David SimsEssays

How do Universes Come Into Being?

by David Sims

A CHRISTIAN made a video that he posted on YouTube, in order to challenge atheists with the question “Where did the universe come from?” To the video’s creator: You messed up right away. Atheists don’t believe in gods. When you tacked on “higher power,” you ascribed to atheism a characteristic that isn’t found in the actual definition of the word. Whether we believe that a “higher power” (other than a god) exists depends on what evidence there is to support that belief. The reason we don’t believe in gods, a category rather more specific than “higher power,” is that we don’t know of any evidence for their existence sufficient to persuade us.

The question you asked, though, is a very good question. Until the beginning of the 20th century, no atheist could have answered it, except with a characteristically honest “I don’t know.” You should expect that reply from atheists from time to time. When an atheist doesn’t think the evidence supports a particular conclusion, he’ll nearly always tell you that he doesn’t know. Atheists usually don’t play the cheater’s debate trick of insisting that our case is made if our opponent fails to make his.

“Where did the universe come from?” First, get rid of any preconceptions you might have regarding the nature of empty space, and, unless you are really good with physics, shed any pretensions that you understand what a vacuum is, or what spacetime is. You probably don’t know as much about these important phenomena as you think you do.

Long ago, a philosopher asked “Why something rather than nothing?” Nothing can’t be because “be = exist,” whereas nothing or “no thing” is a negation of existence. Existence is tautological; it has no alternative. But having figured out that much, you still don’t understand what existence is like when it has no special reason to be any way at all. And you haven’t explained the universe by finding an explanation for existence itself. For that, pure logic isn’t enough, and you must turn to empiricism.

Existence in its default state is what physicists call the flat, unperturbed vacuum state. It’s a cold spacetime in which there are no potential differences in energy levels above the uncertainty principle. There are no causes or effects. On the quantum level, random events happen, fluctuations of vacuum energy having magnitudes that follow a Planck distribution for a cold blackbody. But no order arises from them. Spacetime boils with flux of this kind, even at absolute zero temperature.

Our universe isn’t in this default state. It is a radical departure from it, with the difference being greater in the past, and will be less in the future, than it is now. The default state of existence is what our universe is slowly evolving back to, as it expands and as its entropy rises. The universe has already undergone several very conspicuous changes in character, with more such changes yet to come, though the time scales over which the changes occur are lengthening.

Vacuum fluctuations occur simply because they are intrinsic to the nature of spacetime, which means they are they are the principle characteristic of existence in its default state. The classical notions of “emptiness” or “nothingness” as being this default condition are in error, and most people, entertaining these classical ideas regarding existence and its negation, are wrong.

These vacuum fluctuations occur within our universe, too. Just as they would occur in flat, unperturbed spacetime. But our universe has, on top of this background of vacuum noise, enduring potential differences in energy levels that go far above the uncertainty principle. Those potential differences give our universe its structure and create many kinds of possibilities for the organization of matter, such as stars and life.

The way a universe is born is as follows. Within another spacetime, the fluctuation of energy in vacuum follows a Planck distribution of magnitude. Most of those energy bumps and dips, relative to the energy level of the vacuum state, are too small to be of any consequence. A small percentage, however, are energetic enough to produce virtual elementary particles by pair production (e-,e+). And a very, very, very small percentage have enough equivalent mass to produce much more.

When it happens, purely by chance, that a vacuum fluctuation causes, within a parent spacetime, there to be enough energy at the same place and time, the energy will, by the gravitation of its equivalent mass, separate itself from the parent spacetime by creating an enclosing event horizon. The energy that had been in the fluctuation exits the parent spacetime by falling into a black hole of its own making.

Once in its own trivial universe, the energy that had been in the vacuum fluctuation is in a state that is hypercertain with respect to the uncertainty principle. It’s basically all in one quantum address, without anything else to relate to, and with no forces to do the relating with. That state is metastable, like a bicycle hub balanced on one spoke. After a half-life of a few billion Planck times, it decays spontaneously, like radioactive nuclei do in our world.

The “unity” of the energy that had been in the vacuum fluctuation is broken when a force, which in our universe was the strong nuclear force, breaks free of the original symmetry. This makes possible a plurality of quantum addresses, and the singular initial state, being now very improbable, is quickly abandoned. Quantum addresses proliferate with great rapidity, causing the inflation of space in a new universe. And that’s where universes come from. Your question has had its answer.

Now that I’ve given your question its answer, I’ll point out for you a number of flaws in your thinking. First, in your summary list of “possibilities” for how an atheist might answer your question, you left out at least one. Specifically, you left out the answer that empirical studies of Nature indicate is the most likely to be true. Why did you do that? I’ll be generous enough to assume that you were simply ignorant of that answer. Because I have given it to you, you can’t be excused anymore.

Second, when you proposed that the right answer to the question of where the universe came from is “A higher power created it,” you didn’t really solve the ultimate problem of epistemology, since an atheist will simply turn around and challenge you to explain where this higher power came from. At that question, you would be left with the same set of answers, and not one more, that atheists would have had with respect to the existence of the universe before the 20th century.

I think that people believe in gods because they are afraid of death. They want there to be something after, some continuation of their minds and selves, because their survival instinct makes them uncomfortable to foresee the complete loss. That is, I believe, why people cling to the god-idea, or to the higher-power-idea, so tenaciously. All of this theological intellectualism is phony. You religious people simply cannot handle truth because of your fear of it.

