Thread: Is our brain capable of understand the whole Universe?

In the same way that an ant is not able or capable of understanding that the Earth is round or spheric....do you think that our brain is limited and it is not capable of understanding the Global and Whole Universe?

Or we are only able to understand and conceive Our Known Universe from our poit of view?

It is very corious that nowadays we are able to understand the Universe content and containes between in an concentric sphere of radius from 10^-24 meters (neutrino) to 10^+27 meters (limits of Our Observable Universe).

This seems, to me, to be a definite possibility. I am more hopeful that we have the capacity to evolve, whether by chance or design, to the point where we can not only understand it, but reshape it in fundamental ways.

What would be the limitations of our brains in this direction?:

- The evolutive limitations of our senses of detecting and shaping limited stimuli (and with our technology).
- The difficulty of understanding and shaping something that we are unable to see or observe with our senses (and with our technology).
- The evolutive limitations of our brains in understanding more of the four known dimensions.
- The limitations of our intelligence and capacity for abstraction.

Why are people so hesitant to believe that we are not the center of the universe and that we are but an insignificant part of it ?

Which Psychological reasons can explain that intelligent scientists have very clear nowadays the observable Universe is almost certainly the whole universe? And that there can be nothing beyond their known limits?

Originally Posted by dapifo

What would be the limitations of our brains in this direction?:

- The evolutive limitations of our senses of detecting and shaping limited stimuli (and with our technology).
- The difficulty of understanding and shaping something that we are unable to see or observe with our senses (and with our technology).
- The evolutive limitations of our brains in understanding more of the four known dimensions.
- The limitations of our intelligence and capacity for abstraction.

All the above.

Originally Posted by dapifo

Why are people so hesitant to believe that we are not the center of the universe and that we are but an insignificant part of it ?

Au contraire. Most people are hesitant to believe they are not the centre of the universe.

Separately there is some reason to suspect we may be a very significant part of it. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

Originally Posted by dapifo

Which Psychological reasons can explain that intelligent scientists have very clear nowadays the observable Universe is almost certainly the whole universe? And that there can be nothing beyond their known limits?

I don't think anyone thinks that the observable universe is all there is. There is very good reason to think that the whole universe is very much bigger than that (possibly infinite, possibly not). And, of course, there are all sorts of theories about different types of "other" universes.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

Which Psychological reasons can explain that intelligent scientists have very clear nowadays the observable Universe is almost certainly the whole universe? And that there can be nothing beyond their known limits?

I don't think anyone thinks that the observable universe is all there is. There is very good reason to think that the whole universe is very much bigger than that (possibly infinite, possibly not). And, of course, there are all sorts of theories about different types of "other" universes.

Hy Strange !!...Then could you give to me (I think that in other thread because is not the topic of this one):

- These reasons to think that the whole universe is very much bigger than that ?
- And the theories about different types of "other" universes?

But in this thread the topic is to analyse the possibílity of humans we have to accept that we are not able to understand and shape the real and whole universe, and that we have to talk only about the Universe that we Can Know....or do you think that we will be able to undestand (Theoretically at least) the whole Universe some day?

Originally Posted by dapifo

These reasons to think that the whole universe is very much bigger than that ?

One is that the universe is increasingly homogeneous on large scales. It would seem odd if this just happens to stop at exactly the same distance that is the farthest we can see. This would also place us dead-center of a spherical universe, which is rather implausible. There are various measurements that can be made to measure the flatness (in the Euclidean sense) of the universe which set a lower limit on the size of the universe; this is many times larger than the observable universe.

More here: Our known universe

And the theories about different types of "other" universes?

Not something I know much about (I find this kind of speculation vaguely entertaining but rather pointless). This might be a valid starting point: Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

These reasons to think that the whole universe is very much bigger than that ?

One is that the universe is increasingly homogeneous on large scales. It would seem odd if this just happens to stop at exactly the same distance that is the farthest we can see. This would also place us dead-center of a spherical universe, which is rather implausible. There are various measurements that can be made to measure the flatness (in the Euclidean sense) of the universe which set a lower limit on the size of the universe; this is many times larger than the observable universe.

More here: Our known universe

I don´t understand what do you mean..or what are you trying to explain....

Which bit didn't you understand?

We can see a certain distance (limited by the speed of light since the big bang). That is the observable universe.

