How the universe is organized

All the basic laws of nature, including space-time relations, are valid only under certain conditions. It does not follow from nowhere that, given the extreme values of density, temperature, and scales that prevail in the singularity, it makes sense to use such fundamental concepts as "earlier" and "later." After all, there is still no real "grand unification" of all interactions, including gravity, and we simply do not know what the laws of nature are in such extreme conditions. In essence, Poprishchin's "answer" is that we have not yet reached the understanding of the singularity and we do not know when we will grow up. So, dear children, wait, well, at least until the XXIII century — maybe you will grow up!


This, in general, is a rather evasive, although reasonable, answer, of course, may not please the "comrades of the children." I recall an instructive example from the history of astronomical science. A. Eddington, one of the greatest astronomers of the 20th century, did not accept S. Chandrasekhar's conclusion about the presence of the limiting mass of white dwarfs. This result of fundamental importance was rejected by him on the grounds that there was no unified theory of gravity and quanta then (as now)!


So, "Poprishchin's answer" does not satisfy children's curiosity in any way. Moreover, there is another, rather unexpected answer, which could well belong to the unlucky Voltaire philosopher Pangloss: "There are no problems, kids! We're just living in the best of all worlds." Such an answer implicitly assumes that there are many worlds, and for the most part, they are not very comfortable... And now, as one of my friends used to say, "Jokes aside, and everything else goes the other way!"


It has already been noted that the universe in which we live has a rich range of properties and a very intricate history. And then another question arises: is the universe only something external to us, rather highly organized beings inhabiting a tiny and somewhat unique planet? Is the universe just some kind of knowable material substance that objectively exists outside of our cognition? In other words, could the universe have been completely different, with different laws? Of course, I could, but...


Obviously, not every universe could have such a complex and highly organized form of motion of matter as life. Earlier, when science was in its infancy, V. Herschel seriously argued that intelligent beings live on the Sun, which can admire the starry sky through gaps in the dazzlingly bright clouds of the photosphere, observed from Earth as dark spots... Note that Newton also considered the Sun to be habitable... Naturally, in the early stages of the expansion of the observable universe, there could be no life in it. After all, life requires, first of all, a set of very complex, "super-atomic" molecules. They could not have been there then because of the destructive ultra-high temperature and the absence of heavy elements. The latter are formed much later, as a result of the evolution of stellar interiors and, in particular, stellar explosions, commonly referred to as supernova outbursts. If there were no such outbreaks, there would be no iron nuclei in the universe, and there would be no hemoglobin or something equally important for life. Ici http://plinkogame.fr