General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Is it true that the universe itself is not a natural act?

Asked by luigirovatti (1716points) 2 months ago

It’s already outlined in science papers around the world. Evety bit of advanced mathematics applied to our universe is suggesting that it’s holographic in nature. Think about it, the numbers, the symmetry of the universe around us, the way in which it reacts to our observations but remains inert without us.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

The universe has been going on billions of years before the first of you monkeys descended from its tree.
So no. Nothing could be more natural than the universe.

zenvelo's avatar

Most theologians would agree that it is holographic, i.e., reflecting its Creator.

dabbler's avatar

There is no evidence that we know of that the universe is the result of any willful ‘act’.

Response moderated (Spam)
gondwanalon's avatar

Pretty big and magnificent holograph. Our Milky Way Galaxy is well over 100K light years across. The known universe is 46.5 billion light years in diameter.

LostInParadise's avatar

Think about it, the numbers, the symmetry of the universe around us, the way in which it reacts to our observations but remains inert without us.

I don’t understand what you are saying. What numbers? What symmetry? In what way does the Universe react to our observations? How can you say that the Universe is inert, and how do we make it not inert?

SavoirFaire's avatar

This question is based on a category mistake and is therefore nonsensical. The universe is a place, not an act. Presumably, you meant to ask something like “it is true that the creation of the universe itself was not a natural act?” But this question, while not based on a category mistake, is nevertheless still confused. Why? Because a naturalistic universe is not created by any act whatsoever (and may not be created at all). Either it just is and always has been, or it came about as a result of other (as yet unknown) naturalistic processes.

“Every bit of advanced mathematics applied to our universe is suggesting that it’s holographic in nature. Think about it, the numbers, the symmetry of the universe around us, the way in which it reacts to our observations but remains inert without us.”

inert

adjective

1 Lacking the ability or strength to move.
‘she lay inert in her bed’

1.1 Lacking vigor.
‘an inert political system’

1.2 Chemically inactive.

The universe is most definitely not inert without us.

In any case, your claims about numbers and symmetry is just a variation on the age old (and long discredited) watchmaker analogy. But there are plenty of instances in which the numbers of the universe are irregular and asymmetrical. For all of the elegance of equations involving e and π, there’s also the fact that e and π themselves are irrational and transcendental. Indeed, we use symbols for them precisely because the actual numbers are inconvenient and unwieldy. And as for the actual physical contents of the universe, there’s also the baryon asymmetry problem.

And this is all before we get to the standard objections about how utterly unsurprising it should be that a universe containing intelligent life is structured in such a way that intelligent life is possible. Because if the universe were not structured in such a way, we wouldn’t be here to observe that fact (and the universe would go on, decidedly not inert despite the lack of our observations). Furthermore, even if some aspects of the universe really did suggest the existence of a designer or a creator, none of them entail that said design or creation is holographic. This is a further step that you have not come close to justifying.

This brings us to the paper you linked, which does not say anything close to what you seem to think it says. Before looking at the paper itself, let’s try to understand what it is about. The holographic principle is a tenet of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—such as a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.” In other words, it’s about a way of representing the universe on paper. But the map is not the territory. The universe might actually be that way, of course, but we’re not there yet.

Now here is how Ahmed and Rafat describe the problem their paper is about: “In spite of the increasing importance of [the holographic principle] in theoretical physics, there is no solid mathematical base for this principle” (emphasis added). In other words, they are trying to give the idea some actual grounding in other aspects of our knowledge—which necessarily entails that the idea is not yet fully integrated into our broader understanding of the universe. This shouldn’t be surprising given that string theory and quantum gravity are both very much still under construction. Even if they are successful, though, let us remember that what they are trying to do is show that representing the universe two-dimensionally is mathematically sound. This is a far step from showing that the universe is in fact two-dimensional.

filmfann's avatar

A natural act? I’m not sure, but this planet is definitly fucked right now.
So, they’re saying we are in the matrix?
I don’t buy it. And even if we are, we’ll never be able to demonstrate it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I too cringe at hearing existence described as a verb. Once again, I am more interested in the language than trying to figure out “what’s he talking about?” Who talks like that?

Caravanfan's avatar

The concept of a “holographic universe” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The idea is an extension of string theory.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I think this question may be another variation on the idea of existence as illusion—the universe as a construct or device we devise to explain what we think of as reality. It’s a proposition that you stumble across in a surprisingly varied number of disciplines from mystical theology or philosophy through cutting edge cosmological theory. Frankly, I’m far too lazy to invest the grinding effort required in validation (for myself) of the accuracy of such ideas, but look forward to reaping the benefits (if any) from the results of those inclined to beat their heads against so profound and exhausting a riddle. I sit and watch, and tell myself “you must play the hand it appears you’ve been dealt.” I’ll be the first to applaud the truth of the matter once it is resolved, but meanwhile take the position of Candide on the question: “that may be well and good, but let us cultivate our garden.”

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

New age youtubers love this holographic origin and the universe is created by your conscious crap.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t know. I too would be prone to ridicule the idea, but it’s just as sensible as the biblical explanation. And then there’s all the voodoo associated with things at the quantum level. There’s PLENTY to learn.

Caravanfan's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Yup. It’s like Deepak fucking Chopra throwing around the word “quantum” without having any idea what it really means.

Dutchess_III's avatar

As someone above said, “There is nothing more natural than the universe.” And it damn sure can live without us.

Patty_Melt's avatar

I’m so confused.
Is someone claiming the universe is an unnatural act?

Is this another theology discussion?

kritiper's avatar

False. It could only be natural.

RocketGuy's avatar

Although a lot of details at the quantum level seem beautifully symmetric, details in the macro level are terribly random. Does not seem like a directed construct.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther