What are the minimum requirements for a Creator of the universe?

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I do -- but only as regards that which I am creating -- which is thought. I can create my own thoughts, change my own thoughts, I know what my thoughts are, I have imagination and intention, and my thoughts respond appropriately. But all those powers fail the moment I try to exert them outside of the universe of my own personal thoughts.

(This, by the way, is what so much magic is really about -- trying to find ways to exert those powers we all have over our own thoughts over subjects outside the universe of our thoughts. And so far as I know, nobody can do it.)

It goes deeper than that because it might not be the case that there really is an "I" or that its thoughts about the outside world corresponds to the outside world.

 

[Pogo]

Sure, I’m as willing to pick sides as anybody else.

And like anybody else, I tend to favor the stuff I like.

I like creativity, and thinking outside the box.

And drinking outside of the box?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And drinking outside of the box?

I’ll drink to that!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Attempts have been made to calculate the probability of the initial conditions of the universe occuring randomly. Roger Penrose has the probability at 1 in 10^10^123


https://epaper.kek.jp/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.PDF

... these sorts of "estimates" always struck me as ridiculous.

It's like trying to figure out what the odds are for roulette, but instead of knowing how many spaces there really are on the wheel, you based your estimate on the number of spaces you conceive could be on the wheel.

 

[RestlessSoul]

... these sorts of "estimates" always struck me as ridiculous.

It's like trying to figure out what the odds are for roulette, but instead of knowing how many spaces there really are on the wheel, you based your estimate on the number of spaces you conceive could be on the wheel.

Casinos love roulette tables because the odds are easy to calculate and they can offer the punters the appearance of a reasonable risk to reward ratio, while remaining sure of consistent profits. That game is completely rigged, and it’s all legit.

But outside the casino, it’s not like that. Bookmakers turn a profit taking bets on events they have no control over, where knowledge is incomplete and eventualities cannot all be accounted for. This is because they have a good enough understanding of how probability works, and sufficient knowledge of the games they offer bets on, to calculate odds with some accuracy.

Science conducted in a laboratory is like a casino. But theoretical cosmologists like Penrose, are more like rails bookmakers; the guys you used to see at racetracks in England, chalking up the odds on their boards, constantly re-evaluating probability as the market and their liabilities shifted.

It’s a safe bet that a mathematical genius like Roger Penrose could have made an excellent living as a bookmaker, had he been so inclined. And were he to do so, I would not advise betting against him unless you have some very good info of your own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Casinos love roulette tables because the odds are easy to calculate and they can offer the punters the appearance of a reasonable risk to reward ratio, while remaining sure of consistent profits. That game is completely rigged, and it’s all legit.

But outside the casino, it’s not like that. Bookmakers turn a profit taking bets on events they have no control over, where knowledge is incomplete and eventualities cannot all be accounted for. This is because they have a good enough understanding of how probability works, and sufficient knowledge of the games they offer bets on, to calculate odds with some accuracy.

Science conducted in a laboratory is like a casino. But theoretical cosmologists like Penrose, are more like rails bookmakers; the guys you used to see at racetracks in England, chalking up the odds on their boards, constantly re-evaluating probability as the market and their liabilities shifted.

It’s a safe bet that a mathematical genius like Roger Penrose could have made an excellent living as a bookmaker, had he been so inclined. And were he to do so, I would not advise betting against him unless you have some very good info of your own.

Thank you for a texrbook example of the Courtier's Reply.

Of course, I reject your suggestion that I can't point out the King's nakedness without having apprenticed at the finest invisible haberdashers of Milan.

BTW: have you actually read the paper you linked to?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thank you for a texrbook example of the Courtier's Reply.

Of course, I reject your suggestion that I can't point out the King's nakedness without having apprenticed at the finest invisible haberdashers of Milan.

BTW: have you actually read the paper you linked to?

Yes, of course I’ve read it. The King isn’t naked, though there might be a few holes in his garments

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The minimal requirements for a Creator of the Universe would simply be to create the universe.

 

[McBell]

The minimal requirements for a Creator of the Universe would simply be to create the universe.

Seems that is not complicated enough for this thread.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

When you create your dream world at night, how many of these requirements do the characters in your dream think you possess?

When I would dream as a child, occasionally I would be doing something unusual, such as flying, and would realize that I was dreaming.

But if you don’t obsess about it, you don’ have to wake up, and you can enjoy the dream from a meta point of view.

 

[Heyo]

When I would dream as a child, occasionally I would be doing something unusual, such as flying, and would realize that I was dreaming.

But if you don’t obsess about it, you don’ have to wake up, and you can enjoy the dream from a meta point of view.

