Can God interact across Hubble Spheres?

Algis - Nothing is ever lost forever, well maybe only innocence.


Terry - Cognitive assessment of available data.

Yes, withing our Universe God must manifest only a finite and small at that portion of his being. Imagine if he didn't, we know that:

1. God is infinite so its fair to say an infinite god has infinite power or force or energy

2. Energy = matter * c^2

3. So a God of infinite energy must also have infinite mass

4. But concentrated masses, especially large masses, close spacetime in what we call a blackhole

5. So if an infinte god visited us using his infinite form in a finite space he'd have infinte mass and close spacetime - black hole us for the lay folk.

Terry without wanting to sound Monty Pythonish (she's a witch, burn her...) God can abide by his laws in his domain, but in our domain he has to be careful. Violate a little of realtity - which is largely connected and you violate alot. As I said its called the Hidden Variable Theorum - its rather famous and well accepted now for two decades (google John Bell).

What we don't know is how God observes our domain. Does our reality have hidden dimensions that are very visible to God with his resources and he uses these techniques to monitor without violating relativity? He didn't do a good job with Eden - the snake and only two people to watch - or with Cain and Abel - what 4 or 5 people (was Seth born when Cain slew Abel)? to watch - so our infinite God gets distracted now and again - and that was managing only a handful of us in a very primitive society. Too God (Jesus) ressurected Lazarus - so why not Abel? Seems like God doesn't like undoing things or backtrack - you have free will and choices to make - he respects this and doesn't un-make your choices on you - so why should such a being undo reality - a much bigger change?

An no Terry - we know of 4 fundamental forces occuring in 4 dimensions, but M-Theory tells us there are 10 - 11 dimensions, perhaps God uses physics and forces or attributes of these hidden dimensions to assess reality without violating relativity. Photons are so yesterday man!

Also religous myths contravene known facts and scientific assessment - my reasoning doesn't! For example I can promise you a biblical flood like Noahs didn't happwn for over 100 scientific reasons - just two being Eygptians had an unbroken rein (no pun intended) then, and the outpour of water to flood the entire Earth to 9,000 metres (Everest) would have required so much energy to simply move so much water from the sky or underground to the Earth's surface it would have heated the Earth's surface to over 4,000 Kelvin in the first 30 hours - about the equivalent of a nuclear bomb going off every minute on every square mile of the Earth for 40 days striaght. Really you don't shift 10 ^ 24 kilo of water without expending 10 ^ 26 Joules of energy and that leaves some tell tale signs!


tcis - that's Newtonian science - Einstein even allows this - membrane science definitely allows this!

Something from nothing - simple, two membranes interacting - your concept and defintion of nothing is to simple.

Negative energy - still needs a theoretcial framework to become relevant - let alone some force carriers - and you can forget using regular or anti bosons or s-particles as force carriers: so photons, W-, W+, Z0 and gluons - and their anti particles and s-particles are out - so what is the theoretical framework for negative energy and negative force bosonic particles?

Until we see a negative force carrier in a collider and/or have a theoretical framework for 'negative' energy I am skeptical as a scientist - at best I leave a placeholder and reserve judgement. At present with negative energy we have a name as a coined phrase and a suggested connection to the expansion of space accelerating - but I think causallity disconnects from when the big bang ended and the tranistion from quantum gravity to the four forces - caused this to occur within relativity - put simpler the middle of the Big bang is too far away for its immense gravity to stop expansion - but the edges of the Universe are close enough to cause expansion to accelerate under relativity!

I think we can all agree that God does not have infinite mass or energy. But some people insist that he has infinite power, wisdom, and influence throughout the universe. I find omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omni-benevolence impossible to accept logically.

I don't see how hidden dimensions would help God in observing our universe, since they are presumably tiny and would not overcome the problem of transmitting information over large distances without violating c.

The hidden variable hypothesis has been largely discredited in favor of non-locality, thanks to recent experiments on quantum entanglement which substantiate Bell's Theorem. But most particles are not entangled, so I don't see your point here.