There are both philosophical and scientific reasons to think that the entire universe is larger than that.

Philosophical: it seems unlikely that the entire universe ends at the distance we can see; it seems unlikely that we are at the centre of the universe.

Scientific: from the big bang theory, it is estimated that the entire universe must be at least 10²³ times larger. It is possible to measure how "flat" space is; these measurements also put a lower limit on the size of the universe (although I don't understand this very well).

None of this sets an upper limit, so the universe could be infinite.

Note: it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe!

Originally Posted by Strange

We can see a certain distance (limited by the speed of light since the big bang). That is the observable universe.

I don´t understand this...because I understand that if before the BB there was something that was shining then the light could arrive to us now.
As long as the boundaries of our universe do not mirror and reflect them.
And also possible other type of waves or stimuli come in but we cannot detect.

Originally Posted by Strange

There are both philosophical and scientific reasons to think that the entire universe is larger than that.

Philosophical: it seems unlikely that the entire universe ends at the distance we can see; it seems unlikely that we are at the centre of the universe.

Scientific: from the big bang theory, it is estimated that the entire universe must be at least 10²³ times larger. It is possible to measure how "flat" space is; these measurements also put a lower limit on the size of the universe (although I don't understand this very well).

None of this sets an upper limit, so the universe could be infinite.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Strange

Note: it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe!

It is another possibility, but that does not contradict the above.

Originally Posted by dapifo

I don´t understand this...because I understand that if before the BB there was something that was shining then the light could arrive to us now.

Very early on, the universe was opaque. So even if there was something before the big bang it would no be visible.

As long as the boundaries of our universe do not mirror and reflect them.

There not (as far as we know) any boundaries.

And also possible other type of waves or stimuli come in but we cannot detect.

Don't start that again. You have been told by multiple people on multiple forums that it doesn't make sense. What would

We might be able to use the universe raw power if we speak the same language as it and use it to understand

Chaos is what makes our mind unbalanced and make us distracted and unable to understand everything

Originally Posted by Strange

Very early on, the universe was opaque. So even if there was something before the big bang it would no be visible.

Our Universe could be opaque...but if outside Our Universe there are other universes like ours...these other universes could be previous to ours and to be shining.

Originally Posted by Strange

There not (as far as we know) any boundaries.

OK..limits....

Originally Posted by Strange

Don't start that again. You have been told by multiple people on multiple forums that it doesn't make sense. What would

But also any body gave to me any reason for it (?)...only asking me for evidences (??)

I don´t see it so strange...If there are other universes out the limits of ours...then also could be other types of fields...and waves...and stimulis !!!

PD.: Strange, I see that you are writer... then why you don´t help to me to improve the followlng doccument?...With your general knowledge you could give it more consistent (!!??)

Please, think on it !!!...I cannot add the doccument..seams to be larger than permited (66 KW)...but I can sent it to you.

Attachment 904

Originally Posted by IWANTTOKNOWMORE

We might be able to use the universe raw power if we speak the same language as it and use it to understand

Originally Posted by IWANTTOKNOWMORE

Chaos is what makes our mind unbalanced and make us distracted and unable to understand everything

Could you be more explicit?

Originally Posted by dapifo

In the same way that an ant is not able or capable of understanding that the Earth is round or spheric....do you think that our brain is limited and it is not capable of understanding the Global and Whole Universe?

Or we are only able to understand and conceive Our Known Universe from our poit of view?

It is very corious that nowadays we are able to understand the Universe content and containes between in an concentric sphere of radius from 10^-24 meters (neutrino) to 10^+27 meters (limits of Our Observable Universe).

A very interesting question and I'm sure there are different ways to attempt an answer, however I'll stick to kind to match your ant analogy. I was thinking that myself funnyly enough, when I read the thread title, that was the first thing that popped into my head how an inspect perceive a house.

I would say the main difference though is us a species have the ability to go beyond our own limitations, also we have 'collective intelligence'. By this I mean many of the things we take for granted we don't necessarily understand how they all work or were constructed, but it's enough that other humans can understand them. Thus they are part of our collective intelligence. We also use tools, such as computers that one day could be far more intelligent than our brain.

I would think that maybe one day in the dim and distant future we may develop something that is capable of understanding the universe and then can explain it back to us in a dumbed down way that we are able to understand.

