If Human Scientists Created The Universe How Would It Compare To Ours?

rhinefire said:

In terms of the question of what, why and how on the creation of our universe and life in it I ask this question. If mankind (scientists) were to invent a universe would it make sense to make it exactly like the one we know today, one little planet with an infinite number of life forms while there is nothing else anywhere? If you say it would make sense then what is the purpose of the rest of the stars, planets etc.?

Click to expand...

since we actually have very limited overall knowledge on how the universe actually works it would be a disaster.

Riveroaks said:

Indirectly at least you are agreeing/stipulating that you did indeed chang the subject although you claim your new subject and the original subject are related ... that's STILL changing the subject. You are guilty as charged therefore by your own admission. Don't worry because you are not alone -- a number of others got off point as well.

Click to expand...

I didn’t change the subject. I expanded on the question to demonstrate what I considered was a flaw in it (the human-centric assumption that people must have a purpose but lifeless stars and planets can’t). It still fits within the subject of humans creating a Universe and the purpose of the elements they might add.

Riveroaks said:

Revelation comes from God through his prophets like Moses, Elijah, Elisha, John The Baptist, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John The Revelator. Jeeze.

Click to expand...

That’s the theological claims made for (and sometime by) them. That’s doesn’t mean what they’ve said, are reported to have said or have been interpreted as saying is actually revelatory. Indeed, some of those things have been shown to be internally contradictory or simple false (or at best misinterpreted or misunderstood).

Riveroaks said:

Oh jeeze !!! You are obviously one of those who understands nothing about science yet you have made science your religion !!! Pure foolishness.

Click to expand...

Getting a bit arrogant and presumptive there aren’t you? I have no religion (not even science) but exactly how is what I’ve said about science incorrect? At its core, it’s just a simple process that ultimately only requires access to evidence and the intellectual ability to assess it.

Riveroaks said:

I'm glad we agree on something. However I stayed on point without getting sidetracked. A number of the other replies got off point however -- as did yours as well.

Click to expand...

I’ve become less sure we do agree following this reply. I’d initially thought you were making an argument against Intelligent Design on the basis that the whole universe with only humans as intelligent life doesn’t make any design sense. You’ll have to make your point a little clearer if I misunderstood (maybe you were making a revelation ).

RogueWarrior said:

Ahhh a refreshing attempt to shift the burden of proof. How logical of you, man.
YOU said there was nothing else. You made the claim, so you bear the burden of proof.

This reminds of a similar question somebody asked about Star Trek. They wanted to know if the Enterprise would go faster if you rotated the warp field 5 degrees CCW.

You get the same answer he did.:

View attachment 67193740

Asinine OP.

Click to expand...

You watch way too much television. Try reading some time.

HonestJoe said:

I didn’t change the subject. I expanded on the question to demonstrate what I considered was a flaw in it (the human-centric assumption that people must have a purpose but lifeless stars and planets can’t). It still fits within the subject of humans creating a Universe and the purpose of the elements they might add.

That’s the theological claims made for (and sometime by) them. That’s doesn’t mean what they’ve said, are reported to have said or have been interpreted as saying is actually revelatory. Indeed, some of those things have been shown to be internally contradictory or simple false (or at best misinterpreted or misunderstood).

Getting a bit arrogant and presumptive there aren’t you? I have no religion (not even science) but exactly how is what I’ve said about science incorrect? At its core, it’s just a simple process that ultimately only requires access to evidence and the intellectual ability to assess it.

I’ve become less sure we do agree following this reply. I’d initially thought you were making an argument against Intelligent Design on the basis that the whole universe with only humans as intelligent life doesn’t make any design sense. You’ll have to make your point a little clearer if I misunderstood (maybe you were making a revelation ).

Click to expand...

Better if we all just stay on topic instead.

WCH said:

This is why I'm positive there is a higher power who set all this into motion and watches over it to this day and for eternity.

Our Father who art in Heaven.

Click to expand...

Ok a brief Segway (segue) into revelatory knowledge known as religion, which is completely separate from philosophy and from science, according to Bertrand Russell in his book "History Of Western Philosophy."

I'll show you some Greek and Latin since you love that phrase so much WCH, as do I.

In Greek, "The Lord's Prayer" goes like this:

The Lord's Prayer - Greek translation and transliteration

And in Latin it goes like this:

Pater Noster-The Lords Prayer in Latin

The opening line transliterated into English phonetics from Greek is this:

PATER EMON
O EN TOIS OURANOIS
AGIASTHETO TO ONOMA SOU

Father ours
He in the Heavens
Sanctified/hallowed/holy your name

And from Latin it is this:

PATER NOSTER
QUI ES IN COELIS
SANCTIFICATUR NOMEN TUUM

Father ours
Who is in Heaven
Sanctified/hallowed/holy name yours

It is actually quite a beautiful poem and prayer in all languages.

In Greek it actually rhymes in several places whereas in Latin it does not.

This suggest some poetic license by whomever recorded the original version of it which is of course in Greek per the ancient Greek New Testament.

