Astronomy

Creation of the Universe



Tweet
Mark Waybill's image for:
"Creation of the Universe"
Caption: 
Location: 
Image by: 
©  

On the creation of the universe i will first say this, that this is one of the most difficult questions to answer even to somebody such as myself who has thought logically on pretty much any important matter. It deals with such enourmous macroscopic things and yet with such simple mathematical logic behind it all, and thus patterns would appear to be the best method of finding an answer. In all question cases except this, this one question which unfortunately goes beyond even patterns into mathematical theory as it goes beyond existence itself, wherein all patterns of science lie and operate.

Firstly let me say one thing. We will use as a constant that 'God(s) do(es) not exist, and neither does magic of any form', basing this on the definition of a God as a magical being and magic as anything operating by a different system than that in it's immediate context, i.e a nonscientific entity existing and operating by it's own science within known science. However as science itself is a system of observed patterns of behaviour and is likely to change itself beyond the known universe, it is difficult to define magic and thus i will define magic as anything paradoxic, i.e impossible, and illogical. This does not in itself rule out the existence of a 'God', although for many other lengthy complex reasons i am firm in the belief there is no God or Gods or magical beings.

Thus the question 'What created the universe?' is asked. Unfortunately this raises some other rather seemingly insurmountable questions, such as 'What is the nature of existence, and what separates it from theory and what makes something 'real'?' and 'Is Infinity in the 4th dimension possible mathematically and physically?' and 'Are multiple dimensions in one relative position possible by some fourth factor of definition?' All of which i have attempted to answer for many years as i have gained much data, but to no avail. However i shall present what i have formed as partial incomplete logical conclusions into the following argument, which shall be open ended but shall be essentially a compass pointing at the nonexistence of Gods and magic and of the explanation and the eventual logical conclusion being scientific. (Let's not bother to define science beyond it being observed patterns of behaviour in our context, so let's say i said 'logical' rather than 'scientific', and that 'logical' is mathematic and thus absolute in it's rulings within any context)

Having read Fred Hoyle's book Astronomy and Cosmology (which my mother gave to me as a birthday present earlier this year and which she got in a book sale from the local library, and which i have read much since having got it) i have gained enough insight into the matter, coupled with my previous conclusions and thought chains on the issue, to ponder on it from a fairly unbiased viewpoint, biased only by the limitations of my data and not biased therein. The question, and those other questions which the question of what created the universe poses, are difficult fellows to deal with. The issue is one that Sherlock Holmes would understand easily. Lack of necessary data. The problem is that we are working with such macroscopic questions on such a universal and indeed extrauniversal scale, that it is simple impossible to try to understand how the universe was created without thinking in pure mathematical terms some times, and as i am not terribly good in that discipline (due to weak temporary memory, i have self diagnosed from experience- i have similar issues learning languages such as C++ due to this weak memory) it is difficult to utilize conventional thought processes and the limited human brain to answer it.

Without resorting to mathematical thinking of a very highly complex nature, one has to use a ramshackle construction, a rather makeshift system of pseudo-mathematics. I have invented through much mental labour a system based upon analogies. Essentially i utilize an analogous situation to simplify the memory process. I associate, for instance, the universe with say... a sphere, or a simplified diagramatic shape or line structure, as well as seeing it in a vague fashion as it truly exists. By simplifying the system of memory using this analagous method one can do some rather caveman like mathematics and attempt in a imbecile manner to asnwer these questions with ones weak pathetic human organic hydrocarbon based brain.

Several 'constants', or constants to within my knowledge of possibility, mathematical logic and reason, which i ahve accepted as being constants during my thinking process, although which i would certainly change if it turned out they were indeed not constants or were incorrect- i shall list below.

Constant Law One-

That nothing can be created from nothing, and must be created by the changing state of another entity, thus nothing can be created nor destroyed. Note that this is an observation of patterns of behaviour within a scientific context and thus not necessarily a universal mathematical law. It is theoretically possible to do both in a theoretical context, and no paradoxes seem to arise from such a theoretical situation.

Constant Law Two-

That infinity, not being a definable mathematical figure, is an impossibility as it can not be described by mathematics. Thus infinity is impossible as mathematics can describe anything and is the only absolute and perfect method of description. This is difficult to prove or disprove due to lack of relevant data.

Constant Law Three-

That all things are relative. Whilst you may think i am quoting Einstein i have thought about this myself, and in mathematics, and thus in everything, all things such as measurement and definition and relative to the perspective of the beholder, and are not orthographic in nature in any observed context both theoretical and scientific (i.e our present context).

Constant Law Four-

That there are only three dimensions of definition, no more, no less, for absolute definition. That is that by defining a single dimensional variables position on a single dimensional array one can not absolutely define it. Neither can one with two dimensions. Only with three and that beyond three dimensions of definition of location there are no others. Time, the so called 'fourth dimension' is a purely relative thing and exists like the Equator or the degrees of latitude and longtitude and has no influence or existence. Time thus does not exist and 'spacetime' is a term that makes little proper sense. Time is an observed pattern of behaviour like all of science.

Constant Law Five-

That only one element may exist in one location at one time. This is debatable, as it depends upon the fourth factors possible existence. If multiple 'planes' may exist in the same relative position (requiring that elusive devil, Mr Fourth Factor) then this may be possible. It is difficult to test in theory due to the fact that it is difficult to define existence mathematically, and to define an 'entity' mathematically, also in theory it is possible for two objects to exist in the same position within the same dimension, although it also raises a paradox of definition.

Constant Law Six-

That mathematics is the only pure language of definition and calculation and must be the basis for all absolute measurement and calculation and that if something is mathmatically possible it is possible and if something mathematically impossible it is impossible. Difficult to challenge this fellow.

Constant Law Seven-

That in an inertia state <insert behaviour rules>. To put simply an inertia state observed in science obeys Newtons laws. Nothing happens without an action generating it, and all actions are equal and opposite reactions of former actions. Thus if an object is travelling at five miles per hour in an inertia state, i.e without friction, it shall continue to do so indefinitely as it's energy will not be able to be released. However this creates an issue. In an inertia state there is no relativity and thus there is no 3D definition of the universe beyond this object and thus the object would appear to be the universes entirety and thus not travel at all? One for the old brain what. However inertia rules are purely scientific and not mathematic and thus they are contained within observed patterns of behaviour (science). They may be broken without of science?

Constant Law Eight-

That randomness (pure) is impossible, as all operations require mathematical definition. Randomness is absolute lack of order or governing rules. Order is rules of behaviour (like the laws of physics in our science). Thus it would appear with randomness anything mathematically possible is possible, but randomness istelf appears impossible to mathematically define. Could this maybe be purely observed behaviour or is randomness possible? It would account for much.

Question 1. Can multiple dimensions exist in the same relative position?

This requires knowledge of the fourth factor, which may or may not exist.

Question 2. What is the nature of existence?

I don't know to be perfectly honest, it seems difficult to mathematically define existence from theoretical possibility, there appears to be no method.

Thus i will conclude that these and more of my thought 'conclusions' have led me to the belief there is no intelligent creator of the universe, but certainly still i have no answer to that question 'What created the universe?' beyond the fact that i have a theory the Big Bang is a cycle operation and that the universe constantly expands and shrinks, expands and shrinks. Just a thory mind you.

Tweet
More about this author: Mark Waybill

From Around the Web




ARTICLE SOURCES AND CITATIONS