Aka lucid dreaming.

 

[PureX]

Well, a lot of people who think as you do then immediately opt for a Creator -- which I am asking them to define, describe or otherwise explain the properties of. If they can't do that, then what is it that makes one more likely than the other?

Logical necessity.

Because the alternative is to presume everything spontaneously emerged from nothing, and for no reason. And that is just logically absurd according to everything that now exists.

By the way, that "singularity" is just a fancy word meaning "some incomprehensible state that we know nothing of".

 

[Revoltingest]

Tricky question because we all carry notions
of various characterizations of gods.
Let's set them aside, & consider only the
bare minimum requirements....

What are the minimum requirements for a Creator of the universe?​

Only the ability to create the universe.

If one posits the singular premise of that question...
- Omniscience isn't necessary. Creation is different
from having all possible knowledge.
- Omnipotence isn't necessary. Only the ability
to create the universe. Not necessarily the ability
to manipulate everything or even anything in it.

And so on for other traits, eg, good, evil, intention,
motive.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Logical necessity.

Because the alternative is to presume everything spontaneously emerged from nothing, and for no reason. And that is just logically absurd according to everything that now exists.

By the way, that "singularity" is just a fancy word meaning "some incomprehensible state that we know nothing of".

I disagree. The error, I think, is in supposing that "everything spontaneously emerged from nothing," but this doesn't really have to be true. For sure, at the very beginning, in the first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time, during which currently established laws of physics may not have applied. But as this early mush began to cool, the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to cosmic inflation—begin to become explicable by modern science. Not directly, of course, but by working through the equations at higher and higher temperatures.

Tiny ripples in the universe at this stage are believed to be the basis of large-scale structures that formed much later, and at this stage, there really doesn't have to be "creation" going on at all — merely the laws of physics playing out so that over the next 370,000 years, various kinds of subatomic particles are formed in stages. These particles include almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter, so most of it quickly annihilates, leaving a small excess of matter in the universe.

At about one second, neutrinos decouple; these neutrinos form the cosmic neutrino background (CνB). If primordial black holes exist, they are also formed at about one second of cosmic time. Composite subatomic particles emerge—including protons and neutrons—and from about 2 minutes, conditions are suitable for nucleosynthesis: around 25% of the protons and all the neutrons fuse into heavier elements, initially deuterium which itself quickly fuses into mainly helium-4.

By 20 minutes, the universe is no longer hot enough for nuclear fusion, but far too hot for neutral atoms to exist or photons to travel far. It is therefore an opaque plasma.

The recombination epoch begins at around 18,000 years, as electrons are combining with helium nuclei to form He+. At around 47,000 years, as the universe cools, its behavior begins to be dominated by matter rather than radiation. At around 100,000 years, after the neutral helium atoms form, helium hydride is the first molecule. Much later, hydrogen and helium hydride react to form molecular hydrogen (H2) the fuel needed for the first stars. At about 370,000 years, neutral hydrogen atoms finish forming ("recombination"), and as a result the universe also became transparent for the first time. The newly formed atoms—mainly hydrogen and helium with traces of lithium—quickly reach their lowest energy state (ground state) by releasing photons ("photon decoupling"), and these photons can still be detected today as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is the oldest direct observation we currently have of the universe.

From there, of course, you can begin to see chemical reactions, and although we haven't found the actual mechanism yet, abiogensis leads to creation of self-organizing and replicating forms of life -- and that part, we know quite a lot about.

So, a "creator" may be a "logical necessity" for that first picosecond -- or it may not. Science might yet discover something about the Planck epoch (oddly named for such a short period of time).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

At about 370,000 years, neutral hydrogen atoms finish forming ("recombination"), and as a result the universe also became transparent for the first time. The newly formed atoms—mainly hydrogen and helium with traces of lithium—quickly reach their lowest energy state (ground state) by releasing photons ("photon decoupling"), and these photons can still be detected today as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is the oldest direct observation we currently have of the universe.

From there, of course, you can begin to see chemical reactions, and although we haven't found the actual mechanism yet, abiogensis leads to creation of self-organizing and replicating forms of life -- and that part, we know quite a lot about.

So, a "creator" may be a "logical necessity" for that first picosecond -- or it may not. Science might yet discover something about the Planck epoch (oddly named for such a short period of time).

The problem is that the ... about before 370.000 years rest on the assumption that the universe is orderly when it comes to its laws.
So it is not really science in the observational sense for some of the model of the early period. It is theoretical physics and there is a reason it is theoretical.
And it ties in to the cosmological principle:
The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
Keel, William C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. The error, I think, is in supposing that "everything spontaneously emerged from nothing," but this doesn't really have to be true (EXCEPT ...) For sure, at the very beginning, in the first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time, during which currently established laws of physics may not have applied. But ...