I don't think you should put too much stock into the veracity of Hebrew myths or anything else recorded in the Bible. As you said, God never flooded the entire world and drowned everyone but Noah & Company. So where do you get your information on God? Why postulate a magical Supreme Being who requires supernatural powers and takes extraordinary measures to avoid violating physical laws in our universe, when no such being is needed?

Terry
But I don't! My God is one of uber science plus mystic holy stuff - I only talk to the science and guess at the uber science parts. I leave the holy powers that defies my comprehension totally out!

g__day,

Perhaps it would help if you specify your God a bit more:
What kind of God are you talking about, anyway? The Judeo-Christian one that did things like raising people from the dead? Or Hindu gods that do things like have 16,000 gopi girlfriends? Allah? An American Indian god? A Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or Aztec God? Let me know which God, and perhaps we could discuss the limitation (or non-limitations) of that God further.

Your concept of a God's abilities seem too limited by your brain and current scientific ideas.

This thread is starting to remind of the old debate: "How many Angels can stand of the tip of a needle? Is there a limit?"

Our understanding of our universe is slowly evolving and unfolding. While human understanding of the universe and science evolve, God's abilities remain constant. I see no reason why a God's limitations have to follow what we happen to know about science at this point in time. (I'm assuming there is a god here, for debate's sake).

ie, Check Hawking's recent reversal on Black Holes. Is this going to change your concept of what God can do around Black Holes? What if Hawking reverses again in a few years? Is this going to again change your God's abilities?

Similarly: Do you really believe, for example, that we know everything there is to know about Hubble spheres? What if Hubble spheres are nothing but parts of a God's fingertip? At the very least, could it be possible that in the next 500 years, our understanding of limitations around Hubble spheres will change? Will this change God's abilities?

What this is all coming around to is: your line of thinking is directly in line with the critics that claim: Man Created God. As our ideas of science change, our God changes. Man Created God. He can only do what we say is logical. If it doesn't make sense to us, God can't do it. You have create this God.

Well, if thats the case, I'm free to create a different God that can do all these other things...

I can see your points.

Basically, I think our differences lie in the area of: you see God as limited by scientific principles, more specifically: humanity's current understanding of scientific principles. I see no reason for such a limitation.

I mean, this is God we're talking about, for gawd's sake!

tcis My God is best know to me as a creationist being.

I am not widely enough read on the 5,000 religions in existence today to say what man recorded charter of God best suites my belief structure.

I was brought up Roman Catholic, but became interested in Zen Buddhism.

I doubt any man recorded testament has captured much of god - its too complex a subject for a primitive mankind to do a great job of. And whereas many religious systems say - ah but our God guided the scholars writing his word - I view that a more Michavellian process of selective editoring happened to ensconse the views of these said editors and their faithful.

No my ideas stem for mathematics modelling complex groups and the means to limit your interactions if you want to perserve the integrity of your system. So pure logic if you like.

All I am saying is there are laws governing the consistency of this reality and God principably abides by these laws to maintain its integrity. We (mankind) mightn't understand all these laws perfectly, and our theoretical models might change as we get closer to a better model - but that doesn't mean that God isn't already at the end point of this system.

No my line of thinking is that God is too poorly defined and mis-understood - especially when it comes to his manner of interactions - so I am merely refining a bit of our understanding of his modus operandi - method of operation - not his purpose - which is rather a grand subject beyond my humble intellect to discern very fully. If I were born several hundred years ago I'd be a guy supporting Galielo or Copernicus saying the Earth is not the centre of all creation and the Universe - the data doesn't support this end.

I'm simply doing a similar function given today's science to try and throw so light on popular myths of psuedo-science.

Maybe my god is simply more refined and subtle than your God throwing lighting bolts and choatic manipulations around. My God has power, patience, finesse and control - not just raw power and wisdom

g__day,

Nowhere do I mention that I believe in a god of lightning bolts and "choatic manipulations?," (whatever that is?). I don't even mention a god of power & wisdom. These are all assumptions out of your own head.

It appears that you are creating your own particular specialized god. Which is fine. You can make all the rules for what your god can and can't do. Its like your god has to follow the scienfitic principles, except in the areas where you personally give it mystic/uber science powers?

I just thought perhaps we were trying to come to a common understanding of what a monotheistic god might or might not be able to do.