Originally Posted by dapifo

Our Universe could be opaque...but if outside Our Universe there are other universes like ours...these other universes could be previous to ours and to be shining.

Do you not understand why we can never see anything outside this universe (even if there were anything outside this universe).

Originally Posted by Strange

There not (as far as we know) any boundaries.

OK..limits....

What difference does changing the word to "limits" make?

But also any body gave to me any reason for it

You have been given many practical and theoretical reasons why it makes no sense. You just ignore them. You seem to ignore everything that you didn't think of yourself.

PD.: Strange, I see that you are writer... then why you don´t help to me to improve the followlng doccument?...With your general knowledge you could give it more consistent (!!??)

OK. Here is what it should say:

.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I would think that maybe one day in the dim and distant future we may develop something that is capable of understanding the universe and then can explain it back to us in a dumbed down way that we are able to understand.

Yes...possibly making an inproved being (human?) by genetic manipulation...with better brain, senses,...

Originally Posted by Strange

Do you not understand why we can never see anything outside this universe (even if there were anything outside this universe).

No...I cannot..(??)...Why?

Originally Posted by Strange

What difference does changing the word to "limits" make?

How do you name to the end of something?

Originally Posted by Strange

You have been given many practical and theoretical reasons why it makes no sense. You just ignore them. You seem to ignore everything that you didn't think of yourself.

I just do not accept things if I do not understand or see clearly ... Is this bad? .. To me this is just to have own criteria and not get carried away by what others think or say.

Originally Posted by Strange

OK. Here is what it should say:

.

What???...It means not?

Originally Posted by dapifo

How do you name to the end of something?

The universe has no boundary, limit, end, edge, sides, or outside.

I just do not accept things if I do not understand or see clearly ... Is this bad? .. To me this is just to have own criteria and not get carried away by what others think or say.

People have tried to explain to you in very simple terms why your idea does not make any sense. At some point you really ought to just admit you are unable to understand.

Originally Posted by Strange

The universe has no boundary, limit, end, edge, sides, or outside..

Please, could you explaing to me this ?... The Universe star 13.700 millions year ago from nothing (or singularity), and spand isotropically till now....do you mean that Universe is making the space, and out there is nothing?...or that space-time theory makes it infinite within it self?

Originally Posted by Strange

People have tried to explain to you in very simple terms why your idea does not make any sense. At some point you really ought to just admit you are unable to understand.

Which idea are you talking...I gave a lot of them...

And... could yo give me the three most importants simple terms why my idea does not make any sense?

I have been discussing so much that I forgot all the concepts.

Can our brains understand the whole universe?

This is like asking if our bodies can lift 100 tonnes.
The answer is no, but we do not have to. To lift 100 tonnes, we build tools, like a crane (the ancient Romans had 100 tonne capacity wooden, human muscle power operated cranes).

In the same way, we do not have to understand the entire universe. Instead we built tools to expand the capacity of the human brain. Traditional tools include mathematics, and the use of writing. Present and future tools will include high capacity electronic 'brains'.

So my final answer is yes, with the aid of the tools we will build.

Originally Posted by dapifo

And... could yo give me the three most importants simple terms why my idea does not make any sense?
I have been discussing so much that I forgot all the concepts.

I suspect you just ignored them, thinking "that can't be right because my idea makes sense".

You need to go back and read all the responses to your posts and think about what people tell you.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dapifo

And... could yo give me the three most importants simple terms why my idea does not make any sense?
I have been discussing so much that I forgot all the concepts.

I suspect you just ignored them, thinking "that can't be right because my idea makes sense".

You need to go back and read all the responses to your posts and think about what people tell you.

The only think that I remember from you is... "give evidences!!!!"... "Universe has not boundaries !!!"...but any reasonig about any thing...if you think yes...please, show me one !!!

you mean the visible universe?

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

you mean the visible universe?

Yes

Well why didn't you say so! I'm pretty sure it is a spehere with earth at the centre.

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

you mean the visible universe?

Yes

Well, imagine artificial intelligence evolved to the point where we could breed intelligent life forms inside a video game, with a set of physical rules similar to our world. If those AIs built a microscope and looked down to see what a rock is made of, they would observe electrical signals, in segments of zeros and ones. So they would conclude that their world is entirely made of 0 and 1 signals, thus, making a theory of everything similarly to how string theory predicts that all is made of vibrating strings. But would that be true understanding? How would they be able to know that something is wrong with their world, when all they can see is 0s and 1s? And what would they do, if they knew the truth? How would they be able to get out of that program? Physically I mean.

