Can God interact across Hubble Spheres?

God
What

Re: God


This is exactly how people get so confused about what is truth. Not one of us on this earth knows all the answers and anyone who claims they know has issues. God shall reveal alot to us in due time in the meantime to speculate really leads people in directions that may be the wrong way and that my friend can be damaging. God Bless.

In the meantime we can use our brains we are gifted with and figure abit out for ourselves - to unlock the marvellous potential we have.

1. This assumes god has a physical form.
2. This assumes god is not omnipresent. (ie: all matter could be a part of him/her)

I'd say yes if I believed in such a creature.

1. No - it assumes God can observe and interact with the Universe in ways consistent with its defined reality

2. No - it assumes God went to alot of effort to create the Universe and is willing to maintain its structural integrity by not changing its future every microsecond with interactions that are beyond its original design specifics - so its a self imposed constraint to maintain the Universe integrity.

The problem lies in your propositions 1,2, and 9. The God in propostion 1 is not necessary, especially if the universe is not finite (prop. 2). Your proposition 9 is dependant upon prop. 1 and 2. Change the model to an infinite universe, and your questions become moot.

The constrast between the two models (infinite v. finite) are nicely demonstrated by the sort of messy problems illustrated in your question. Finite models seem to always through up very messy, inelegant hurtles, whereas models based on infinity tend to be neat and elegant. Apply Occham's Razor.

consistant with defined reality: objects with mass cannot accelerate past the speed of light.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems this assumes a god has mass in order for it to be constrained by that rule. If it is massless, what stops it from accelerating from 0 - infinity in 60 seconds?

If it is omnipresent it needn't accelerate (is the speed infinity the same as omnipresence?)

Asherman - I am bemused soneone wants to escape this level of complexity by introducing infinities! That is a out of the frying pan into the fire approach. You can not do a worse thing - and justifying it with Occham's razor is doubly ironic. All you have done is moved all the hard parts into a mysterious box called infinity - here be dragons!

God or inifinities - that is what you need, be it infinite realities, infinite time, infinite luck (probability), an infinite God etc...

I tend to leave my infinities for maths, and there to be handled with extreme care.

So with theoretical science today a finite Universe fits observation data, derived theory and test far better than playing with infinities.

limbodog - but mass = energy, and I am sure everyone who believes in God believes he has some energy and therefore some mass! Say rather that God can tranistion between relativistic physics and other frameworks of reality.

So you prefer God as a "fix-all" for the problems of a finite model. What was before the beginning, how and why did the universe begin? God. What happens after the universe ends? God. What exists beyond the boundaries of finite time/space? God.

I prefer thinking the universe, time and space, to be infinite. No beginings, no endings, no boundaries, no need for the introduction of a Deu Ex Machina. Which of the two models is the more elegant? To my mind, clearly the infinite model is more elegant and free of problems.

I'll admit the "Why" question is as puzzeling in the infinite model, as in the finite. I would be interested to hear what you regard as the "hard parts" of a universal model bases on infinity.

g__day,

I also have a problem with your premise #9. For sake of discussion, I'll go along with your assumption of a God. Assuming there is a God, there is no reason to necessarily believe that God has to follow the apparent physics of this universe.

It appears that your concept of God is a being that is limited by scientific principles we happen to know at this time. A God limited by the brain of a scientist. Science as we know it in 2004. If we happened to live in 1200 AD Europe, would you say that God couldn't travel around the world because we know it to be flat?

I am a scientist at heart, but I don't think there is any reason God would need to be limited by the "rules" of science that we happen to know at this time.

My concept of a God is that it is everywhere at once, it has no problem spanning all apparently disrete units of the universe.

This seems complex and impossible to us. Scientifically impossible. We can prove God can't do these things. But this God energy just does it anyway (again, assuming there is a God).

tcis - the case you are arguing is well known - its actually called the "hidden variable theory" - God has access to means we haven't so he can do things we can't.

