My Universe theory Watch

Miss Posh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I like to ponder the thought of a designer 'who' transcends the Universe. Such a designer would lie outside of our understanding entirely, so our attempts at defining 'them 'would be like trying to write a story with numbers.

The logic we have developed, or should that be discovered, isn't compatible for describing this designer with any degree of tact or accuracy because it's often too reductive, as it expresses our world in irreducible terms, or so it tries to. 'I have three rocks?'. What does this even mean? To understand what this sentence implies, first we must know what a rock is and second, how to count. So, to you and I, the meaning is very simple.
However, is this logic capable in describing a designer with a greater intelligence? One who initiated the big bang and finely tuned this Universe so as to allow life to evolve.

Our world appears as though it has been designed but evolution neatly describes why life exhibits overwhelming complexity, which of course, rules out the idea that a 'God' created it. However, I disagree. I think that evolution does not deny that God could have created life because what if our designer finely tuned the Universe so as to allow evolution to shape the life we see? In other words, the designer of this Universe, before they created it, could have encoded evolution, and the other laws, into the seed from which the Universe grew. Evolution is apart of a greater plan of design.


Evolution could be describing a deeper process that happens because of how our designer manipulated the DNA of our Universe before the big bang. By DNA, I mean a deep structural code which assimilates how matter manifests and how it behaves through time. I believe that the Universe is some kind of living/mechanical growth with its own DNA and that this DNA is stuff like quarks, atoms, and how they are arranged into the giant cosmic structures we see. Just like our DNA, these particles are arranged as they are for a reason; so as to create the particular Universe we see.

I postulate that the Universe may have originated from a seed because there are certain commonalities in the natural world. These are cycles, fundamental numbers, shapes and patterns. One of which is the cycle of life and if the Universe had a beginning, it therefore, must have an end, else how could something this incompatible give rise to cycles that do have a beginning and an end. The Universe seems to exhibit fractal like qualities because these cycles are observed at all scales of reality, on micro, to macro scales. A tree has a beginning and an end, so does a planet, a star, a galaxy and eventually, in billions of years, I am assuming that the Universe does too. Why should it not follow what seems to be a logical cyclical progression?

It seems that the smaller the matter, the shorter its life-span, because cells don't last long, bacteria lasts a little longer, small insects a little longer, human beings and all life we know that is a comparable size to humans, lasts around 50-100 years Galaxies last longer than stars and planets. So, it must therefore follow, that the Universe lasts longer than galaxies and has an end at some point in the future.

Reality is very homogeneous. There seems to be many occurrences of a fundamental shape, like a circle and the way by which numbers relate to what we see. Anything with a beginning and an end must follow some kind of cycle. Seeds are one of many ways cycles come about, such as the cycle of life, which is all around us. I believe that the Universe is one of such seed, but I guess this is a poor choice of wording. I'm thinking more of an embryo of finely tuned physics, so as to create the reality in which we live. Also, the universe is incredibly efficient in its design. I can only see it replicating how it came about in ways like galaxies, stars, planetary cycles and, in other ways, like life. It will do this through some kind of deep structural code, which we are slowly uncovering and attempting to understand, like particle/quantum physics.

I guess I'm being overly reductive in my thinking and therefore, what I've written will make for good science fiction. I just that that there is such simple elegance all around us, summarized by for example, Newton's law of gravity. A very simple formula, which predicts, with great accuracy, the motion of celestial bodies. So, it therefore seems illogical, to think of the Universe as some mysterious, unfathomable and 'illogical' medium. I think it's the opposite. I strongly believe that the patterns, sequences, cycles and numbers in the natural world are here for a reason. They are the most energy efficient solutions to the deep structural code this 'Universe' is made from. This code has a DNA: quarks, atoms and other particles and I believe that the Universe was grown, much like a child, or any other life.

The evidence is all around us. Life cycles, circles, spheres, patterns and numbers etc. Why would this not apply to the creation of the Universe? I'm simply stating that it's probably the most likely way it came about, given that nature has a habit of repeating itself. I think this is known as Occam's razor. The simplest solution is the correct one. In fact, I could say that our designer wanted us to know this, so he ensured that he kept the code as simple as possible. This is why simple numbers produce many permutations of matter, and that sequences and cycles crop up all over the place. A simple code i.e. Maths, which produces the structures we see. But I think it's more of a 'genetic' code.

It's totally speculative and unprovable, but sometimes it's just fun to have these thoughts
1
reply
KeepYourChinUp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
It's a nice post but I spot a fundamental flaw as with most peoples personal theories. You're comparing the creation of the universe to the creation of things in the universe. Even if your theory is correct and our universe was designed by a creator, what created the creator? What created the creator that created the creator?

In your theory you cover all the angles apart from one and that is the creator itself. What is your theory for this?

Rather than introduce variables that we cannot even measure, wouldn't it be more logical to work with what we can measure?

To be honest I've heard just about every theory there is and most of them fail to address the main problem... If everything needs a creator, then nothing can exist... Unless of course you apply special rules to the creator such that the creator is eternal and has always existed, but then one can do that to the universe too.
0
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
There used to be a section in Private Eye called Pseuds' Corner, the OP would fit right in.

Having a creator to explain the origin of the universe and then have him make up a load of rules for how the universe works is such a cop out it make Katie Price's biography look like an intellectual masterpiece compared to the OP's OP.
1
reply
skunkboy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
My Very short universes theory...

The universes can't be created or destroyed. Both creation & destruction are just the forms of changing.

-end-

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
michaelbettany
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Right this is proper good, i'm onto the same thing big time. This is not science fiction this is closer than Halo and Red Mars, that stuff I think isn't possible for us, the resources and effort is massive, impossible and a waste of time, we have a beautiful planet. I think it's a waste of time, but this is clever what you think i've thought similarly about 6 months ago but been busy. I think that the structures of life are in orders. I think that the universe is a biological mechanical engine. Working like an experiment being conducted by LIFE beyond our knowledge (which to us is like a total piss take, because of our emotions, love, loss etc. haha) Our time scale would seem tiny compared to theirs, almost none existant which would make the process of manipulating this biological engine highly precise. Are you religious? I've got some amazing modern theories of what god is and how it's related to religion of the past. It's amazing this is. Good idea's. Reply please, keep this going. If you believe this theory your believe in God. Scientific philosophical religion. I say religion because I believe religion is the path set from them to help us through evolution to make the process easier. Considering we used to be primates, eating each other, screaming at each other and fighting I think they have done an amazing job. Were lucky to live in this age. Keep this going. Peace, Michael.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (122)
21.33%
Before I was 12 (198)
34.62%
13 (88)
15.38%
14 (68)
11.89%
15 (38)
6.64%
16 (16)
2.8%
17 (6)
1.05%
18 (5)
0.87%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (7)
1.22%
Over 25 (1)
0.17%
12 (23)
4.02%

Watched Threads

View All