 |
| |
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I suppose if you wish to define "god" was the laws that govern the universe, so be it.
But if you mean the traditional sense of god as a supernatural, omnipotent and/or omniscient being who created the universe, then I'd have to disagree and say that God isn't a part of either theory. |
*will this thread descend into the god vs. no god discussion* -
but to cut the story short... Thinking in terms of a omni potent/ omni present/ etc being capable of creating the universe or more... reasoning behind is totally logical to me - and to put it shortly: There is only a set of laws in the universe, they are static... life or reason is dynamic - we exist, we learn, knowledge increases exponentially- and if what you proposed might be true (unlimited time or universes) - God must exist...
we are just matter in the Universe - and we learn about it, and we control what we know about in every detail - give us time, and we will be able to control the Universe itself, we will get to know all that there is to know about it... or even more - so here is your God in person - if unlimited time, or unlimited opportunities are given - that is a certainty. (even if we as a species fail - someone else will do it, if life is just a mattter of probabilities)
Might sound far fetched - but I don't see a logical problem here
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
The problem I see is that you say the laws of the universe are "static." I suppose you mean by this that they are immutable. Regardless, it does not follow that, sans intervention of a deity, that the material within our universe would be static.
The moment of the Big Bang was when space and matter was created and moved. Movement of matter through space created time. At this moment, the laws of the universe came into being, but matter was moving, so stasis was not possible. As was pointed out earlier, there had to have been an imbalance between matter and antimatter.
The movement of matter from the bang continues to this day and is what drives our universe. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the power of creation in our universe that we observe, not a supernatural deity.
I don't follow your second argument at all, except it seemed tangental.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his BACK he holds the earth!
But if you look DOWN you may find
that he holds us ALL within his MIND.
(I believe this is Stephen King, but please correct me if I am wrong.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
It is the same argument just in different words -
Lets use one of your sentences - quote:
The movement of matter from the bang continues to this day and is what drives our universe. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the power of creation in our universe that we observe, not a supernatural deity. |
assuming that this is the power of creation - it went so far to create us - accidentally, but it did.
We are just some matter in the univese - "matter" as atoms who are organised in the way to create even more, to learn about the universe itself (product of evolution) - I guess you agree on that.
At the moment we are the driving force for "creation", and we are already at a level to act reasonably, to observe the universe around us and to draw conclusions about it, the accumulation of knowledge happens constantly, which speeds up the " creative process" whatever you want to call it - evolution (as a process)...
evolution as a process was speeding up always, according to current theories - longest time period for creation of stars and galaxies, less for creation of first life on earth - less and less for more advanced forms of life - now we as humans can observe change on a daily basis almost - (quick explanation for exponential increase in "knowledge of universe about itself)...
So to have a God - you need - a Universe + a being who has the ability to control/create it -
What we have is a Universe - and we have us - humans -
WHat I am saying is if you give life enough time in a universe like our own, God will BE (ro humans will become God trough learing all that there is about the Universe itself).
Why? There is only X amount of knowledge stored in our universe - beings like us (in a process like evolution)- acquiring knowledge on an exponential basis, will eventually come to know all that there is about the Universe (static laws and their products) allowing them to control it to full extent, or even to recreate it effectively becoming - God.
But for that formula you need either infinite (or nearly infinite time) or alternatively infinite number of universes, and a process of evolution that science currently supports, as the end product you get God.
Fairly clear to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soul Survivor
|
|
UChicago
May 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
all these theories just try to explain what we percieve, we can't even hope to guess at the true nature of the universe (turtle or otherwise)
all we can see is the observable universe, from what we can see in our tiny (perhaps infinitely small) corner of the universe is that our tiny corner of the universe is expanding. for all we know there could be billions of other universes out there, which we cannot see, which we may never see, that have radically different "immutable laws"
if the universe is infinite in size, it means that everything that can happen will happen, which means that it will no longer be a question of 'if' God exists, but 'where' God exists
modern physics is becoming more and more like metaphysics, all we can really do now is speculate - your guess is as good as anyone elses
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
There are currently no scientific laws that states our particular universe is a closed system. It may be irrelevant to our lives if we have an untestable hypothesis, but it is not going to be irrelevant to scientists who may develop the means to determine the validity of such a hypothesis. |
There's nothing within the laws of the universe as we know them, however, to indicate we could have interaction with a universe wherein the laws were totally different. Just think of how we could possibly even know about such a universe. It would exist in an entirely different dimension.
quote:
If we are part of a cyclical universe our eventual future is very different to a linear universe. The former places us on a track to eventual collapse and rebirth with the beginning of the next cycle. The latter gives a myriad of possible outcomes. I don't consider these points as moot. |
You're going to have to explain this to me, because, as I said, the singularity of the BB is akin to wiping out the hard drive. It doesn't matter if the BB that spawned us is part of a nonstop cycle of BBs, because each collapse into singularity erases what "preceeded" it and starts everything a new, with perhaps completely different sets of universal laws. We can't effect the next cycle, and the previous one did not effect us.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
I beleive that God created the universe and that this point was the beginning of time. All matter was created on his command.
Isn't the idea that the universe wouldn't exist without concious beings called the anthropic principle?
quote:
anything by hawking is good, his books are pretty well written, and not too difficult to follow
|
I finished the universe in a nutshell a little while ago and it was great, finished it in a few days.
