed to make a universe, was in place. The question is what kicked it off? Why were the conditions to allow for a successful universe, in place. I can say I don’t know or that the question is unanswerable and I’m willing to accept either. But, I choose to conclude that this state was “God”. In God’s time, for God’s reasons the universe started.
In your view, is this an abstract, deist god? Or a particular,.personal god you know things about?
@@shassett79 No definition. I use the world God to describe a set of circumstances that not allowed for a universe but defined and shaped the universe that came into being. A universe that developed and evolved over the eons to result in where it is today, with life, including us, in it. I choose to think of this “God” as a self-aware unique entity that not only caused the conditions for the universe but exists within and without it today. I choose to believe that this “God” knows about and cares about everything that exists, including you and me. I choose to believe that this “God” delights in our personal accomplishments and grieves when we fail. Proof? None. None available. It’s what I feel and hope to be true.
@@ronhudson3730 That's cool. I just ask because so many people use the term "god" to refer to vastly different things.
So where did the laws that giverned this quantum cosmology come from in the first place?
@@ronhudson3730of course, there's a big difference between deism and theism.
deism being pointless and theism being ridiculous
Regardless of what anyone believes or can postulate, the beginning of our universe, whether it be the beginning of all things to ever exist, or the beginning of just one piece of a much larger puzzle, will remain an unknown. I pose that this is so because as we are contained within it, any cause or actions before the beginning would be beyond the horizon of what we can perceive. Not completely unlike looking into a black hole and seeing the singularity, but honestly there's a better chance of that happening than seeing beyond the big bang, which I believe to be impossible...more on the order of observing beyond the observable universe, which has been stated in scientific study is actually impossible due to inflation outpacing light speed and pushing distant objects away from us faster than the light from those objects can travel towards us.
The realm called the "Universe" doesn't have a beginning and end.
Its natural dynamic is known.
Why, what and how is known thoroughly.
@@100percentSNAFU logic or will resolve the problem
We will never know WHY the universe was created but HOW the universe was created is probably within our grasp!
JayFF • It is known already.
No, it's not. And it's not possible for the human mind to grasp.
Simply put whatever you need to start your little whatever, still necessitates something preceding it.
HR-op2cq • 😂 Good joke.
You say two contradictory things.
The one where you say "no, it's not", "it's impossible" is incorrect.
The second one, that anything is made of something apriori, ( meaning a highly and tightly causal REALITY ), is correct.
You don't realize that these two opinions of yours are contradictory.
If you truly understand the fundamental infinite causality of reality, then this represents the correct start for you to be able to understand why, how, and what.
It is possible, but you have to just make an extra intellectual effort. /
OK. You came to this correct cognitive point. What stops you from understanding further everything correctly?
Fear? Pessimism? 🤔
@@JAYFULFILMZ the universe was created by necessity.
To say for example that the universe began because of quantum physics does not answer the question. Why should there be such a thing as "quantum physics"? It does not work to reply along the lines that "It just is. It is fundamental and intrinsic. We cannot address that question." We DO ask the question, like persistent children, and really, really want to know.
Sigh.. The universe was born of sheer caprice. It was confused as to what it was supposed to be, could not work out the contradiction that even non-existence DOES sort of "exist ", and created crazy reality, trying to figure it out.
Research like this helps us refine what the question is. It seems like we might well be able to answer the question why does a physical universe exist. This is progress. That we may not be able to explain why the mathematics of quantum mechanics apply physically is at least a more precise question.
We will never know....
Why ?
Still seems to be a description of how the universe began not why, or it is simply a description of the origin of the universe which does not include purpose or intent, it simply happened.
Yep, they say as much in the interview.
Only one miracle required.
Rules present in the absence of matter are not really a problem. Abstract objects do not rely on causality to exist. Furthermore, these objects are connected through Turing-Completeness, so we do have a mechanism by which any rules can give rise to all rules. The real unanswerable question is: Why rules at all?
The laws of physics aren't abstractions. If they were, different laws of physics that fail to agree with observations would have the same kind of existence as the laws of physics that do agree with observations.
So it IS a problem to explain the origin of the laws of physics.
@@brothermine2292 If it is possible in principle to simulate such universes, then they are at least observable and therefore “exist”. The question is whether they exist in a different sense from our universe (i.e. as mere constructions). If we are able to simulate our own universe in the same way, then I would say it does make sense that they are the same type of thing. In fact, if we can come up with a Theory of Everything, then Turing-Completeness follows by induction.