But a rather famous scientist and mathematican (John Bell) came up with a rather famous (and testable) proof against this being generally so - hence the comments by Hawking.

So simplified to triviality - not even God can make 1 = 2 or find and even number that is odd. As I said its a very clever proof that has stood the test of 2 decades scrutiny.


Asherman My God isn't any more or less a fix all than your your class of infinity. Nor is it a catch all for things I am yet to understand; that is a gray area holding all of the divine, chance, yet to be understood science and other comlicating factors.

Beyond some frameworks of science we have reasoned theoretical models that can't yet be tested (e.g. String or M-theroies). To me few if any such models preclude a directed intelligence pressing the Start button on all of this.

So in answer to your questions from my reasonings:

Q. What was before the beginning?
A. Membranes in M-theory occassionally interacting. We know too little about them yet - barely their edge topology to spectualte more yet).

Q. How did the Universe begin?
A. God nudged two carefully selected membranes with appropriate dimensions into resonance to form a new membrane we now call our Universe. A membrane / membrane interaction could easily cause a Big bang - and as I said - carefully selected and you'd get a universe with our defining dimensions, laws of physics and physical constants tuned as precisely as they are now to support intelligent life eventually evolving.

Q. Why do it?
A. The heart of this is the realisation that the Universe is non determinstic and we have "God Assured" free will rather than a pre determined destiny. So rather than a forgone conclusion the universe has many possible outcomes and God hopes for a certain set, arrived at a certain way. But this is guided and hoped for process not an assured and tightly controlled destination. If it were anyway else an infinite God would be bored by it already and not need to do it. Only a Universe that is non determinstic and built to be beyond his direct control could prove to be interesting because things are at risk. Hopefully more than mice we stand to win in this game if we do things well! The challenge for God as I see it is how little and lightly he can nudge our development along to fulfil his desires with this realm.

Q. God has no rules to follow...
A. God limits himself big time to maintain his interest. The only infinite in our finite Universe is the path we take on our journey forward. If the universe was just a deterministic tool an infinite God wouldn't get much interest from it. A varying, unpredictable, non deterministic reality with intelligent but free beings is infinitely more interesting to an infinite God.

Q. Which model is more elegant?
A. Mine. Honestly you need to think through the implications of your multiple infinities alot better.

The heart of the trouble I have with these multiple infinities spread through nature is there is little hard evidence of them existing anywhere - so they look man made to fit poor theoretical frameworks to me. I am a (very) finite being observing everything around me looking very finite; large but very, very finite.

I am uncomfortable even with infinite membranes possible within the six classes of M-Theory.

If I was infinite but limited and living in a clearly infinite world the idea of infinities would hold greater credence to me. But the opposite applies for now.

So I dislike infinite time or infinite luck leading to my existence because it makes reality less meaningful to my perception. I dislike infinite multiverses because we have little evidence and few theoretcial frameworks to make this look remotely credible. To pursue this path beyond science fantasy you need a credible theory of quantum gravity spreading across membranes and we are a long way from there (I'd guess 30 years).

So for me Occham's razor says an occassional but highly specific and subtle directed intelligence, not chance, fast-pathed us to where we are today for a specific purpose. To me that is faith not science. But my faith and science interact well and powerfully.

Being a mathematican I dislike seeing infinities bandied outside of maths handled by experts - because infinities are way too prone to be badly missued and missunderstood.

Time being infinite is a hard one. I feel we understand time the most poorly of all our defining properties (even mass). M-theory allows for 10 and 11 dimensional universes, and certainly those with 0, 1, 2, , 4 and even 5 dimensional time charecteristics. An infinite but one dimensional meta-time construct doesn't align with this level of complexity well.

But I am keen to hear your views and reasoning and very open to considering other points of view and modifying my own as well reasoned and supported arguments present themselves. I am not certain God exists, but I feel this is true. My God is a creationist one, and possibly more bound and alot more complex than the simple construct presented in mankind's christian bibles.

