Question our universe is our god

[E.B.E1]

Interesting question if you ask me... Perhaps we would want to conclude if we are trying to prove or disprove the existence of that theological being here.

Personally, I don't think that's the case. I would venture to say that our use of the word god here is a matter of perspective. During our lifetime, especially for most of us during our youth, we all were exposed to, the theory that God is the creator.

So regardless of whether we believe or not we associate creationism with God. Hence terms like the Particle God, etc. In this case BB is our god because it created the universe.

yes your correct but without trial and error along with imaginative science fictional thinking we'd still be living in caves and eating leaves and berries, which some people still do today

 

[E.B.E1]

Cars (drivers) go places because they can. And we know how they do it. This reveals little as to "why" they do.

Evolution theory gives us a model on how species evolve; the greater the thinking ability the better. But this model, at least partially, reveals "how" we can think, not the more aspirational "why" we make choices, which often involves more than just the brain.

BB theory is just a model and it isn't a model of creation since its "wheels go flying off the cart" when we get very close to that instant (t=0). Science (objective-based) can't explain the "how" it happened, and will never explain the "why". This is the magisteria of philosophy and religion.

totally agree with you Helio.
The previous post by arturo.v.dominguez hit the point when he said if the BB happened and to be perfectly honest I'm not so sure perhaps as it was a big bounce and the universe has been expanding and contracting for ever,

like when a star uses its fuel and expands before going supernova and contracting into a neutron star but over and over for infinite times

 

[Catastrophe]

The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang

The hot Big Bang is often touted as the beginning of the Universe. But there's one piece of evidence we can't ignore that shows otherwise.

bigthink.com

Cat

 

[E.B.E1]

Interesting question if you ask me... Perhaps we would want to conclude if we are trying to prove or disprove the existence of that theological being here.

Personally, I don't think that's the case. I would venture to say that our use of the word god here is a matter of perspective. During our lifetime, especially for most of us during our youth, we all were exposed to, the theory that God is the creator.

So regardless of whether we believe or not we associate creationism with God. Hence terms like the Particle God, etc. In this case BB is our god because it created the universe.

No no not the BB if in fact the BB as our theoretical science tries to teach us, even happened which it may not be that way, i digress the universe created us and i used the god word very loosely just to make the point as i don't believe in the concept as such.

The real truth is we really don't know and what we think we know are just theories and assumptions about the nature of our existence and reality itself or perhaps someone has already imagined the truth

 

[Catastrophe]

"what we think we know are just theories and assumptions about the nature of our existence and reality itself."

What we think we know is our interpretation, filtered through our brains, of the sensory input, a variation of which we share.

Cat

 

[E.B.E1]

Cat

that's like when someone asks how do you feel and you reply, well a series of nerve endings send electric impulses through my body to my brain.

we are just infants and truly know a tiny amount of what is to be learnt and known within the grand scheme of things and to be honest looking at the bigger picture then we aren't in the picture nor on the frame in fact we are not even the nail that holds the picture, but that said we keep at it and slowly move upwards because we try to learn from our flaws and we hope to be able to someday reach such an enlightened stage that fear of our differences and ignorance of others beliefs can be understood and perhaps we could be a global nation, but I'm a dreamer and a realist who wants this but knows that humanity doesn't have enough time to get close to this.

 

[Helio]

Magisteria



Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science & Religion : Spencer, Nicholas: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Cat

Yes. That book looks interesting.

The evolutionary biologist/paleontologist/historian Stephen Jay Gould famously introduced is NOMA (Non-overlapping magisteria) between science and religion. This is an important way to understand the distinctions between the two (three counting philosophy, IMO).

But, contrary to his general claim, there are areas where overlaps do occur. This is where frictions can easily develop.

 

[Helio]

...
The previous post by arturo.v.dominguez hit the point when he said if the BB happened and to be perfectly honest I'm not so sure perhaps as it was a big bounce and the universe has been expanding and contracting for ever,

For such reasons, I try to encourage others to not think of BBT as something that claims it says anything about the creation itself. BBT came around because of what is observed today, then rewinding the clock to see what predictions would spring forward.