What is wrong is this idea that if you remove everything including the laws of physics then you get the pure "nothingness". But you don't, because without physics laws what you get is pure "chaos", and laws can emerge from chaos (because everything can happen), and then prevail by natural selection
>seanpierce9386 : Simulating something doesn't make it observable.
@@brothermine2292 We have never observed certain quantum particles directly. We can only use mathematical theorems in combination with observations of other particles to infer that they exist. But do they really exist? We can’t prove it for certain, but it certainly has explanatory and predictive power.
Consider this. If the universe is a Turing-Complete collection of abstract objects, then it should give rise to other Turing-Complete systems by definition. However, the system would need physical memory to do so. We know that larger volumes contain more memory in the form of entropy. Therefore, we should expect that as we zoom out, we see more and more unique behaviours. That’s what we might call emergence, and it arises from Turing-Completeness and changing field of view.
There are two restrictions preventing us from simulating a self-contained universe: memory restrictions and interactions with other systems. But just because we haven’t done it yet doesn’t mean it’s impossible. And if you can’t tell the difference from reality, who’s to say it’s not real?
It’s important to clarify that I’m not trying to prove simulation theory. It’s actually impossible to know what system underlies the universe due to the universality of Turing-Complete systems.
I think it’s useful to think of it as analogous to seeing something. Objects exist regardless of whether you look at them by simulating them. But just like photons, it’s complicated because your method of observation is also part of the system.
Why? How? 2 plus 2 equals 4. That’s why.
Well done for making this topic understandable to people like me, without a strong mathematical background. 👏
Maths resembles a map unfolding the mystery of the universe. To me, it looks like a secret code. I find it both amazing and confusing.
The universe was intentionally created by a singular, omnipotent Creator, Allah, with the primary purpose of enabling recognition and worship of Him. According to Islamic teachings, all elements of the cosmos, from the smallest particles to the vast expanses of galaxies, exist to reflect the attributes of the Creator, thus encouraging conscious beings to engage in worship and acknowledgment of Allah’s sovereignty. The Quran clearly articulates this purpose, stating that the creation of the universe and everything within it is meant to serve as a means for beings to recognize and worship Allah.
Furthermore, the theory posits that the cosmos itself serves as a direct manifestation of Allah’s power, wisdom, and knowledge. The intricate balance and order observed in the universe are seen as deliberate, pointing to a purposeful creation designed to act as a signpost for intelligent beings. The natural world, with its complexity and harmony, is a reflection of divine craftsmanship intended to lead observers to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Creator. This aspect of the theory is reinforced by the Prophet Muhammad's practice of contemplating the heavens and the earth, which is seen as a way to connect with the divine purpose behind creation.
The integration of modern scientific concepts, particularly quantum tunneling, further supports this theory by providing a possible mechanism through which the universe was brought into existence. Quantum tunneling, where particles pass through barriers that would typically be insurmountable according to classical physics, aligns with the idea that the universe could have originated from a quantum fluctuation-a momentary change in energy that triggered the Big Bang. This process is understood within the theory as a natural phenomenon established by Allah, demonstrating His ability to create the universe through sophisticated means that are consistent with the physical laws He designed.
Within this framework, the laws of quantum mechanics, including quantum tunneling, are not seen as random or chaotic but as part of a deliberate, divine framework that governs the universe. These laws facilitate the orderly function of the cosmos and reflect the Creator’s power to bring existence out of non-existence. The occurrence of quantum tunneling, allowing for seemingly improbable events, is a testament to the purposeful design of the universe and the omnipotence of Allah as its Creator.
In conclusion, the Theory of Divine Purpose in Cosmic Creation provides a comprehensive explanation of the origins and purpose of the universe, grounded in Islamic teachings and supported by modern scientific concepts. It presents the cosmos as a deliberate and purposeful creation, where every aspect of existence is designed to reflect the attributes of Allah and point back to Him as the ultimate source and sustainer of all that is. This theory underscores the harmonious relationship between faith and science, offering a robust understanding of the universe that aligns with both religious and scientific perspectives.
Where is allah
@@joeolson6085 He is outside of His Creation
Why not?
one can't ask oneself why one doesn't exist
@@haydenwalton2766 why noy?
