“Even though this advice was not directed at me, I was interested enough to peruse the topic.”
Andy, I’m proud of ya for making the effort and doing that research. And I really mean that, no sarcasm whatsoever.
“In summary, it was interesting stuff about the universe not having any net energy, thus explaining how nothing was necessary to make it (being that mass itself can come out of energy). Relatedly there was the view that atomic events can be “without cause”. Much related commentary inferring from this the idea that this universe could have come into being “without cause”. The most developed speculation I found introduced the concept of a mind-boggling number of universes developing randomly (without cause) apparently to explain how our carbon-based life freindly universe could have happened randomly:
The so-called “anthropic coincidences,” in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be “fine-tuned” for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)”
Yes, that was exactly what I was driving at. It is also called the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I happen to subscribe to that. (so does S. Hawking) It makes sense given all the experimental evidence in favor of it, i.e., the results of the Double Slit experiment, the existence of Virtual Particles, quantum entanglement and the fact that quantum computers (albeit simple ones to date, more complex ones on the way) work.
“To be fair, I hardly think you should call someone ignorant for not being up to speed on this kind of stuff.”
Sorry, have to disagree with you here. If you are arguing for Creationism, you need to understand what Science says as well. I don’t mean “ignorant” in an insulting or pejorative way, I mean it in its truest sense: lacking knowledge.
“In a quick once-over analysis, I’m inclined to view it as far from sufficient to explain the existence of our universe. One apparent logical confusion being the language “without cause”. Which boils down to an acknowledgment of randomness in physics (also called the uncertainty principle I believe).”
I’ve given it a lot more than a quick, once-over analysis. I’ve been thinking about it a great deal for more than 20 years. Given all of the experimental evidence to date, right now it is the most reasonable explanation as to why we exist. Actually, it is a far simpler and more rational explanation than postulating an anthropomorphic deity who is supposedly infinitely merciful and infinitely loving and created the Universe as an act of love - then left us here to fend for ourselves.
“But it seems the developed arguments use “without cause” in a different way, not logically inferred from such a principle. An example of a typical word association fallacy. To support the more developed argument “without cause” is being equated to “from nothing”. And even the concept of “nothing”
Since matter/energy has been proven to come into existence spontaneously from the vacuum, isn’t it more reasonable to assume that an infinite number of dimensions exist and that these particles are in those dimensions when they are not here? Look up “M-theory”. There was no need for a creator - these dimensions always existed - and sometimes collide - causing new universes to be created - like ours in the Big Bang.
“Seems we are no closer to eliminating the need for something which transcends the universe then before. Even if you consider that there is more then one “universe” (quoted because the meaning of the word “universe” implies there can be only one. Perhaps we should call them “realms of physics”, and consider them all part of the universe).”
The thing that transcends the universe is the multiverse - the sum total off all possible universes at once - all of the alternate quantum realities in existence.
“Disclaimer: this is mere first impression, perhaps the inferences you want to make from this will seem more logical after I chew on them for a while.”
Again, kudos to you! Please DO chew on them for awhile. Please also look up “virtual particle”.
“attempt at humor Hmm, if “nothing” created the universes, perhaps “nothing” is all powerful, and “nothing” is all knowing. Then I must ask you...IS NOTHING SACRED?!?/attempt at humor”
Humor noted, and appreciated. [grin] My solution is no worse than postulating a God that was always there. One can ask the same question, “Who created God?” Answer; “He was always there”. “Who created the alternate dimensions?” Answer: “They were always there.” Because of the experimental evidence, I prefer the latter explanation. Of course, if new evidence were to come to light, I would and could reconsider my opinion.
The multiverse is unfalsifiable.
Nothing doesn't include a vacuum.
In nothing, there is nothing to fluctuate.
And virtual particles require energy as a prerequisite for their virtuality.
You, of course, are free to believe in the multiverse, immaculate singularities and should be enthralled with the slit experiment but none of those in any way support what you are trying to sell here.
For instance, how would an observer in this Universe observe another universe?
How do virtual particles move from one energy level to another absent energy?
And just who the hell was it exactly that has done this: "matter/energy has been proven to come into existence spontaneously from the vacuum,"
While we're at it what universe did the vacuum occupy before the universe existed?