One of the first was that the smaller, earlier universe had to be extremely hot and dense. Ganow and Alpher calculated that only H and He, with almost nothing else, would have been formed. This predictions was one of the first supporting evidences for BBT, but no one gave it much credence since the theory predicted something astronomers already knew.

But Alpher and Hermann realized a few years later than the CMBR should exist. This was also ignored for several reasons, namely that microwave telescopes were too new to astronomy. Yet this eventually was what won almost all BBT opponents over to mainstream astronomy. [Hoyle never could let go of his own competing model.]

BBT makes, AFAIK, no predictions for events during t=0 creation moment. CERN can, amazingly, takes us to just after the first trillionth of a second. Time before this is where physics becomes more metaphysics. Inflation theory, however, is often tossed in to explain a couple of problems that arose from quantum mechanics. This theory can be seen as ad hoc since it is so hard to test.

like when a star uses its fuel and expands before going supernova and contracting into a neutron star but over and over for infinite times

The life of a star is a great example of entropy contributing to the death to a star. Dead stars never come back to life, unless a whole lot of fusionable elements are pour upon them.

The cyclical Universe ideas have been around for a long time but they are not part of BBT since, as I argue, BBT never gets to t=0.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Aim at heaven and you get the Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither." -- C. S. Lewis, 'The Abolition of Man'.

My realization of the above borrowing from Lewis! Aim at the heavens, the frontiers, the 'Endless Frontier', and you get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither. That is not only the "cosmology" but the "cosmopolis."

 

[Classical Motion]

I think mankind has been biased with the study of physics. We are living lifeforms and the dynamics we live with are life dynamics.

Living physics is much different than dead matter physics. Living physics only applies here on earth. Living physics is a super physics. Super physics has choice.

Choice breeds systematic unknowables and unrelatables. We make the concepts of probability, randomness and chaos from them. Unknowable and unaccountable choices.

But these concepts only apply to life dynamics, not dead matter dynamics.

Dead matter has no choice.

We should be able to determine and understand dead matter physics long before we understand life dynamics. Because of molecular choice, medicine will always be a statistical science. All life science will remain statistical.

But dead energy and mass, light and the universe should always be precise. And predictable. Determinate.

A contradiction with dead matter is a red flag. A fundamental stop. Because probability, randomness and chaos does not exist. Either for cause or excuse. Dead matter never makes a boo boo.

 

[Atlan0001]

I disagree regarding "dead matter." Due to quantum animation, therefore cosmological animation, of matter (its equivalent always being energy (therefore always energetic), there is no such thing as "dead matter" or "dead matter physics."

 

[Classical Motion]

Dead matter is not still or dead in a motion or energy sense. Dead matter is unaffected by life. Whatever you consider life to be. Some believe life evolved from dead or non-living matter.

Even though we have only observed life coming from life. And life seems to be singular here at this one location, for at least 13 BLY around us at this time.

Others like me believe that life is a different kind of force, that can modify and modulate normal non-living matter. Non-living chemistry, modified and modulated into living chemistry.

There is some kind of force or influence here that can do that. This force is informative and needs to be passed on. Life is intermittent and generational.

Maybe I should have said non-living matter instead of dead matter. Most matter in this universe has too much zip(energy) to be used by this life force.

 

[Atlan0001]

Dead matter is not still or dead in a motion or energy sense. Dead matter is unaffected by life. Whatever you consider life to be. Some believe life evolved from dead or non-living matter.

Even though we have only observed life coming from life. And life seems to be singular here at this one location, for at least 13 BLY around us at this time.

Others like me believe that life is a different kind of force, that can modify and modulate normal non-living matter. Non-living chemistry, modified and modulated into living chemistry.

There is some kind of force or influence here that can do that. This force is informative and needs to be passed on. Life is intermittent and generational.

Maybe I should have said non-living matter instead of dead matter. Most matter in this universe has too much zip(energy) to be used by this life force.