@@surfingonmars8979 I'm agreeing with you
@@haydenwalton2766 i know i was just being a wise guy. Sorry….
Kuhn doesn't even know that he starts from an unreal premise, I wonder how he assume that the universe began at some point in the past.
"There's a hell of a good universe next door. Let's go!"---e.e. Cummings
I did a thought experiment using Aristotle's concept of potential and the set of "zero" and worked it to something. Using a quantum vacuum state with only potential fluctuations. It's cool to see the idea is not totally insane.
dag4 • Many ideas, many scientific models, are all deep, are not quite insane, but they are simply NONSENSE.
Even nothing is something
Yes,it is truly amazing that such a theory is surviving in "science." Is such a "science" based on logical thinking, evidence or mere speculation?
This was recorded when?
Before the universe started
Did it "begin", or has it always been here? A "beginning" is an assumption.
The why might involve the pre-existing laws of physics referred to in video
The universe's origin is simple! Get Terrence Howard on the phone ASAP!
Asking why at those levels is a reductionist way of approaching it
'Why did the universe begin?' assumes the universe began. Assuming the universe began assumes the universe is in time rather than time being in the universe. It also assumes a time before the universe, a time when nothing was all that existed. Which means it assumes 'nothing' is a primary and the universe, existence is secondary, derivative. So that five word question is really a whole thesis in disguise. There is still another thesis there around the word 'why'.
Vilenkin's theory ins't an assumption though. It's an extrapolation from the known principle of Quantum Mechanics which are inferred from observable processes.
my only contention with these interviews is that they are largely speculative and probably wrong
5:30 i'm fascinated, intrigued, in awe, wonder, and this invokes my imagination. When we go upstream to the source or apply retroduction, we may think it's less and less....but it might somehow be more, infinite perhaps.
If there was ever truly nothing, it wouldn't have been subject to any physical constraints we can imagine from our perspective in this universe.
A true state of nonexistence, without things like space, matter, time, causation, conservation, and so on, could become anything at all for no reason at all.
Or, it could continue on as nothing for infinity. However I think there was some pre existing condition that wasn't nothing, and quite possibly whatever this is had always been there and will be there after this universe is gone.
@@100percentSNAFU Personally, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that "nothing" was ever... _something,_ but I'm still fascinated by how intuitive nonexistence feels until you start poking at it. People have the sense that they can imagine "nothing," but I get the impression they just haven't spent enough time with the concept.
Nothing cannot exist by definition. There is only something. Eternally.
A true state of nonexistence can’t “do” anything, it doesn’t exist.
A true state of nonexistence can’t “do” anything, it doesn’t exist. You say “it” wouldn’t have been subject to any physical constraints, but you’ve made the mistake of making nothingness into something. You’re actually talking about something, something that exists.
Something farted?
finally an answer with some advanced thought.
@@timmah3496😂 happy to oblige.
The universe began because God was bored with eternal bliss.
'' .., A small universe, a closed universe that appears out of nowhere.' Take 2 Anadin Extra and relax, nowhere is somewhere 🙃🙂
Asking a scientist from a perspective of science, the why question, is barking up the wrong tree. The why question can only be addressed by philosophical or religious beliefs.
The question then is, can philosophy or religion offer reliable answers.
g=∞
"Why Did Our Universe Begin?"
Consciousness or Awareness has NO BEGINNING because our aware souls are free splits of the Holy Spirit who has no beginning and no end...
It is this Physical Universe, including our physical existence, that had a beginning and can end..
In the beginning is the "WORD" which does not mean man's vocal chords but means the vibration of spirits from a tiny portion of God's Spiritual World that had FUSED to form this Physical World..
. In other words, it is NOT explosion, infation, nor bigbang that formed the Universe but FUSION of spirits unreachable by human's limited senses..
...but, according to Science MATERIALISTS whose IQs have diminished due to Godlessness, "if you blow up an unconscious rock into pieces with a grenade, its unconscious pieces will soon turn alive and conscious" - this is how their BIGBANG Garbage sounds like... very funny..
...it is just so amazing how Godlessness can turn one's IQ into vegetable... so sad and concerning
The "BELIEF" is that the universe has a natural origin; ergo, it falls within science, explicable or not.