So not only we may not be smart enough to come up with a theory of everything, but even if we do come up with one...how would we know the truth? How would we know that the big bang is not just some event caused by some aliens extremely bored with their own world, who created the big bang in order to escape from their own reality? Even as a programmer, we have a hard time imagining how a program could walk out and actually exist in 3 dimensions, but what about if we didn't know that? When you don't know what's out there? How do you get out or even find out that there's sometihng out there? Very difficult.

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

you mean the visible universe?

Yes

Well, imagine artificial intelligence evolved to the point where we could breed intelligent life forms inside a video game, with a set of physical rules similar to our world. If those AIs built a microscope and looked down to see what a rock is made of, they would observe electrical signals, in segments of zeros and ones. So they would conclude that their world is entirely made of 0 and 1 signals, thus, making a theory of everything similarly to how string theory predicts that all is made of vibrating strings. But would that be true understanding? How would they be able to know that something is wrong with their world, when all they can see is 0s and 1s? And what would they do, if they knew the truth? How would they be able to get out of that program? Physically I mean.

So not only we may not be smart enough to come up with a theory of everything, but even if we do come up with one...how would we know the truth? How would we know that the big bang is not just some event caused by some aliens extremely bored with their own world, who created the big bang in order to escape from their own reality? Even as a programmer, we have a hard time imagining how a program could walk out and actually exist in 3 dimensions, but what about if we didn't know that? When you don't know what's out there? How do you get out or even find out that there's sometihng out there? Very difficult.

Exactly! .... finally someone who dares to have a different vision of our universe ... and to accept the limitations of our brain ... in being able to see it. In such a case as we could deal with the problem? .... Assuming that the universe is only what we see? .... or supposing that there are more things out, but we can not see?

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

you mean the visible universe?

Yes

Well, imagine artificial intelligence evolved to the point where we could breed intelligent life forms inside a video game, with a set of physical rules similar to our world. If those AIs built a microscope and looked down to see what a rock is made of, they would observe electrical signals, in segments of zeros and ones. So they would conclude that their world is entirely made of 0 and 1 signals, thus, making a theory of everything similarly to how string theory predicts that all is made of vibrating strings. But would that be true understanding? How would they be able to know that something is wrong with their world, when all they can see is 0s and 1s? And what would they do, if they knew the truth? How would they be able to get out of that program? Physically I mean.

So not only we may not be smart enough to come up with a theory of everything, but even if we do come up with one...how would we know the truth? How would we know that the big bang is not just some event caused by some aliens extremely bored with their own world, who created the big bang in order to escape from their own reality? Even as a programmer, we have a hard time imagining how a program could walk out and actually exist in 3 dimensions, but what about if we didn't know that? When you don't know what's out there? How do you get out or even find out that there's sometihng out there? Very difficult.

Exactly! .... finally someone who dares to have a different vision of our universe ... and to accept the limitations of our brain ... in being able to see it. In such a case as we could deal with the problem? .... Assuming that the universe is only what we see? .... or supposing that there are more things out, but we can not see?

Yes, for example, the only reason we are able to see galaxies and know about their existence is by pure circumstantial luck! We know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating so in the future, those galaxies will be stripped by the cosmological constant and the observable universe will become limited to our own galaxy. Even the microwave background radiation will no longer give us clues. So if we were to be born at that time, we would never know that those galaxies even existed and our understanding of the universe would be limited to the few things we can actually measure.

The discovery of the Higgs boson makes this a quite exciting time because it tells us that:

1) Our mathematical predictions, especially the more recent ones have been accurate, especially Einstein's equations who predicted something himself did not thought possible but which was true.

2) Our intuition is getting better and better. We actually start predicting stuff that's later proven to be true, more and more frequently.

Our Universe could be opaque...but if outside Our Universe there are other universes like ours...these other universes could be previous to ours and to be shining.

If there were other universes apart from ours ( which we cannot, in principle, rule out ), they would each be isolated and not interacting with each other. That is also the reason why you would never be able to see them or interact with them.

You never know, Markus.
There is a theory that gravitons move between universes, thus explaining why the force of gravity is so weak. So, for all we know, there may be interactions between universes. Or not.

