System of universes created by an incomprehensibly-larger intelligent being?

[GreekTTC]

Hey all.

 

I'm new to this forum, and the reason I registered is because I've been thinking a lot about a theory I have. Not to say that I believe it to be true, but a possibility when weighing facts we know as truths about the cosmos. Please take a few minutes to read this through, as I would very much like to hear your opinion.

 

Also, let me know if you've ever heard of anything like this before, as I've done research and come up with nothing.

 

I've read some theories that state the possibility that our universe (and the possibly resulting "infinities" of other universes) was created by a more intelligent life form. I've heard theories of a "physicist hacker" that could have easily created a universe. It would be tiny, or disappear altogether from this hacker's laboratory, because space and time is so curved.

 

But has anyone ever pondered whether or not time and space and light are not the important things here...but SIZE? I read a post from a while back that referenced this, but I'm talking about something totally different.

 

My "theory," so-to-speak, is: what if the proposed "bubbles of universes" are simply being grown by another, incomprehensibly larger being? Who's to say that size has to stop at the "end" of our universe? We can easily observe a colony of microorganisms via electron microscope, and they're so small that they have no comprehension of the larger world around them. Granted, they are not intelligent forms of life...but what if some PHYSICALLY HUGE alien species figured out how to create intelligent life, and our universe and others are results of experiments? Maybe some unknown form of life has a life cycle that dwarfs ours, and our universe's. Again, why must the concept of size stop with the size of the universe? Humans are much larger than the tiniest living cells in a petri dish. Maybe we’re that small to another form of “life.” Maybe we can’t see past the confines of the univese, but they can see us under one of their ultra-powerful microscopes? Crazy, I know...

 

But though it sounds far-fetched, doesn't everything when related to the origin of the universe? I've compiled a few facts that support my idea...and to me it seems that it's not a totally stupid idea.

 

It is said that the universe was created in the only possible way that would suppport life, and that any variation would have ruined the chances for life-supporting planets, etc... Maybe it WAS done on purpose. Maybe elements like light, gravity, etc. are to another form of life as elements like carbon, oxygen and nitrogen are to us. Maybe our universe is expanding under controlled conditions alongside other universes (marble bowl theory), and they're held together, sharing light, gravity and energy by, say, black holes or something.

 

Please let me know what you think. I'm not really trying to put this forward as a new theory, I'm just thinking it through. It seems that my "theory" is one of few that actually attempt to find a reason or cause of the beginning of the universe system.

 

I'm not really interested in hearing negative opinions about this. I DO want, however, to be made aware of FACTS that would make my "theory" impossible. I think the above is very possible, however, it might not be probable. But honesly, in the great scheme of things, with the size of the absolutely smallest known particles of matter compared to the absolutely largest forms of matter known in the universe...why must size stop there?

 

Very interested to hear opinions.

[Queso]

Isn't this what they call intelligent design? oy....

Excuse my ignorance, it's just what I've been overhearing from your guys' chit-chat about it every now and then.

You should discuss this with James Putnam, he seems to contribute a lot of effort towards intelligent design.

This is like the time I thought I invented double-sided tape in third grade.

 

Who's to say that size has to stop at the "end" of our universe?

Something I've thought about before, and I don't believe anybody really has said that..scientifically.

Maybe atoms are little universes themselves :(

[Tormod]

I'm not really interested in hearing negative opinions about this. I DO want, however, to be made aware of FACTS that would make my "theory" impossible.

 

Hi and welcome to Hypography!

 

You can't buy youself out of negative opinions, Greek. It's a fact of life, and particularly of any discussion forum.

 

But as for your theory it is more an idea rooted in the ID faction (like orb suggests) than a theory as such.

 

For it to be a theory we would need to see some sort of predictions that can be made from this. It is currently not known whether our universe is finite or not - most likely this is an issue that can never be resolved because our universe is almost certainly larger than the observable universe, which means there are areas we will never be able to probe.

 

If the universe is finite, it could be because it is wrapped up due to gravitational forces. If that is the case then it would have a finite spatial size but not really a finite start and end.

 

But you say that time can run for trillions of years - we don't really know this, either. Currently the mainstream cosmological estimate for the age of the universe is 13,7 billion years. We have no idea if that was the beginning of time or not. Neither do we have any idea as to how long the universe will last, although it seems likely it will last much longer into the future than it has so far.

 

So the problem with your idea is that there is no way to either verify or falsify it, unless you have any kind of evidence we can evaluate.

[James Putnam]

Edit: Complete copy of first post in this thread deleted by Tormod. Please keep quotes to a minimum.

 

Hello Greek,

 

Thank you for your message to me. I have read it, plus the quote above and the messages that follow. It is difficult to encapsulate what I think about the universe. It is not only that there is much to say. There is also the problem that I do not get to adopt other people's theories and beliefs as proof of my position in lieu of having to defend my position. I do believe we are here by means of intelligent design. There is no agreement on what intelligent design means. For some, it means Genesis is literally true. For others, it means the universe is as old as it appears, but it is inadequate to have created the complexity necessary for life and intelligence to have formed unaided. This position usually adopts the approach that the bibilical God occasionally interrupts the normal operation of the universe and performs intermittent unnatural acts.