* * *

Source: Author

* * *

We share with Mr. Sims a science-based view of reality. We also believe, though, that religion has an essential place in our new White community. The new religion that underlies everything we do at National Vanguard and the National Alliance is Cosmotheism. We invite you to study it, help us, and join with us — as we build a real-world community of White men and women in the beautiful mountains of eastern Tennessee. We are building an educational organization, a publishing business, and a racialist library and research center. We have been solemnizing marriages and those marriages have been fruitful with White children.

“Deep inside all of us, in our race-soul, there is a source of divine wisdom, of ages-old wisdom, of wisdom as old as the Universe. That is the wisdom, the truth, of Cosmotheism. It is a truth of which most of us have been largely unconscious all our lives, but which now we have the opportunity to understand clearly and precisely.”

Thus William Pierce bids men and women of European race to understand ourselves and our purpose.

Dr. William Luther Pierce’s Cosmotheism is not a revealed religion, but is instead what he called a natural religion: It rejects all of the claimed supernatural “revelations” which find their way onto shining golden plates or ancient scrolls, instead having its basis in the realities of Nature that our eyes — and the investigations of science — have confirmed. In the drama of the evolution of life from non-living matter, and of higher and more conscious beings from lower forms of life, William Pierce sees a path of purpose and destiny for us.

This new, definitive book provides the reader with the only guide to Cosmotheism published by the Cosmotheist Church itself. In effect, it is the Cosmotheist bible. It contains all of William Pierce’s important Cosmotheist works, including the Cosmotheist Trilogy, his essays from internal National Alliance and Cosmotheist Community publications, and his lectures at the Community’s first gatherings in Arlington, Virginia in the 1970s. It also contains important works on the new religion by Fred Streed and Kevin Alfred Strom.

Previous post

Non-Whites, Traitors, Zionists Dominate UK Politics

Next post

Experiencing the Middle East: Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt - part 5

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Walt Hampton
Walt Hampton
12 February, 2022 9:59 am

Cosmology has narrowed it down to 10<43
seconds. At about that time the Universe
was around the size of a basketball. Before
that, no one currently knows. I believe that
Webb becomes fully operational sometime
in June. Perhaps some new discoveries
will be made at that time. I am keeping up
my great hope that the engineers who are
managing Webb will continue with their
amazing successes!

Arch Stanton
Arch Stanton
12 February, 2022 1:17 pm

It is interesting to watch the lengths to which human intelligence goes to explain what it will never be capable of comprehending. Fact: It takes intelligence to design and create intelligent design. Intelligent animals design and create everything from bird-nests to bee-hives. Man simply makes use of this intelligence to a larger scale, which in turn is dwarfed by the overwhelming scale of cosmic or universal intelligent design.   Everything in mans’ made world was created by his intelligence. Animal intelligence, that would include man, is merely part of a far greater cosmic or universal intelligence. One only needs to examine the material world to see this is the case. Everything in the material universe operates within certain design parameters, in this there is no accident. If there was such… Read more »

Bizzaro Politics.jpg
Jim - National Alliance Staff
Jim - National Alliance Staff
Reply to  Arch Stanton
12 February, 2022 9:15 pm

It seems rather bizarre to think of some anthropomorphic deity having intelligently created anything. If anyone was so omnipotent as to create things, wouldn’t all the universe’s (or multiverse’s) numerous errors, accidents, and stupidities have been left out of such a magnificently awesome design?

14 February, 2022 8:42 pm

“The way a universe is born is as follows. …”

A variation of the erroneous ‘Big Bang’ theory? 

We are in a continuum.

Walt Hampton
Walt Hampton
Reply to  Bob
14 February, 2022 11:21 pm

I propose that Webb be the
final arbiter of this standoff.

Reply to  Walt Hampton
15 February, 2022 11:07 pm

A problem with most ‘Big Bang’ theories is linear thinking, and particularly, one-way linear thinking. 

“Nature abhors a vacuum.” 

Among other things, Mass and Energy naturally migrate to the void. 

Imagine where you are and what you know as ‘Being’, and filling the void as ‘Becoming’. 

The Universe is not just coming from, it is also going to. (Induction?) Although still linear, adding another vector may assist in understanding continuum.

Hopefully everything is unfolding well with Webb. It could prove most interesting.

Walt Hampton
Walt Hampton
Reply to  Bob
16 February, 2022 8:44 am

Coming from where. Going to where.
A grapefruit-sized Universe. The
ideas are beyond human comprehension.

9 April, 2022 4:51 am

The article starts on a false premise. That Atheists can answer “I don’t know”. In truth Atheists are as fanatical in their belief, on the non existence of God, as any religious zealot. Only an Agnostic can say i don’t know when asked if God is real. Since there is no way to measure God in a laboratory, it’s impossible to either prove or disprove it’s existence. In that regard both Atheism and Religion are in error. Also no an Agnostic is not an Atheist neither is Agnosticism the same as Atheism. I am a theistic agnostic meaning that although i consider that a God exists and i attribute certain characteristics to it , in no way am i certain of my belief. It’s a hypothesis and i’m fully aware… Read more »

9 April, 2022 5:00 am

When a small time english man by the name Nigel Cheese can basically destroy most modern “scientific laws” in a manner of minutes. Similar to what Tesla was doing. It makes me doubt very much said theories of most “scientists”. For by the very definition of the word science it is TO KNOW. One has to be very nieve I have come to understand to honestly believe there is not much superstition in “science” so called. For when someone can say they “KNOW” the temperature of a sun without actually going to its center and measuring it. Is that not the height of ego? Ego is punished by nature usually by death or deadly injury. It’s just like when a scientist fails to leave room in the equation for a… Read more »