Originally Posted by skeptic

You never know, Markus.
There is a theory that gravitons move between universes, thus explaining why the force of gravity is so weak. So, for all we know, there may be interactions between universes. Or not.

I have never heard of such a theory - do you have a reference ?
I am only aware of a model where the universe is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold, and gravity acts into those additional dimensions as well, which explains why it is weak. Is that what you meant ?

Fir example : Dark Matter

I quote :

"But the graviton(particle which transmitts gravity) is, according to string theory, closed loops. So they can infact wonder of from our universe to another."


I am not suggesting this is correct. It is just an idea. But who knows? Maybe gravitons really are inter-universe wanderers. Or not.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Fir example : Dark Matter

I quote :
"But the graviton(particle which transmitts gravity) is, according to string theory, closed loops. So they can infact wonder of from our universe to another."
I am not suggesting this is correct. It is just an idea. But who knows? Maybe gravitons really are inter-universe wanderers. Or not.

I believe what this article is referring to is just the idea I mentioned earlier, that our universe may be embedded in a higher dimension manifold. The term "universe" in the context of that article is rather unfortunate choice of words, but the basic idea is quite correct.
As you yourself said ( quite rightly ), there is currently no evidence to suggest that this is actually correct.
Btw, this model is called Brane Cosmology :

Brane cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In response to the OP, I think it's a good question. Having seen what the human brain can do in people with ... abilities ... I'm not sure how to determine the limits. I mean, there are people who are wired differently who can draw entire cityscapes from a picture they saw on a postcard a decade ago. There are people capable of learning languages in day, memorizing a number thousands of digits long, doing incredibly complex equations in seconds...

I don't know that an individual brain is capable of understanding the universe, but the beauty of our species is that we don't function solo. Our combined intellect does not seem to have a limit that we have yet reached. So long as we're not wasting our time blowing each other up, the things we can do when we combine our intellectual efforts are ... well, I'm very tired and my vocabulary fails me, but I guess impressive is a good, if underwhelming, word for it.

The difference between a human and an ant is that humans have parts of their brains that, after a few years of life, can think abstractly.

I'm not sure what it means to understand the universe, honestly. Is it supposed to be a feeling or something? I think folks with enough brain power could probably get a good grasp on the characteristics of the universe if they were interested enough. Although would they know how vast the universe is? I mean, I know the ocean is very, very deep. But I can't say I have the sense on the depth of the ocean like I have a sense of the depth of my bathtub.

I'm perfectly capable of knowing the ocean is so deep that there is no light at the bottom. Never been to the bottom, so it's not familiar like my bathtub. But I get the concept.

There is a level of understanding you get from experiencing something as opposed to reading it in a book, listening to a lecture, etc. My bathtub is white and very old, so old there are a few rust spots but it's still fairly smooth with some grooves that I suspect were intended for safety though I've mostly found over the years they just hinder my cleaning. I know what it looks like wet, dry, and after my daughter takes a bath because there are bubbles and toys all over it. I know what it smells like when I wash my hair and I know what it smells like when I use Scrubbing Bubbles to clean it. I know what sound it makes when my husband's shaving mirror falls off of the wall and lands on it - the tub was made in the fifties, definite clanging sound there.

Ocean? Eh, I waded a few feet in on my honeymoon, found it overrated. Though I've read there are ugly fish with sharp teeth and bioluminescence if you get down far enough.

Sensory experiences play a large role in thinking - memories, problem-solving, social situations. Humans are interesting in that they can understand the book concepts. But there is something that is missing from a lack of experience.

So yeah, provided a person has a good grasp on a language and they didn't get the short end of the genetic stick in the thinking department and they're sober more often than not and they didn't grow up in [insert neighborhood from Hades here] which resulted in a crappy education with a loss of all hope in life plus the inability to read the forms they had to sign when entering prison and so forth, understanding the universe is doable.

From their point of view, though? Well, don't we all see things from our limited point of view? Humans aren't capable of objectivity, you know.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by skeptic

You never know, Markus.
There is a theory that gravitons move between universes, thus explaining why the force of gravity is so weak. So, for all we know, there may be interactions between universes. Or not.

I have never heard of such a theory - do you have a reference ?
I am only aware of a model where the universe is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold, and gravity acts into those additional dimensions as well, which explains why it is weak. Is that what you meant ?