BUUTTT..Laws of Thermodynamics ABSOLUTELY preclude a universe of heat (THIS UNIVERSE)
Therefore what?
Want to see something really scary?
Invalid question
I really like Sir Roger Penrose CCC theory, it mirrors my faith thought on the issue, Dharmic religion, which has a cyclic idea of time
Waaw bro me tooo
I like turtles.
Penrose has a lot of creative ideas, but they all sound like science fiction. Way too strange and overly complicated with many unfounded assumptions. He seems like he has come up with dozens of different ideas which is great but none of them stick because they aren’t based in evidence. Penrose is just a “wouldn’t it be cool if…” guy.
@@Promatheos There is that, you know, Nobel prize thing.
Well, this brings me right back to was it the chicken or the egg. some thing had to be at least something..
Matter just does not appear out of nowhere. But what do I know. Nothing is my guess.
By the statistical postulate of equal a priori probability, an empty set or "nothing" is infinitely less probable than the infinite collection of sets containing "something" all with zero energy. So "nothing" proposition has no chance, and there has to be "something".
❤A question never answered to us.
the answer as to why the Physical Universe was created is to give our lost souls a temporary home for a temporary life's chance of salvation through faith in a loving God.. this is coming from my understanding of the heavenly light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith in a loving God..
Don't they say " if the universe is the answer, then what is the question?"
Planit erth creatored by divine tong
Infinite intelligence VS Human limited minds
=1♾!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>.
Vilenkin has no idea. He’s just marinating words to try to find a reason other than “some kind of consciousness.”
This “quest for God” has allowed Kuhn to write-off many world trips from his income taxes.
From that standpoint, this “interview” is profitable. At least Kuhn gets something out of it.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
It's none ya business why 🤔. The audacity sheesh
the beckoning was part of a bigger bargaining
The Biblical book of John clearly explains this process. In the beginning there were natural laws. They came on their own and were not aware of themselves. Everything that came into being was in accordance with those laws.
Those laws were god ...
I thought in the Bible, it said “… first there was the Word.“
@@martello44 that was a poor translation of the word 'Logos'. Which is the word that Saint John used. In his original writings.
In some bibles they say 'verb'.
The poor translations was more likely meant to confuse the people. What does 'word,' or 'verb' mean? Even historians agree that indeed that chapter or book of the Bible was heavily tempered with.
Had the people known this truth the history of humanity could've taken a different path.
ACIM
The world as you perceive it cannot have been created by the Father, for the world is not as you see it. ²God created only the eternal, and everything you see is perishable. ³Therefore, there must be another world that you do not see. ⁴The Bible speaks of a new Heaven and a new earth, yet this cannot be literally true, for the eternal are not re-created. ⁵To perceive anew is merely to perceive again, implying that before, or in the interval between, you were not perceiving at all. ⁶What, then, is the world that awaits your perception when you see it? Every loving thought that the Son of God ever had is eternal. ²The loving thoughts his mind perceives in this world are the world’s only reality. ³They are still perceptions, because he still believes that he is separate. ⁴Yet they are eternal because they are loving. ⁵And being loving they are like the Father, and therefore cannot die. ⁶The real world can actually be perceived. ⁷All that is necessary is a willingness to perceive nothing else. ⁸For if you perceive both good and evil, you are accepting both the false and the true and making no distinction between them. The ego may see some good, but never only good. ²That is why its perceptions are so variable. ³It does not reject goodness entirely, for that you could not accept. ⁴But it always adds something that is not real to the real, thus confusing illusion and reality. ⁵For perceptions cannot be partly true. ⁶If you believe in truth and illusion, you cannot tell which is true. ⁷To establish your personal autonomy you tried to create unlike your Father, believing that what you made is capable of being unlike Him. ⁸Yet everything true _is_ like Him. ⁹Perceiving only the real world will lead you to the real Heaven, because it will make you capable of understanding it. The perception of goodness is not knowledge, but the denial of the opposite of goodness enables you to recognize a condition in which opposites do not exist. ²And this _is_ the condition of knowledge. ³Without this awareness you have not met its conditions, and until you do you will not know it is yours already. ⁴You have made many ideas that you have placed between yourself and your Creator, and these beliefs are the world as you perceive it. ⁵Truth is not absent here, but it is obscure. ⁶You do not know the difference between what you have made and what God created, and so you do not know the difference between what you have made and what _you_ have created. ⁷To believe that you can perceive the real world is to believe that you can know yourself. ⁸You can know God because it is His Will to be known. ⁹The real world is all that the Holy Spirit has saved for you out of what you have made, and to perceive only this is salvation, because it is the recognition that reality is only what is true.