 

I do not belong to either of those groups. My approach to this question is scientific. There is nothing biblical about it. It is my position that the universe was fully capable of accomplishing all that has followed from its beginning. I began my work as a materialistic atheist. My analysis of our scientific knowledge made clear to me that science has misrepresented the nature of the universe. I believe the key to understanding the nature of the universe lies with understanding its primary property. That property is intelligence. Our current orthodox view of the nature of the universe results from a low level of understanding and a shallow interpretation. I do not know about God's or other types of superior beings, but there are two things of which I feel certain.

 

One is that a mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe is a personal preferrence and not a scientific pursuit. There is no relevance between mechanical analysis and the existence of life and intelligence. The two absolute empirical facts of the universe are that life and intelligence exists. The rest of our ideas are the products of interpretation of information. The second thing of which I am certain is that the interpretation of that information as represented by theoretical physics is wrong. The empirical evidence that theoretical physics is trying to explain is real. The explanation is conjecture about the unknown. It is what we do not know that necessitates the invention of theory. Theory is our way of speaking about unknowns as if we knew them.

 

Theory is at high risk for being in error, because it is conjecture about the unknown. Predictions are used to bolster a theory into an accepted scientific fact. Predictions are not sufficient to verify theory. The predictions result from extrapolating or interpolating possible future results based upon patterns observed to exists in empirical evidence. I believe that many errors, in the form of guesses about the nature of causes, have been incorporated into theory, beginning at the beginning. As theory is developed, higher level guesses are structured on top of the lower level guesses. No one's theory is immune to this problem. They are all unsubstantiated guesses about what are the natures of the properties of the universe. I include Einstein's theories in this description.

 

Regarding properties you mentioned in your post, I will say what I believe is false. I do not believe space-time is real. I do not believe in black holes or worm holes. I do not believe in a material existence for energy. To me energy is the imagined catch-all property by which mechanical theory is assigned an ultimate cause for all existence. I could continue to expand on this list; however, I think, it would just separate me further from reality in the minds of others. The points I have to make about physics theory and the nature of the universe will require a great deal more effort on my part in order for others to see my point of view.

 

With regard to your theory. First I would say it does not represent intelligent design as I envision it. To me, it is analogous to human invention or engineering. We work with properties of the universe in order to put them to our own use. However, we do not understand the natures of those properties, not can we alter them. It seems to me that a super intelligent outside being would be like an engineer. I presume you would not have this being also be the creator of the properties with which he is working. If you did, then I would understand this to mean he is like a God. In that case, I suppose that your idea would represent a form of intelligent design. However, it would be a type of intelligent design that I would not try to defend. I think it is fun speculation. I do not know what may exist outside the universe or even if the universe has an outside. I do not know the cause of intelligence or even if intelligence has a cause. I look for understanding inside the universe.

 

I will end this monologue at this point, so that you have the opportunity to offer your input.

 

James

[GreekTTC]

Response to J.P.

 

Your ideas are wild and out-there...but aren't all good ideas? :cup:

 

I see where you're going. With so many unknowns, and so many "laws" that we [sometimes] seem to just blindly latch onto, your job is made more difficult.

 

And you hit the nail on the head... What I'm trying to do here is offer some fun speculative ideas which COULD in theory be possible. If we're willing to accept the fact that space MIGHT be infinite, we're agreeing that there is infinite area in the universe(s) as it/they exist now. Even if ours is the only universe, we'd still have to grasp that it could grow infinitely, or if not, it falls back on itself with no end, and would cycle something back to where it started if anything ever got to the "end" of the universe. Speculation indeed.

 

These are wild ideas...so all I'm saying is that if everything was created by a more intelligent being (I'm not talking God in heaven, etc., but other highly advanced life forms), why must that being exist within a universe? Maybe it's not space and area that's infiite, but size. We see it all around us. Atoms minute orbits, super-microscopic organisms, HUGE solar systems, the entire universe and its countless stars and planets.... why must size stop there? I think that it's not too wild of a notion to think that maybe there IS something bigger out there that dwarfs our universe and all we know. Maybe there are millions of bubble universes being grown by an advanced life form that figured out in its billions of years-long evolution how to create intelligent life.

 

I don't know... fun speculation.

[James Putnam]

Your ideas are wild and out-there...but aren't all good ideas? :cup:

 

Greek,

 

Yes they do seem that way.:) It seems ironic to me that we have reached a point in theoretical conjecture that space-time or black holes are not wild and out-there.

 

I see where you're going. With so many unknowns, and so many "laws" that we [sometimes] seem to just blindly latch onto, your job is made more difficult.

 

It is also ironic that the theoretical treatment of unknowns raises, for so many in the scientific community, unknowns to the level of explaining the nature of the universe. Looking at relativity theory in particular. We learn only from patterns in effects. Effects always involve changes of velocity. How is it that changes of velocity of matter can tell Einstein or anyone else about the nature of time and space? Changes of velocity can tell us that cause or causes do exists. However, they cannot tell us what is cause?

 

James