Ok but the question was, to take your gravity example: Why is there gravity, and as a result of it, anti-gravity? Why not a teddy-bear and an anti-teddy bear? Why choose that in particular. And my opinion regarding this is that, it's like rolling a pair of dice, getting 6-6 and asking why you got a 6-6...why not a 1-1. Among the millions of universes there may actually be an anti-teddy bear and absolutely no gravity at all! A better question would be, what rolls the dice, and another question is are the possibilities really infinite, I mean, could there really be just about anything spawning out of those random rolls or big bangs as we cal them? Are there an infinity of cosmological constants for an infinity of universes, and if so, what's the point of all this?

Many unanswered questions, the last one being the most troubling ^_^

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

could there really be just about anything spawning out of those random rolls or big bangs as we cal them? Are there an infinity of cosmological constants for an infinity of universes, and if so, what's the point of all this?

We don't really know whether there are an infinity of universes, all with their own laws. It is a possibility, I guess, and certainly cannot be ruled out.
The question is - how many of those universes would actually be viable, i.e. would not immediately collapse again ? I think the physical laws and constants would need to be very finely balanced in order for this to work, even if they are much different from our universe.

As to what the point is - I have no idea !!! I'm just a hobby science guy, and not a philosopher or religious fellow. I really don't know.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Oxycodone

could there really be just about anything spawning out of those random rolls or big bangs as we cal them? Are there an infinity of cosmological constants for an infinity of universes, and if so, what's the point of all this?

We don't really know whether there are an infinity of universes, all with their own laws. It is a possibility, I guess, and certainly cannot be ruled out.
The question is - how many of those universes would actually be viable, i.e. would not immediately collapse again ? I think the physical laws and constants would need to be very finely balanced in order for this to work, even if they are much different from our universe.

As to what the point is - I have no idea !!! I'm just a hobby science guy, and not a philosopher or religious fellow. I really don't know.

Ya, I met a religious person in some you-tube comment. She was arguing against an atheist saying "if there is no God, then, why do we suffer on Earth?" so I replied "You suffer for nothing." Religious people keep wishing that life here on Earth is just a short lasting test, but then there's going to be an eternal Heaven, where the difficulties we experience here on Earth will be no more. Ironically, that's not very far from the truth.

The way I see the world personally is a 3 dimensional space filled with decaying energy, so "nothing" or "void" may actually be a mith. It might not exist anywhere. Regions of space where this energy has decayed is where a universe is formed with galaxies, planets and science forums. The problem is, even if that were true, we don't know how that energy got there in the first place nor what's beyond it. In fact, words like "got" "there" or even "place" may not apply to such things. For example, a region where there is no time cannot be described by using verbs, since all verbs are time dependent. So you can't say that it is...but if it's not, then...what's there?

Originally Posted by dapifo

In the same way that an ant is not able or capable of understanding that the Earth is round or spheric....do you think that our brain is limited and it is not capable of understanding the Global and Whole Universe?

Or we are only able to understand and conceive Our Known Universe from our poit of view?

It is very corious that nowadays we are able to understand the Universe content and containes between in an concentric sphere of radius from 10^-24 meters (neutrino) to 10^+27 meters (limits of Our Observable Universe).

The answer has to be NO... if we did know, how would we know that we knew? and that there wasn't something else to know?

How did the energy get there?
Quantum fluctuations. And no, I do not understand that, either.

But the thing is that there is no net energy gain. What pops in and out is particles and anti-particles, and possibly unknowns. The highest probability is that, if they were all put together, they would totally annihilate each other, leaving nothing.

Thus, the conservation of energy is maintained, since there is no net increase in the energy in the universe.

Originally Posted by skeptic

How did the energy get there?
Quantum fluctuations.

Exactly, that's the problem. One question is, why do those fluctuations occur, and if they couldn't occur, this means we wouldn't be here, ever?

Those fluctuations can occur, or they cannot occur. When they cannot occur, nothing happens, and when they can occur, something happens. I think it's possible that everything can happen in the same time, including nothing and everything occurs in parallel. Could explain some quantum stuff like super symmetry.

This is well shown by our ridiculous cosmological constant lol, if it was off by I don't know how much, we wouldn't be here. And we came into existence exactly when the constant crosses the density of empty space...coincidence...or?