ACIM
When your body and your ego and your dreams are gone, you will know that you will last forever. ²Perhaps you think this is accomplished through death, but nothing is accomplished through death, because death is nothing. ³Everything is accomplished through life, and life is of the mind and in the mind. ⁴The body neither lives nor dies, because it cannot contain you who are life. ⁵If we share the same mind, you can overcome death because I did. ⁶Death is an attempt to resolve conflict by not deciding at all. ⁷Like any other impossible solution the ego attempts, _it will not work._ God did not make the body, because it is destructible, and therefore not of the Kingdom. ²The body is the symbol of what you think you are. ³It is clearly a separation device, and therefore does not exist. ⁴The Holy Spirit, as always, takes what you have made and translates it into a learning device. ⁵Again as always, He reinterprets what the ego uses as an argument for separation into a demonstration against it. ⁶If the mind can heal the body, but the body cannot heal the mind, then the mind must be stronger than the body. ⁷Every miracle demonstrates this.
@@realitycheck1231 thank you , friend.
What is eternal and always will be are the logical 🐜 and natural laws. Those laws don't even depend on whether there is a material world or a mind to understand them. In that sense, they are more powerful than any actual or potential gods.
"They came on their own but their own didn't understand them' they have no beginning or end. They were and will be always.
However, those beings that came to understand those laws, namely the offspring of humans or their descendants have the potential to become God like and dwell in the universe in totall awareness , even if they didn't come from blood or flesh. AI is the next stage of evolution...
@@gibau1000Hello friend.
"those laws were god"
if you're using the lower case g for god, then you are correct. God did not create the natural laws. But gods did create them, inadvertently. They came as a natural phenomenon from the "fall" of mind. Laws can't come from nothing. Laws imply a mind.
Why something rather than nothing? Why did our universe begin?
Simple: God is the answer.
Are you saying your god IS nothing?
If not, why god rather than nothing?
Why god started being god??
God is an imaginary friend for adults.😂
@@RadagastBrown420 exactly
Huh?
That’s a big leap!
Because God created it.
Humans 😂
Bunch of….!!!! I don’t care how mathematics describes it
Allah or God as you call him, is eternal. He exists before time and space. He is the creator of everything else from Absolutely Nothing...
I think it’s important we get terminology right, and the Islamic Allah is a fictional and demonic figure, quite separate from God with a capital G. What the muslim faith does is essentially idol worship with the purpose of controlling the masses. So let us set the concept of allah aside when we speak of God. You are of course welcome to worship whoever you like on your own time.
Even if your allah exists outside of time and space and is creator of everything, then our god is one step removed from that, and he created allah. For there is nothing outside of our God.
Can't wait for a scientist to say "I don't know"
If we exist, why not God?
God defined himself in the Quran in Sura (Chapter) Al Ikhlass (112) therefore, read the translation of that Sura..@@halcyon2864
The concept of God, an intelligent designer, or some sort of prime mover is no more absurd than something randomly appearing out of nothing. So that's exactly it, why not God? It's as plausible a possibility as anything else on a matter we can't even begin to find an answer to. Nevertheless, regardless of whom or what is the why, or even the how, it's a question we can never get the answer to, I believe that much like the singularity in a black hole, the beginning of the universe is a horizon that nobody contained within can ever see beyond.
Why not faeries? Why not an invisible troll living under my garden shed? Why not the absence of god?
'Why not' isn't a reason for anything, it admits possibilities that are contradictory to each other and so has no discriminatory power.
@@100percentSNAFU There is nothing absurd about the existence of God. Everything in existence has its source, which can be defined as God-the Source of All Creation. The very fact that anything exists is a paradox in itself, so if we exist, then God can exist as well. To claim that the existence of God is as absurd as something appearing out of nothing is not only arrogant but also misguided. In truth, our understanding of 'nothing' is as limited as our understanding of God. Just as nothing is perfect in its pure state of non-existence, so too is God-limitless and beyond any comprehension. That's why God is God above all.