I love this kind of thinking stuff but it gives me a headache.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
There's nothing within the laws of the universe as we know them, however, to indicate we could have interaction with a universe wherein the laws were totally different. Just think of how we could possibly even know about such a universe. It would exist in an entirely different dimension.
|
Never said it would be easy, but we don't discount things because they are hard to comprehend. Also, I am not saying the laws of these others would be different, just that these realms existed 'before' or 'after' what we call the Big Bang. They may simply be parts of the knowable universe that do not trace their history back to our Big Bang, but to somewhere else.
quote:
You're going to have to explain this to me, because, as I said, the singularity of the BB is akin to wiping out the hard drive. It doesn't matter if the BB that spawned us is part of a nonstop cycle of BBs, because each collapse into singularity erases what "preceeded" it and starts everything a new, with perhaps completely different sets of universal laws. We can't effect the next cycle, and the previous one did not effect us. |
Analogy here. Black holes are perfect at wiping a hard drive. All information that goes into them is lost. Black holes also radiate, and eventually the mass/energy contained within them is given back to the universe. This occurs based on *known* consistent and unchanging physical laws. The universe could be considered to be the same. All information is lost when it collapses into a singularity, but the essence of the mass/energy is reused in the next cycle and the laws governing it never change.
This process does not involve creation of new laws of nature, or of new material, or of any new anything. Its just a recycling process.
If this is what happens then discussions of what existed before the Big Bang do make sense, as a physical and logical explanation can be given. You may not know what happened in the previous cycle but you can know that one did exist and you can understand its nature.
Last edited by Dauphin on 09-07-2003 at 08:10
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
|
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
Not really relevent, but a mild diversion nevertheless.
quote:
Big Bang to Bada-Bing
Wednesday July 9, 2003
The Guardian
From chapter 2, Stringfellow Theory
Stringfellow theory has a curious history. It was originally developed to explain the existence of a basic object or phenomenon, the "Stringfellow", which seems to occupy a point in space, but has no other dimension at all, except age. We may think of "Stringfellow" as an infinitely thin piece of string, or as simply a pair of trousers, but none of this really helps us understand it. In the 1980s Scherk and Schwarz attempted to prove that Stringfellow had as many as 26 distinct dimensions, but if we can't see these dimensions, how do we know they are there? It has been suggested that the other dimensions are curved up into a very small space occupying less than one million million million million millionth of an inch. In our ordinary three-dimensional universe Stringfellow may appear to be completely flat, but up close it's actually wrinkled and pitted like the surface of an orange. Only from a distance does it appear smooth, a bit like space-time itself.
As Max Planck said when he first encountered Stringfellow in the 1920s, "I don't what it is, but if it's buying the drinks, it's OK with me."
From chapter 5, Heavenly Bodies and the Forces of Nature
It was once believed that a hot body ought to radiate the same amount of energy in waves equally at all frequencies, but after an exhaustive observation of hot bodies, including those of the so-called Scorpio model, the Stacey model and the Bambi/Bella duality, it became obvious that the energy radiated by a given hot body is not emitted arbitrarily but in discreet packets which we term "quanta", because you have to pay for them. None the less all bodies in the Stringfellow construct of the universe have forces with special properties, forces which are attractive over large distances, especially Tiger.
What happens next can be difficult to predict. We cannot, as we know, observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. What we watch is not really for us alone, even though, under the Stringfellow construct, we may have leased the requisite space-time in order to view it. But observe we must, otherwise there is no point in being here at all! As Schrodinger put it, "The task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen, but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees." That's right, baby. Ooooh, yes!
From chapter 9, The Naked Singularity
In the pole scenario of the Stringfellow model, the naked singularity revolves around a critical radius, called a pole. This event should not be confused with the "lap" or "table" scenario, which takes place at a remove which makes viewing the naked singularity uncomfortable, if not impossible.
There are, however, some solutions of the equations of general relativity in which it is possible for an astronaut, or, for the purposes of argument, let's say Colin Farrell (who's really nice by the way), to see a naked singularity up close without actually touching it; indeed this is one of the known laws which governs the Stringfellow model. In the right circumstances our Mr Farrell, upon approaching the event horizon, will begin to feel the gravitational forces at work on his body as the space-time curvature around the singularity, which at this point, it must be admitted, is not quite naked, for complex reasons having to do with the law of Westminster council.
In this scenario the Irish bad-boy actor may feel himself passing the point of no return, or he may not even notice until it's too late. Eventually time itself comes to a stop, and you have to give another tenner. Some researchers working in this field think a twenty is more appropriate, but I assure you that the debate on that point continues!
Work carried out by Roger Penrose and I in the late 1960s proved that observers outside the immediate area of gravitational collapse are, remarkably, unaffected by the rules governing the naked singularity. This led Penrose to conclude, rather primly, that "God abhors a naked singularity". Suffice to say that Penrose wasn't there last weekend, and he didn't see Tiger do her thing.
From chapter 20, Unification ...
As we have seen previously unification is not possible, or at least not achievable, with the Stringfellow model. You are not even allowed to give them your phone number. Unification has long been the dream of many scientists working in this field, and most of us realise now that that dream lays some way outside the Stringfellow construct.
A colleague of mine at Cambridge has done some impressive work on a grand unification theory using alternate models (see Spearmint-Rhino, 1998), but he's afraid to publish in case his missus finds out.
I myself once investigated the Spearmint-Rhino model, but got chucked out for putting forward a scenario whereby an observer of a singularity might fall through a "wormhole" and emerge in another region of the universe. I know that probably doesn't make much sense, but frankly I never expected anyone to read this far ...
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-07-2003 03:34
|