But if you wish to create your own god with rules that you give it...fine. Believe whatever you want to believe.

I don't see how statements like "my god is more refined and subtle than your god" add to a productive debate. Thats schoolyard level. More like a put down than a debate.

That sinks right back to the level of Christians vs. Muslims vs. Jewish people vs....whatever.

I respect your right to believe in whatever kind of god you wish to believe in.

I'd like to think, in this forum, we've moved beyond petty things like "my god is more refined than your god." Perhaps not.

Actually, TCIS, God as described by g_day is not all that far from what we have elsewhere described as Ultimate Reality. The difference is that g_day's God appears to be apart from, and different than, the universe we refer to as perceptual reality. That is perceptual reality may actually exist for g-day. You might note above that g-day has zen Buddhism in his background.

Asherman,

That fits and brings this discussion into a focus. Yes, a large part this discussion is almost semantics and how we define god(ultimate reality). I naturally tend toward the Ultimate Reality concept. In that model, I see Hubble Spheres as just more portions/manifestations of Ultimate Reality (or, god, as described in this discussion). Thus, I do not see any difficulty with Ultimate Reality interacting across these spheres. It is simultaneously infused throughout the spheres. It is/is not the spheres.

tcis - I was being honest, but tongue in cheek too - didn't you see the smiley after "my God's bigger than your God" post?

This was just a parry to your "Your concept of a God's abilities seem too limited by your brain and current scientific ideas." quip.

No I don't make the rules of what my God can do - I merely try and interpret them from limited information and guesswork. Yes my God is my god - its personal but I am willingly to share my interpretations and deductions.

But regardless of religion I see science is the same for all. If my God is bound by the uncertainity principle or schrodingers equations or relativity in this existence and at this time - then so is every other religions' God/s from my point of view.

I am playing agent provocateur a tad I am aware - but its with a fairly serious basis in science, including astronomy, high energy physics and elements of theoretical physics - my hobbies. You could justly accuse me trying to fit God infinite existence and capabilities into our realities perception of science and give him limits. I am in a way - because I ponder that God already constrains himself when he gives us free will, and constrains himself by being infinite whilst his creation is finite, to me this last constraint is Occham's razor - the simplest solution for a powerful being that doesn't want to swamp or undo his own creation by constantly over-aweing it. I am calling God delicate or refined - not impotent - that's a big difference!

The bottom line I see is that an infinite anything in this universe - time, matter, energy or space - just goes completely against all the evidence and framework of physics developed over time.

I had no serious intention of upsetting you tcis - or anyone else, so apologies if I did. What sort of God do you believe in may I ask - and why (Science or faith bias)?

g__day,

No offense taken. I think I understand where you are coming from better now.

What sort of God do I believe in? Well, without writing 10 pages: Ultimate Reality, coupled with a supreme, slightly benevolent, force of the universe. Primarily science based. With a bit of a leap of faith thrown in.

Why? This is what I have observed and directly experienced. Yet, science and observation does not explain all. This is where a bit of faith is in order.

Sounds a bit like mine - but sadly I fear God is so far beyond us that its probably futile trying to get his measure - we simply don't understand the true dimensions he should be assessed, we can only impute human desires and aspirations and I think that is presumptous!

Agreed. Assuming there is a god: Isn't a bit odd it would put us here, and not really give us a thorough direct understanding of it's nature, will, etc.?

As you say, we don't really understand the true dimensions of how it is assessed

I mean, we have science(which is great), we have the religous scriptures written 2000+ years ago, we have words from ancient enligthened masters, we have our observation of the universe, etc., yet...

...it all still leaves just a little something to be desired... seems that we're somewhat disconnected from this god. It all seems to be not quite a direct connection to the source. That seems to be an odd predicament. To be placed here, and be disconnected.

Now why would a god put us in this situation? Or, are we somehow putting ourselves in this situation? Can anything be done about it, here and now, in our lifetime?

On the first point - yes - an ant or dolphin can barely assess a person - so be careful of assess a God by our means and motives.

I can only think measuring an event changes it, so God needs us to be largely unhampered if his and possibly our interests are to be best served.