My perspective on Cosmogony

[bearheart]

Below is my perspective on the origin and nature of our universe. Kindly comment and share your perspective as well.

There was a beginning to this known universe, like how a seed sprouts in the right environment.The new sprout begins its life towards a pre determined goal, to be possibly alive, to reproduce and to wither away and die.But its just the environment that contributes to how the sprout grows, how many leaves it will have, how tall it gets and so on.Yes it does have leaves, probably its flower is blue, thats the natural laws within the seed.Probably the existence of our universe could be summarized so, a seed originated from nothing , that being an intrinsic property of nothingness, and with the arrow of time,evolution in all its cosmic and biological glory worked out the details, like the leaves that grew from the sprout, nebulas, stars, comets, asteroids, galaxies , planets and all sort of life orginated .The seed represents those basic initial laws from which every other possible variation emerges(variations being weak , strong forces, gravity, electromagnetic forces etc), not a deliberate sentient
force.If there is a sentient force behind, its motive is not humans or any life, thats a plausible hypothesis.
Leaves will wither away, new seeds will be generated and our sprout will one day die, our universe will one day cease to exist, for a similar beginning and end to play out may be differently this time. Who knows such beginnings and endings happen all the time, may be there is a beginning happening right now somewhere in the multiverse.

[bennyboy]

I'd say this is more a metaphorical cosmoLOGY than a cosmogony. I think for cosmoGONY, you'd have to explain why there is a seed rather than a lack of one.

Normally, potential in the form of encoded information combines with an energy source in order to manifest as a thing. But a tree seed's DNA comes from somewhere, as does the energy which it uses to manifest that DNA into a physical structure.

You've said the seed originated from nothingness, THAT BEING AN INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF NOTHINGNESS. But why would you say that, and what does it even mean?

[bearheart]

I'd say this is more a metaphorical cosmoLOGY than a cosmogony. I think for cosmoGONY, you'd have to explain why there is a seed rather than a lack of one.

Normally, potential in the form of encoded information combines with an energy source in order to manifest as a thing. But a tree seed's DNA comes from somewhere, as does the energy which it uses to manifest that DNA into a physical structure.

You've said the seed originated from nothingness, THAT BEING AN INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF NOTHINGNESS. But why would you say that, and what does it even mean?

What I meant by intrinsic property is that by nature, an absolute nothingness leads to something to be created. Its something we yet don't understand about the nature of nothingness. I think Lawrence Krauss's theory of universe from nothing is what I am referring to.Probably it appears is a fact, why so is the mystery. The why part I tried to capture as "intrinsic" for now.

[bennyboy]

What I meant by intrinsic property is that by nature, an absolute nothingness leads to something to be created.

I dunno. If your take on cosmogony is to root it in a brute fact, then your perspective is "It's here because it's here." But we already know that.

I don't accept that an absolute nothingness leads to something being created, because a philosophical quantity "X," or a metaphorical "seed," or whatever term you use for something coming out of nothing, is SOMETHING.

No matter what. . . you still have to explain where that potential comes from, or your theory of cosmogony is only a theory of cosmology.

[polar bear]

OK, I don't really agree, with the overall theme of this. But thank you for your thoughts! I really like hearing other peoples ideas. I can tell you have thought about this.

Is yours a heart of a polar bear?

[vorlon13]

The entropy is strong with the thread starter, it is.

[Mudhammam]

I really see no difference to this nothingness from the suggestion that an impersonal deity created the universe... because it's an intrinsic property of deity to create....

[John V]

Nothing doesn't have properties, intrinsic or otherwise, because it's...nothing. If it has properties, it's something.

[bearheart]

OK, I don't really agree, with the overall theme of this. But thank you for your thoughts! I really like hearing other peoples ideas. I can tell you have thought about this.

Is yours a heart of a polar bear?

I guess it should be that of a sloth bear

---

I really see no difference to this nothingness from the suggestion that an impersonal deity created the universe... because it's an intrinsic property of deity to create....

Nothing doesn't have properties, intrinsic or otherwise, because it's...nothing. If it has properties, it's something.

You are right, I feel this (something from nothing)would be the one last argument to any debate on existence of god, for the theist this mystery would be the last straw to cling on to their faith.

Hope this is understood in my life time.