When famous scientists talk about 'god' they most likely mean that the universe is the result of an intelligent species having created the big bang. We too have the potential to become a species that has the ability to create new universes in order to escape our own, dying one.
This doesn't solve the question of where they themselves came from, however. Ultimately, they and we are made of the same stuff. But what is this stuff? Why should there be this stuff in the first place? Even in the longest possible chain of reasons, there must be an unmoved mover. This unmoved mover is true randomness. That is a thing that is totally incomprehensible to a being governed by rules. But randomness is the only thing that could possibly account for an infinitude of possibility, inevitably resulting in our small pocket of order, and many others like it.
They are probably somewhere in our universe right now. Why haven't they contacted us? Why should they? Why won't you contact some fern growing on the other side of the world? I'm sure this fern values its existence every bit ss much as you value yours.
Gabriel Murphy
Since when are humans able to literally create?
We can't even create a single atom
Alexander Collins
That's the end goal. It's just saying it's likely a possiblity millennia down the line.
Dominic Jenkins
Weed lmao
Lucas Bell
Stop denying the truth. Copernicus found we were not at the center of the solar system. Watson and Crick found we are governed by DNA. This is just the next level. (But yeah, no proof like in their case. Can't imagine how you could even find proof of the fundamentally inscrutable.)
Kevin Diaz
No.
Dylan Ross
As much as I like antifatalist theorizing like this because I, despite willingness, haven't been sold on any religion and terror management is in hyperdrive and I'm only in my early 20's, there's a hole in your argument.
If another species is creating universes to escape entropy of its own a la Sburb: >How are they able to abide by the laws of physics in their base universe while creating a new one? >Where are they in this universe?
A civilization capable of creating universes/pocket dimensions wouldn't suddenly drop in rating upon entry to the new universe. They'd be a Type 5 and very obviously present to us.
Cameron Stewart
Perhaps they are obvious but we're too stupid to realize it. Perhaps they are in everything. Perhaps the universe is a mind and we are little 'mites' infesting it.
Connor Diaz
Three words:
Fast
Radio
Burst
Yeah maybe it's a natural phenomenon we just don't yet understand. But I'm not at all sold on the idea that just because an alien intelligence can create universes that this MUST be obvious to us. On the other hand, spiritual people will tell you that the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence _is_ glaringly obvious. In fact, I'm pretty sure this was Einstein's position.
Angel Wilson
Even so, our current understanding of the laws of physics does not allow the creation of a new universe.
Lincoln Anderson
That's not what I'm reading. Anyway, it certainly allows for its destruction.
Chase Turner
The destruction of a universe is just one of multiple possible outcomes for the dispersal of matter and energy, and those theories almost always run with the notion there is a finite amount of both in existence.
To create a new universe altogether requires creating matter and energy beyond the sum already present in your existing universe; it violates thermodynamics because you're creating energy at a net profit. If you can do that, there's no need to worry about entropy anymore in the first place.
Carter Sanchez
Sure. But I was not talking about a natural but an artificial destruction of the universe. As you point out, it's much easier to destroy than it is to create. However, to create all we might need to exploit is quantum fluctuation. Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing explores this idea. He does't propose we might be able to create a universe, of course. Only how a universe might come into being without the requirements you cited.
Dominic Mitchell
You're right. The reason their presence can't be felt is that they aren't here. And they aren't here because they wiped themselves out in the act of creation. As Nietzsche famously said, god is dead.
Oliver Cox
>they most likely mean that the universe is the result of an intelligent species having created the big bang [citation needed]
Kevin Nguyen
the definition of god is as stable as the definition of art
Sebastian Ortiz
>I know what famous scientists most likely mean No, you do not.
Noah Butler
We are already able to create universes that appear to be closed from the inside.
Nolan Sullivan
>they most likely mean that the universe is the result of an intelligent species having created the big bang
Literally sci-fi narrative that barely fits even contemporary mindset
Colton Perez
I read Nautilus too, OP
Jeremiah Murphy
It's metaphysics. So yeah, every physicist is going to have their own "sci fi" opinion about the nature of reality.
Luke Myers
>humans able to literally create they literally create literature, duh
Ayden Bailey
You can't rule out that if we somehow survive long enough (as incredibly unlikely as it is) we might learn how to create.
Owen Wright
This is really fucking retarded. Stop listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson OP, you fucking fag.
John Brooks
>implying you're smarter than neil degrasse tyson this board...
William Jones
I am.
Jose Gonzalez
Fuck off you imbecile, tyson isnt a scientist
Levi Gonzalez
You can level that charge against Bill Nye, maybe. But not against NDGT
Asher Thomas
Yes I can.
Ethan Murphy
Okay, I guess you can. But you'd still be wrong if you did.