We of course expect that Jesus himself (Jesu deim Nazared) spoke Aramaic but also knew some Greek phrases like alpha/omega and the like since there had been a Greek phase to conquest of the Middle East under Alexander and his generals before the Romans came, which had been fairly recently to Judaea.

It's a good prayer. It's the one most Catholics and Protestants and Eastern Orthodox know best, by heart.

Only the 23rd Psalm by King David is known as well.

Religion is revelatory because although philosophy in the guise of Plato's "Forms" or more recently the 5 proofs of God by San Tomas Aquinas "speak to" the likelihood and metaphysical NEED for a God of some kind -- the Philosophers' God -- only through religious revelation can we gain more details and knowledge about Who God really is. Philosophy consists of pure though and cannot give us details about anything. And science is pure Empirical observation and we have not yet found God's house with our instruments.

And for that knowledge, we are dependent on prophets such as Moses, Elijah, Elisha, John The Baptist, St. Peter, St. Paul, and possibly others as well such as Muhammad for Islam which has a heavy Zoroastrian/Zarathustran-Persian influence and also all the other various Hindu founders whom we know nothing about.

So if your cravings for a God or Gods comes from your intellect then it is philosophical.

If your craving comes from church, temple, or mosque then it is revelatory.

Science being Empirical has no room for religion. However maybe someday if Hubble sends back photos of God walking in his back yard garden then science will have told us for sure. Then we will "know."

The only other way we can ever "know" of God or Gods is if He/She/They visit us and introduce themselves. That does not seem to happen very often to sane people. Moses in 1450 BCE. Elijah and Elisha around 800 BCE. The apostles of Jesus around 33 AD. Etc.

However when I look at the color photographs sent back by Hubble of the billions of galaxies in deep space, it tells me intuitively and philosophically that there must be whole families of Gods out there to manage all this vast expanse.

And that makes sense when you translate ELOHIM which is the third word in the Hebrew Bible (BERESHET BARA ELOHIM ...) into English, it means "the All-mighties" and it is a plural word.

Riveroaks said:

Better if we all just stay on topic instead.

Click to expand...

I just realised that I’d wrongly thought you’d wrote the OP, hence your certainty over what it was actually about. You’re actually in no position to tell me my interpretation of it was wrong and you seem to be trying to spin it off in to something completely different. I’ll leave you to that.

Riveroaks said:

CRABCAKE you did not get it either. The question (thesis statement) was loaded and you walked right by it.

Nice try though.

Click to expand...

It looks like you didn't get my post.

I dismantled the premise.

It would be vastly superior.

Montecresto said:

It would be vastly superior.

Click to expand...

There would be no cancer, for example.

rhinefire said:

In terms of the question of what, why and how on the creation of our universe and life in it I ask this question. If mankind (scientists) were to invent a universe would it make sense to make it exactly like the one we know today, one little planet with an infinite number of life forms while there is nothing else anywhere? If you say it would make sense then what is the purpose of the rest of the stars, planets etc.?

Click to expand...

I'm going to take the boring pragmatic route to answering this question but you would need a computer that is bigger than the universe to simulate a universe comparable to ours.

For example, In order to exactly describe the state of a single iron atom you'd need to describe every single potential wavefunction of it and its orbiting electrons. This would require (at minimum - depending on resolution) about 10^80 ish bits of information. Even if we could store 1 bit of information on 1 atom (we can currently store 1 bit of information on about 12 atoms, your computer uses about a million atoms to store 1 bit) that is still about the same amount of atoms that exist in the observable universe. Now consider that we would have to simulate every atom (as well as other particles) it's pretty clear that even theoretically it's kind of a lost cause. The computer would have to be many many many times larger than the universe.

For a more philosophical answer to your question, we actually already do create universes all the time in the form of video games. Recently some games have come out that try to simulate actual universes. Elite dangerous is a simulation of a galaxy. No Mans Sky is a procedurally generated universe. We even create forms of intelligence (AI) in video games - for example, the AI that tells a computer controlled Madden or Fifa 'player' to jump or catch. We just create really dumb AI that isn't self aware. Maybe one day video game AI will become so smart that it does become self aware, and it will ignore the rules of the game and try to figure out what kind of universe it's in. Back to the question though, if you want to know what kind of universes humans would create, look at our fiction. (Specifically video game fiction - Halo, Zelda, Fallout etc - but of course, much of this is inspired by other kinds of fiction).

It just seems "odd" for lack of a better term with all of the constant ongoing births and deaths of planets and stars and the universe expanding, new questions of dark matter and dark energy, etc. that in the middle of it all there is little ball with life such as ours and that is the question in the OP. Would the mind of man com up with a formula for a universe like ours? But then trying to apply logic to the universe may be useless. I have read science is looking at creating mini or micro solar systems and having read many of Michio Kaku's books nothing shocks me.

zyzygy said:

There would be no cancer, for example.

Click to expand...

I guess there would be no viruses, then. And without viruses, no life...

It would suck.

We already know that there's a huge, huge amount that we don't know.

Creating a universe based on such limited knowledge would lead to boredom pretty fast.

We'd fail miserably.

On any level, in any context. Failure.


Btw it's ridiculous to assume we're the only life in this universe. Anyone who thinks that, is gonna be the last person I'd let create a universe.