When famous scientists talk about 'god' they most likely

Since when are humans able to literally create?

We can't even create a single atom

>>8821073
That's the end goal. It's just saying it's likely a possiblity millennia down the line.

>>8821063
Weed lmao

>>8821088
Stop denying the truth. Copernicus found we were not at the center of the solar system. Watson and Crick found we are governed by DNA. This is just the next level. (But yeah, no proof like in their case. Can't imagine how you could even find proof of the fundamentally inscrutable.)

No.

>>8821063
As much as I like antifatalist theorizing like this because I, despite willingness, haven't been sold on any religion and terror management is in hyperdrive and I'm only in my early 20's, there's a hole in your argument.

If another species is creating universes to escape entropy of its own a la Sburb:
>How are they able to abide by the laws of physics in their base universe while creating a new one?
>Where are they in this universe?

A civilization capable of creating universes/pocket dimensions wouldn't suddenly drop in rating upon entry to the new universe. They'd be a Type 5 and very obviously present to us.

>>8822924
Perhaps they are obvious but we're too stupid to realize it. Perhaps they are in everything. Perhaps the universe is a mind and we are little 'mites' infesting it.

>>8822924
Three words:

Fast

Radio

Burst

Yeah maybe it's a natural phenomenon we just don't yet understand. But I'm not at all sold on the idea that just because an alien intelligence can create universes that this MUST be obvious to us. On the other hand, spiritual people will tell you that the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence _is_ glaringly obvious. In fact, I'm pretty sure this was Einstein's position.

>>8822932
>>8822940
Even so, our current understanding of the laws of physics does not allow the creation of a new universe.

>>8822959
That's not what I'm reading. Anyway, it certainly allows for its destruction.

>>8822967
The destruction of a universe is just one of multiple possible outcomes for the dispersal of matter and energy, and those theories almost always run with the notion there is a finite amount of both in existence.

To create a new universe altogether requires creating matter and energy beyond the sum already present in your existing universe; it violates thermodynamics because you're creating energy at a net profit. If you can do that, there's no need to worry about entropy anymore in the first place.

>>8822997
Sure. But I was not talking about a natural but an artificial destruction of the universe. As you point out, it's much easier to destroy than it is to create. However, to create all we might need to exploit is quantum fluctuation. Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing explores this idea. He does't propose we might be able to create a universe, of course. Only how a universe might come into being without the requirements you cited.

>>8822924
You're right. The reason their presence can't be felt is that they aren't here. And they aren't here because they wiped themselves out in the act of creation. As Nietzsche famously said, god is dead.

File: buzz lightyear physics.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

>>8821063
>they most likely mean that the universe is the result of an intelligent species having created the big bang
[citation needed]

the definition of god is as stable as the definition of art

>>8821063
>I know what famous scientists most likely mean
No, you do not.

>>8822940

We are already able to create universes that appear to be closed from the inside.

>they most likely mean that the universe is the result of an intelligent species having created the big bang

Literally sci-fi narrative that barely fits even contemporary mindset

I read Nautilus too, OP

>>8825197
It's metaphysics. So yeah, every physicist is going to have their own "sci fi" opinion about the nature of reality.

>>8821073
>humans able to literally create
they literally create literature, duh

>>8821073
You can't rule out that if we somehow survive long enough (as incredibly unlikely as it is) we might learn how to create.

>>8821063
This is really fucking retarded. Stop listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson OP, you fucking fag.

>>8825242
>implying you're smarter than neil degrasse tyson
this board...

>>8825260
I am.

>>8825260
Fuck off you imbecile, tyson isnt a scientist

>>8825296
You can level that charge against Bill Nye, maybe. But not against NDGT

>>8825404
Yes I can.

>>8825412
Okay, I guess you can. But you'd still be wrong if you did.