Now isn't that strange? You'd think there would be a whole slew of variations right from the beginning, when in fact there's not. And indeed, life seems to have sprouted from one common ancestor.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Abiogenisis has been mentioned here a couple of times, what would be the name for the theory on how the actual atoms (substance) of the universe came into being? I have heard it said before that this not not concern science as it is beyond (my memory may have been distorted) science, is this correct? If so, why is this?
Please excuse me if I talk out of ignorance (I only wish to learn here) but isn't this what science should be most concerned about? I can only imagine that the universe could not possibly have been around forever (as it would surely defy entropy) so logically there must have been at least one atom (or something smaller) that came into being from nothing....are my assumptions correct?
To my knowledge it is possible that things (like plants, animals, maybe atoms?) can multiply themselves, but cannot just appear like so from nothing (by which I mean addition).
Mathematics tells me that the number 0 is unique in that multiplied by any other number it remains at it's original value (0, obviously).
Therefor (unless I've gone completely bonkers here) it appears that the universe is a paradox. Now either the universe doesn't exist, which is illogical (the whole 'I think therfor I am' argument) or more than the universe exists. However, this second (or third, forth and so on) dimension (if you will) could not follow the same basic laws of physics (or meta-physics as it would be) lest it be given the fate of the first.

Another possibility I can see is that entropy could theoretically reverse itself and so on, but the same problem entails: where did the mass (or loop) come from?

Is it not the case that logically there must be a second dimension (or time) where (or when) the laws of our universe do not apply? Furthermore, is it not nessesary for the first atom (or bit of energy) to originate from this place? (or time...if possibly the rules of physics change). Is it not just as scientifically (or at least logically) acceptable that abiogenisis could have been a genetic version of the same event? If not, what makes it unacceptable? Perhaps because it does not allow for the application for the scientific method? If so how does abiogenisis become a 'more' valid theory? If it isn't, how is the rest of evolution (which in a refutation of God surely depends on abiogenesis) justified? If it cannot reasonable be so, how is it ethical that such things are so often quoted as fact, or certainties?

Just interested

Hello and welcome Mozy (and I share your opinion of Wolfgang).

I'm not an astronomer so I don't know the word for the specific phenomenon of "atoms coming into being", but Cosmology is the study of the origin of the universe.
(While Cosmetology is the study of the makeup of heavenly bodies. )
Perhaps you have heard it phrased that way, but that's not exactly true. Many scientists are very concerned with that question, but the simple fact is that it is extremely difficult to gather evidence about that time, and speculating on things without evidence is the job of philosophers. Almost everyone agrees there was a "Big Bang", because the evidence points to a universe that is continually expanding, not just drifting around. But what happened to initiate the Big Bang? There is simply no evidence. Quantum mechanics has verified that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, so it is possible that the origin was a massive (and I mean massive) quantum fluctuation (apologies to any physicists out there if I am using the wrong terminology). But all quantum fluctuations we have ever recorded have been microscopic in scale, so that is a strike against that theory. Yet, given virtual infinity, even the most unlikely event has a chance of occurring. Of course, the concept of time without matter or energy is iffy too, so that one is hard to support.
We simply have to keep trying to gather evidence. It is unlikely that this will be discovered in our lifetime, or even for as long as humans exist, but we don't give up.
No, I don't think so. I think it provides little information that would help humans survive on a planet with dwindling resources. Sure, it would be nice to know, but would it change anything significantly? Maybe it would cause some adjustment of religious beliefs, but those are changing all the time anyway.I'm not sure what is meant by "nothing". As I say, particles pop into and out of existence (as we define it) all the time. Where do they come from? Is it "nothing"? I really don't know.
Conservation of mass and energy suggests that matter cannot replicate itself. Although certain molecules can rearrange other matter to make copies of themselves (this is how crystals grow) but they do not "create" the matter that the copies come from.

Evidence suggests that the universe is a closed system, meaning no significant change in the total amount of matter and energy. But this does nothing to answer the question of where it "came from". Frustrating, isn't it?
The thing we call "zero" is indeed an anomaly in simple math. You cannot divide by zero and it defies normal math conventions in other ways. But there are other math anomalies too. For example, the realm of imaginary numbers result from the mathmatical operation of taking the square root of a negative number. It is a perfectly legitimate mathmatical operation, but the result is a number which exists only as a concept.

So I tend to think that the properties of zero and "i" (the square root of negative 1) are simply the way math works and do not have any special significance.
I would not say you have gone bonkers, but you are trying to extrapolate beyond what can be known. Here, you enter the realm of philosophy.
No, that is not the logical case. It is quite possible, and in fact it is pretty much certain that we don't completely understand the laws of our universe. Science keeps uncovering new things about them all the time. But they are still of this universe, eles, we could not know them. In my opinion, it is useless to speculate on things that are, by definition, unknowable. This would include how things behave in "another dimension" which we can never enter or even ascertain the existence of.

Don't worry though. There are plenty of things in this universe to yet to be discovered.
No, entropy could not "theoretically" reverse itself. Theories must have evidence, and there is no evidence that such a fundamental change in the nature of the universe could occur. I think you mean "hypothetically", but then, absolutely anything could be said "hypothetically". That's a good starting place to build a theory, but untill data is gathered to support your hypothesis, it is forever a "what if".

Where did the mass come from? Well, we are back to your first question, and the answer is still "we don't know". It is a perfectly good answer, and the only truly honest one that we can give in the absence of evidence.
Now you are building on your hypothesis, which is itself not supported. And your induction is, in my opinion, incorrect too.

While it is true that we cannot gather evidence about what happended "before there was matter", we have a lot of evidence about what it was like on Earth before there was life. So abiogenesis is, in principle, knowable. We may even be able to demonstrate it. Certainly there is a ton of evidence for it, even though we cannot, and may not ever be able to pinpoint the specific instant when a group of self replicating chemicals stopped being chemicals and became "life". None of it requires a change in the rules of physics, although greater knowledge of the rules of physics helps a whole lot towards our understanding.

Well, first thankyou for your kind welcome (and I see I'm in good, Mozart loving company). Also, I don't like to admit it, but that was one heck of a brilliant response! In relation to the above quote, do you know of anywhere I could read a bit more about that...any books or websites you'd recommend? I was really blown away by that! Perhaps once I finished by music degree I'll take another in Quantum physics, that'd be fun.

Again, very interesting...nice one

Thank you very much for your nice response. I was afraid I might have sounded too critical.

And I am afraid I can't recommend a good "Quantum Physics for Dummies" book. I have tried to read simplified versions, but the math is way beyond me. I understand, though, that Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is a readable text that deals with the origin of the universe in general.

I'll cast about and get back to you.