Thanks, Classical Motion! I'm waking hours before dawn thinking about things because of you mostly and I'm in no way angry! I'm going for a new thread on those things!

 

[E.B.E1]

For such reasons, I try to encourage others to not think of BBT as something that claims it says anything about the creation itself. BBT came around because of what is observed today, then rewinding the clock to see what predictions would spring forward.

One of the first was that the smaller, earlier universe had to be extremely hot and dense. Ganow and Alpher calculated that only H and He, with almost nothing else, would have been formed. This predictions was one of the first supporting evidences for BBT, but no one gave it much credence since the theory predicted something astronomers already knew.

But Alpher and Hermann realized a few years later than the CMBR should exist. This was also ignored for several reasons, namely that microwave telescopes were too new to astronomy. Yet this eventually was what won almost all BBT opponents over to mainstream astronomy. [Hoyle never could let go of his own competing model.]

BBT makes, AFAIK, no predictions for events during t=0 creation moment. CERN can, amazingly, takes us to just after the first trillionth of a second. Time before this is where physics becomes more metaphysics. Inflation theory, however, is often tossed in to explain a couple of problems that arose from quantum mechanics. This theory can be seen as ad hoc since it is so hard to test.


The life of a star is a great example of entropy contributing to the death to a star. Dead stars never come back to life, unless a whole lot of fusionable elements are pour upon them.

The cyclical Universe ideas have been around for a long time but they are not part of BBT since, as I argue, BBT never gets to t=0.

clearly a clever and very intellectual person, hats off to you Sir.
You know your scientific theories and theorists whose work was and still is keeping many geniuses busy today but the technology didn't exist to check the results of their work and some other good scientific minds rejected it as crazy thinking but most of the theories have now been proved to be either correct or not far from the answer.
I completely agree with you about BBT and the timeless point t=0 and how close CERN has gotten with the most important and powerful machine ever made imo, so can i ask you if you think that we will ever manage to get ourselves technologically advanced enough to ever realise the answer

 

[Jzz]

if our scientific research and explanation about the cosmos bursting into existence from a singularity and the big bang theory is correct then everything that is in our universe including life was created at that moment therefore we are all connected to the cosmos in a fundamental way or life or life force is a by product of the coalescing universal evolution either way we are part of it so in my opinion our universe is our creator therefore is our god

My own thoughts are that the question goes much deeper than that. According to Einstein’s relativity (both special and General relativity), time and space are mutable. If one gives adequate thought to this tenet, it becomes obvious that where multiple entities moving near the speed of light, are concerned, time and space cease to have any meaning. Because each of those multiple entities is experiencing a different time and a different space from everyone else. This in turn means that causality ceases to exist, in the manner we are familiar with; an event taking place for one person, occurs at a different time and place for another and so on. Leave alone moving at the speed of light, merely observing an event from different perspectives invokes relativity and a loss of causality. Even though Einstein tried to correct this fault by stating that an effect cannot occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. It does little to alleviate the situation because obviously each person’s past and future are different according to special relativity. This being so it follows that in the Universe that Einstein envisioned, there exists no room for the sentient being. Even ordinary matter, organic and inorganic needs causality to come into being. Without causality there can be no sentience, without sentience there can be no room for mankind. Therefore, looking at the situation from the opposite perspective it follows that the Universe did not give birth to man, but that the opposite is true and the Universe exists because of man. Ergo a sentient being.

 

[Classical Motion]

I don't think matter could interact without a common space and a common time. The only common thing space and time have together is.....they are constant. That's the only similarity.

 

[Atlan0001]

Fundamental Binary Base2, '0' (discrete quanta (null unity)) and/or '1' (unity), and parity . . . ('0' (discrete quanta) will tear its portion out of the guts of '1' (unity) if it comes down to that)!