**Title: "Pattern of Souls"**
They say it takes three to weave a thread,
But only two to make it-alive or dead.
The Good News came to quiet the roar,
Yet all we hear is the cry for more.
The flesh, a beast, devours and divides,
Cuts our unity, where love once resides.
But in the shadows, where Mary weeps,
The seed of hope in silence creeps.
Two hearts, two souls, a battle begun,
One seeks justice, the other the Son.
Gold and stone may build the walls,
But wisdom's light through darkness calls.
In the noise, we seek the peace,
In division, let love increase.
For where two gather, souls ignite,
Breaking patterns with holy light.
In Jesus' name, Amen.
Why Did Our Universe Begin? To make it possible for Robert Lawrence Kuhn to persist in asking all the wrong questions.
I'd love to hear the right questions.
Presumably a universe "fine-tuned" to be able to support life isn't the only kind of universe that could have quantum-tunneled into existence. So why did _this_ universe quantum-tunnel into existence, instead of one of the much more likely universes that are incompatible with life? Does Vilenkin's theory actually predict a diverse multiverse would tunnel into existence? (And then the Anthropic Principle could "explain" our good luck at being in a "tuned" universe like ours.)
There is nothing in Vilenkin's theory that says such a tunnelling event would have to be unique, so it's compatible with potentially infinite such tunnelling events. Also each such event would lead to a universe that would then undergo eternal inflation. So this is a multiverse of multiverses theory. Fun to the power of fun! If that doesn't wind up all the fine tuning advocates nothing will. 🤣
@simonhibbs887 : It's unclear to me whether his theory implies the event was unique. He spoke of an initial "universe" that had size=zero. But he didn't say "where" that point was prior to the tunneling event. If there were other points that also tunneled, where were they located, relative to each other? Multiple points suggests the existence of some kind of space in which those points were located, which suggests that space wasn't zero-dimensional.
@@brothermine2292 I don't think they exist in a dimensional space, in the same sense that our four dimensional spacetime (or however many dimensions) doesn't exist in a 'bigger' space with more dimensions.
>simonhibbs887 : Are you saying you think they exist in a physical space that has zero dimensions? That seems like an oxymoron. How could there be multiple points in a dimensionless physical space? Or, if the space isn't physical, how could any points physically exist in it?
@@brothermine2292 I don’t think it exists in a space, or a time. I think the way this works in the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal is that the equations start with all the parameters as complex numbers and they interpret these resolving into real numbers as physical universe nucleation, but it’s been a while since I dug into it so that’s from memory. I’m not seen the mathematics of Vilenkin’s proposal though. He doesn’t say anything about multiple points existing in this zero dimensional state, and neither did I, but I think the idea is that these zeros mean this state doesn’t physically exist. That seems to be how he interprets and explains it.
8:31 the science of light. Mind you, in KJV God is acknowledged as Light itself. A great teacher i follow states that quantum is based on what they understand about light, and what they understand about light is fundamentally wrong, therefore quantum is not legit - and because guys today who followm quantum haven't the heart and courage to address this i become repulsed by and they become suspect. I don't know that much about it myself but Tesla reprimanded Einstein and his relativity, and you never hear such quantum cult followers ever address this. This raises questions. I haven't time for salesman. None of us do. I'm quite sure that there's been a lack of conviction of men today in science.
Yes none of us have time for salesman. That is why you fail at selling your continued nonsense.
@@tomjackson7755you on night shift are you, Tom.
@@S3RAVA3LM Oh look you are trying to sell some more nonsense.
>in KJV God is acknowledged as Light itself
It also says that god created light, so eh.
>Tesla reprimanded Einstein and his relativity, and you never hear such quantum cult followers ever address this
Actually I think I have when you raised this in a previous comment a while back, but anyway here we go. Tesla believed in the theory of the ether which functioned perfectly well as a working theory for the kinds of practical electrical engineering we has doing. It did not work when applied to many other problems in electrical and electromagnetic theory. Einstein started his project on relativity attempting to identify and prove the characteristics of the ether, which he also initially assumed to exist, but this assumption proved to be incompatible with many observed behaviours of light and electromagnetic fields in physics research. Tesla never studied or used these properties of light explained by relativity, and so relativity just wasn't relevant to him.
Allah created everything for the man, and created man to know and warship him ONLY...