So in fact, you admit that your own objection has no logic.

The issue at hand is that the universe is an EVENT that is unfolding according to a set of possibilities being afforded and defined against an infinite array of impossibilities that are being denied it. It is the occurrence of this event that cannot logically have simply popped into being from non-being, and especially with an organized agenda of possibilities for it to follow through.

as this early mush began to cool, the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to cosmic inflation—begin to become explicable by modern science. Not directly, of course, but by working through the equations at higher and higher temperatures.

Tiny ripples in the universe at this stage are believed to be the basis of large-scale structures that formed much later, and at this stage, there really doesn't have to be "creation" going on at all — merely the laws of physics playing out so that over the next 370,000 years, various kinds of subatomic particles are formed in stages. These particles include almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter, so most of it quickly annihilates, leaving a small excess of matter in the universe.

At about one second, neutrinos decouple; these neutrinos form the cosmic neutrino background (CνB). If primordial black holes exist, they are also formed at about one second of cosmic time. Composite subatomic particles emerge—including protons and neutrons—and from about 2 minutes, conditions are suitable for nucleosynthesis: around 25% of the protons and all the neutrons fuse into heavier elements, initially deuterium which itself quickly fuses into mainly helium-4.

By 20 minutes, the universe is no longer hot enough for nuclear fusion, but far too hot for neutral atoms to exist or photons to travel far. It is therefore an opaque plasma.

The recombination epoch begins at around 18,000 years, as electrons are combining with helium nuclei to form He+. At around 47,000 years, as the universe cools, its behavior begins to be dominated by matter rather than radiation. At around 100,000 years, after the neutral helium atoms form, helium hydride is the first molecule. Much later, hydrogen and helium hydride react to form molecular hydrogen (H2) the fuel needed for the first stars. At about 370,000 years, neutral hydrogen atoms finish forming ("recombination"), and as a result the universe also became transparent for the first time. The newly formed atoms—mainly hydrogen and helium with traces of lithium—quickly reach their lowest energy state (ground state) by releasing photons ("photon decoupling"), and these photons can still be detected today as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is the oldest direct observation we currently have of the universe.

From there, of course, you can begin to see chemical reactions, and although we haven't found the actual mechanism yet, abiogensis leads to creation of self-organizing and replicating forms of life -- and that part, we know quite a lot about.

None of this matters in terms of justifying a universe popping into existence from nothingness and for no reason. Especially a universe that is very precisely balanced and extremely complex, as has been predetermined by the very specific set of possibilities available to it to be fulfilled.

So, a "creator" may be a "logical necessity" for that first picosecond -- or it may not.

There is no logical way that it "may not be" necessary.

Science might yet discover something about the Planck epoch (oddly named for such a short period of time).

This, of course, will not matter as it does not address the source or pre-determined order of the cosmic event.

 

[Pogo]

So in fact, you admit that your own objection has no logic.

The issue at hand is that the universe is an EVENT that is unfolding according to a set of possibilities being afforded and defined against an infinite array of impossibilities that are being denied it. It is the occurrence of this event that cannot logically have simply popped into being from non-being, and especially with an organized agenda of possibilities for it to follow through.

None of this matters in terms of justifying a universe popping into existence from nothingness and for no reason. Especially a universe that is very precisely balanced and extremely complex, as has been predetermined by the very specific set of possibilities available to it to be fulfilled.

There is no logical way that it "may not be" necessary.

This, of course, will not matter as it does not address the source or pre-determined order of the cosmic event.

Clarification, current hypotheses are that our universe is fluctuations in a quantum field background . It is not nothing but the theories that govern what we experience only go back to the "big bang" we only have hypotheses from there at present but they do not say that we came from some state where there were no things.

 

[PureX]

Clarification, current hypotheses are that our universe is fluctuations in a quantum field background . It is not nothing but the theories that govern what we experience only go back to the "big bang" we only have hypotheses from there at present but they do not say that we came from some state where there were no things.

Perpetual existence is as illogical as spontaneous existence from non-existence. The only logical hypothesis is some realm of existential transcendency setting existence as we know it into being.

 

[Jarsa]

I think either omnipotence or omniscience should be subtracted, since they logically can't co-exist. Even preachers agree that God can't do illogical things, like making a burrito so big that even he can't eat it.

 

[osgart]

The minimum requirements are a transcendent reality of qualities and values that are bound to the physical possibilities that have narrowed considerably to our laws of the natural world.

God may or may not be bound to the transcendent reality. The transcendent reality would be the medium of creative expression.