If God is limited to communication at the speed of light, she cannot observe more than a tiny fraction of the universe in real time. The part of God standing on Earth can only see the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2 million years ago. If Earth's God wanted to communicate with the part of herself overseeing the Andromeda Galaxy, it would take 4 million years to ask a question and receive a reply. God can't think up a plan in one galaxy and carry it out in another without spending millions of years waiting for data transmission, so we would need multiple autonomous Gods each with their own spheres of influence.

Science has found nothing in the universe that requires a God in order to exist and function. But supposing that there is a God, how could we possibly know what its abilities and limitations are?

Terry

God has a challenge to preserve the laws maintaining the intergity of his creation is all I suggest. Obivous a large part of God is external to our reality but able to interact within the possibilities of this Universe.

An implication of this is God can perceive us but whilst within the confines of our reality he must nod to relativity and hubble spheres. If God external to our system can observe multiple hubble sphere and collect information from them all that doesn't break any structure of our reality. After all its faster than lightspeed communication of information within General Relativity that limits us.

We don't know what reality/s God exists within, its laws and limitations and ways of passing knowlegde from one domain into any other. All I am saying is God is careful when manipulating this reality to preserve its consistency. I am sure he'd be miffed if he accidently dropped us into hyperspace whilst sendig himself information about happenings in another reality.

Even hidden variable theory only bounds this universe - not other realities. We don't know how our reality reflects or interacts with them. We don't know how God collects his information on our universe, for all we know he observes us because our reality casts 'shadows' on his mind rather than using photons and relativity. But hidden variable theory limits some of these interactions if the universe is to maintain integrity.

After all and unlimited, infinite God would just time travel to prune any deviation to his plan, starting at Gensis. The serpent would have been zaped, the tree of knowledge would be moved, Abel would have known a bit of self defense and Caine would have been taught some anger management and self actualisation classes etc.

Perhaps God tried that last time and it was too boring being deterministic - he couldn't learn from it what he wanted if it was too controlled. Its the lack of control and free will that creates the magic that fulfills God's purpose!

Science only deals with science, so far covering our domain not other membranes of existence. Faith deals with God. I would argue God used science to create our universe - not magic or holy powers. Science isn't everything, it talks about mechanisms for doing certain things.

We can't know God's defining attributes and abilities and limitations (self imposed or not) especially for the infinite part of God that exists outside our Universe and is following other purposes besides that of our universe. But we can ponder what he might want from this reality and some of the mechanisms used to create and guide our reality.

Where did the membranes come from, to be nudged together by God? What is a membrane? An attribute of a dimension greater than the four?

So hello there

You mention these other dimensions ,I think this is where the lost tribe of Isreal is. What about creating a singularity so that one could passto the next. Are these rocks that belong to the tribe the electromagetic vibrators to open this passage?

They say that deja vue is just drift between you and another version of yourself in a dimension near by. It seems the law of duality is also important. Where doesour opposite and equal esist. I think we have lost the rights of passage amonst ourselves or it is not open to those who just want to try.Maybe it takes accumilated desired gained only through consistancy and time put together in a fashion that builds the basis of this reality.

g__day, how do we know that God wishes to preserve the laws maintaining the integrity of his creation? How do we know that he will not change them on a whim, just to see what happens?

If information cannot be transmitted faster than c, it doesn't matter whether God is internal or external to our universe; he can't communicate between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies in less than 4 million years without violating the law.

If our reality casts shadows on God's mind, it requires photons to do so unless you are postulating some kind of magic particles that are not subject to the laws of our universe.

You can speculate about God's attributes and abilities all you like, but unless you can come up with a way to test your hypotheses, they are no more valid than any other religious myths.

..

tcis, you can split "nothing" into an infinite amount of "something," provided positive mass/energy in the universe exactly equals negative energy, with a net of zero.