The complexity of everything that is?

Question

Do you ever lay in bed at night and think wow how could one person create all this. From electrons, protons, and nuetrons that make up atoms cells, molecules, tissues, organs, and the body. Then compared to planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, and the UNIVERSE!

Then there are natural phenomenons like rain, torandoes, vocanic eruptions.

Have you ever wondered how could one person be so smart to create all this and the amount of time and energy it would have required. The type of imagination is beyond my belief.

Answer 1

Uh... do you know something we don't? *confused stare*

Answer 2

I don't think one "person" created our universe, but I do believe that it is illogical to discount completely the concept of a "first cause." Some people talk about the known laws of physics that govern the cosmos but seem to forget (or prefer to disregard altogether) just how our universe began. The known physical laws can't be indisputably applied to that event, the Big Bang. Deny it or not, we're still faced with the profound question of exactly how did the Big Bang occur.

Even if someday we can answer that question then all we've done is shifted to another much greater question: how did all the physical laws that allowed the Big Bang and that today control the universe come into existence? Some would say that those laws exist purely from accident, a chance occurrence. But again we've merely moved to the next plateau: how could the existence of such a cosmic chance (fate?) be? To avoid the concept of a "prime mover" we're forced to say that chance existed from chance which existed from chance, ad infinitum.

No, I'm not a religious fundamentalist. Just someone who's convinced that no matter how this universe began the trail logically leads back to some "infinite entity."

Answer 3

If you're talking about God, and he is the ultimate, then there is no effort to be had for him to do it all. It's not like he went to God University or something.

Answer 4

Whether you believe in creation or not the universe is an enthralling place. The rules of creation are not simple as suggested elsewhere. Modern physicists cannot account for the earliest moments as all physical theories break down.

Don't lose the sense of wonder, 'cos simple it ain't!

Answer 5

If you are suggesting God created everything then remember God is a supreme being as far beyond you as you are beyond an amoeba (further even).

But there is no need for God in any of this.  The universe formed and evolves according to natural laws.  At the root of it all it is all just physics.

Answer 6

One person didn't create all of it.  The universe evolved, chemically, physically, and biologically, using a set of simple rules you learn in high school - gravity, chemical interactions, fusion, and natural selection.  It's really cool how much came out of it, and even more so that it all happened under a small set of universal rules.

Answer 7

There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.

The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.

However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.

However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 8

I think that universes probably occur as aggregations of vacuum energy in unusually large amounts, with a density great enough to cause its enclosure within a gravitational event horizon. Evolution begins when this energy, denied a normal thermodynamic mode of dispersal, changes state in such a way that space, time, mass, and force come into existence. This initial change of state provides the building blocks for further, and more complicated, changes of state, which eventually lead to the rise of live and consciousness.

Of course, I'm guessing about the mechanism for the origin of universes, but I don't know of anything in science to the contrary. It seems rather parsimonious. Much more so than, say, the god-idea.