((+1) (-1)) = 1/0.
--------------------

Strong interaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Catastrophe]

Wake up call! Back to post #1.

if our scientific research and explanation about the cosmos bursting into existence from a singularity and the big bang theory is correct then everything that is in our universe including life was created at that moment therefore we are all connected to the cosmos in a fundamental way or life or life force is a by product of the coalescing universal evolution either way we are part of it so in my opinion our universe is our creator therefore is our god

And what if it is not correct, as seems highly likely.
Even the most dogmatic must realise that it is not the only hypothesis.

In my opinion, it seems much more likely that we are sitting on the back of a turtle, which sits on . . . . . . . . .


Cat

 

[Helio]

so can i ask you if you think that we will ever manage to get ourselves technologically advanced enough to ever realise the answer

We can’t build a super CERN large enough that would get us to the critical earlier stages where all the forces are likely united.

But there are more indirect ways to offer theories that might not be impossible to argue. One view, for instance, juxtaposes quantum mechanics and string theory. This would limit the possible outcomes (multiverses) to around 10^500. This is better than the estimate of Penrose that looked at entropy (Boltzmann) and found tha the odds of this universe forming was one part to 1 followed by zeros written by hand all the way to the edge of the observable universe…10^10^123, IIRC.

Also, we tend to ignore our ignorance of what time is. Perhaps this will improve…with more time.

IMO, something special was involved that produced both unimaginable concentration of energy and low entropy. To say nothing is responsible is a weak view, but there is no hard science yet to allow us to do more than speculate,

 

[billslugg]

Entropy is a meaurement of the amount of heat in a system that is not available to do work. The more the temperature differences in a system, the more work can be done thus the lower the entropy. In the first fraction of a second, the universe was unform except for quantum fluctuations. This would mean it was high entropy, no?

 

[Atlan0001]

Entropy is a meaurement of the amount of heat in a system that is not available to do work. The more the temperature differences in a system, the more work can be done thus the lower the entropy. In the first fraction of a second, the universe was unform except for quantum fluctuations. This would mean it was high entropy, no?

When I had a lawn, it kept tending to the "Call of the Wild" of weeds, the call to disorder (the call to a much more energetic nature), no matter how hard I kept energetically working for a perfect green Utopia in the local-relative closed systemic finite of my yard. Eventually, inevitably, it, the constant of time reversal in return to the "Wild," to "Creation," broke down -- collapsed -- my perfection of complexity into chaos . . . out energizing me and my Utopian perfect lawn with a vastly higher energy state (inexorably, entropically, outlasting me)!

 

[billslugg]

I've been mowing my lawn with a reel type push mower the last few months. It's OK as long as you have plenty of spare time and you don't let it get too tall. It's good exercise.

 

[Atlan0001]

I've been mowing my lawn with a reel type push mower the last few months. It's OK as long as you have plenty of spare time and you don't let it get too tall. It's good exercise.

I mowed my lawn with a push mower toward the last and when I finished it was flatland universe for about an hour. Then I saw from stalks straightening back out that it had been laughing at my blood (pressure), sweat, and tears! The wildest, most disorderly, parts of the universe are not always beyond relativity.

 

[Helio]

Entropy is a meaurement of the amount of heat in a system that is not available to do work. The more the temperature differences in a system, the more work can be done thus the lower the entropy. In the first fraction of a second, the universe was unform except for quantum fluctuations. This would mean it was high entropy, no?

IMO, if the trillions of degrees was essentially homogeneous, though the quantum fluctuations were a factor, then this could be seen as a high entropy, so yes. No chance to do work.

But did the energy do any work? Expansion allowed it. The work done argues strongly for the lowest entropy ever. The stars made of atoms forged by that high energy are producing great luminosity as their entropy slowly continues to increase today. That requires a lower prior entropy state in the past.

That’s my take, though I don’t recall anyone explaining it this way.

Penrose used Boltzman’s statistical approach, which is another way of addressing entropy. Like a deck of cards, there are far more disorderly states than orderly, so entropy inreases as soon as someone alters the new deck.

 

[Jzz]

I don't think matter could interact without a common space and a common time. The only common thing space and time have together is.....they are constant. That's the only similarity.

Maybe if Einstein were alive you could have debated the point with him?