What is God?

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125070 wrote:

I am not a religious man. But I, (and many others) have discovered an unbelievable interdisciplinary relationship between Information Theory, Communication Theory, Genetics, and any world religion that bases its foundations upon principles of the Word.

I sense a contradiction about to appear...

QuinticNon;125070 wrote:

My views are not a passing opinion to make pleasant conversation. My views are the carefully considered results of nearly a decade of discovery. I have very good reason to make the statements that I do.

Oh, hmm doesn't everyone do this? Or assume that? Not sure which is which some times.

QuinticNon;125070 wrote:

Yet, I cannot expect a single internet thread to automatically convince others of what I have been made aware of slowly over time, skeptically at first, but now, more than convinced of.

Yeah rare is that a good argument can convince a skeptic or a person who refuses to acknowledge some information right?

QuinticNon;125070 wrote:

If you define Love as "the giving of oneself", then you and I both are in complete agreement. Because that's what Information does... it gives itself to people, and unconditionally so.

There it is, the contradiction. Oh you don't see it? Well I do. Information gives itself to people unconditionally? Um, sorry but this is not accurate. There is a requirement for information, although it appears without concern for the observer, it however; requires itself to be collected. Not only that but it for it to be understood, requires that other information has also been collected. Without the process, information is useless. Thus making itself conditional. It if were as you state, then we all would be geniuses and well we both know that we are not.

I can hear you protesting. That you want to insist that the information is given unconditionally. But no it is the same causality problem. It is why in quantum mechanics you can never rely completely on outcomes, thus pointing to a universe where you can at best, guess. Despite what people want to believe, you can never be certain about anything. That points out that information is not freely provided, given, let out, produced, observed. It can't be by definition or it wouldn't be information.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;125081 wrote:

Oh, hmm doesn't everyone do this? Or assume that? Not sure which is which some times.

You very well know as I do that there is no shortage of people who speak upon things they are not qualified to speak upon. Those without knowledge on a particular subject should be mature enough to ask questions rather than share assumptions. Robert Anton Wilson promotes the term "Reality Tunnel" to depict individual perceptions between people. But some "Reality Tunnels" are more focused than others towards particular interests.

I cannot speak about Fashion. I know nothing of it and would be foolish to presume that I do. I know just enough about plumbing to get me in trouble. If I spoke of my plumbing knowledge to an actual professional plumber, he would think me bold and presumptuous. I would do well to demonstrate the maturity of asking questions on things I know nothing of.

Krumple;125081 wrote:

Yeah rare is that a good argument can convince a skeptic or a person who refuses to acknowledge some information right?

It is rare indeed Krumple. Science and the world in general is wrought with people who were forced underground with their research because it threatened the establishment of the day. People get funny when their research grants are put in jeopardy by new discoveries that prove them wrong. There is much to loose by accepting new discoveries. Funding dries up, departments close, jobs are lost, and reputations are put to the axe. Humans cling to their comfort zones and even kill one another to protect their own misgivings. Sometimes doing so whilst knowing they are in the wrong. Ego is a fragile beast.

Krumple;125081 wrote:

There it is, the contradiction. Oh you don't see it? Well I do. Information gives itself to people unconditionally? Um, sorry but this is not accurate.

I will do my best to understand your position.

Krumple;125081 wrote:

There is a requirement for information, although it appears without concern for the observer, it however; requires itself to be collected.

Sure. It requires listening and accepting. Information Theory notes this as the receiving process. How is Love any different? Am I wrong to assume that both Love and Information must be received?

But perhaps I'm misleading you unintentionally. I myself do not equate Love and Information. I merely attempted to find a common ground with Reconstructo's depiction of "God is Love". I don't necessarily believe that God is Love. Rather preferring to note that God expresses Love, gives Love, offers Love... but not equal to Love.

I only theorize that God is Information. Equals and completely synonymous.

Love is a process that depends upon a relationship. Once the process is noted, and the relationship is established, then and only then, may it be given unconditionally. In that light, Love is very similar to the communication of Information.

I hope this clears any confusion.

Krumple;125081 wrote:

Not only that but it for it to be understood, requires that other information has also been collected. Without the process, information is useless. Thus making itself conditional.

Consider that only the process is conditional. Once the protocols are in place, then Information is indeed unconditional. But this takes us back to the Calculus example from our other discussion. Calculus is free and available for anyone to pursue... In this light, its attainment is unconditional. But one must prepare themselves with knowledge of lower mathematics in order to be capable of receiving the knowledge of Calculus. Truth must be earned. Love must be received. It's there for the taking, just like a hundred dollar bill lying on the curb is there for the taking. The permission to receive it is unconditional. The process of receiving it is conditional upon reaching out and grabbing it. Exercising our sentient capacity does not mandate something as conditional.

Krumple;125081 wrote:

It if were as you state, then we all would be geniuses and well we both know that we are not.

There are established IQ's that determine genius status. I have no knowledge that you are not in that category. Based upon our discussions, I would actually presume that you are.

Krumple;125081 wrote:

That you want to insist that the information is given unconditionally. But no it is the same causality problem. It is why in quantum mechanics you can never rely completely on outcomes, thus pointing to a universe where you can at best, guess.

That speaks only to a Universe of causality, run by chaos, made of energy and matter. Norbert Weiner informs us that Information is not energy and matter. Claude Shannon informs us that Information is not a product of chaos. The causality of Information is always from a mind. Mind is an immaterial agent. Thus, Information is not bound by the realm of materialism. It is something completely different.

Krumple;125081 wrote:

Despite what people want to believe, you can never be certain about anything. That points out that information is not freely provided, given, let out, produced, observed. It can't be by definition or it wouldn't be information.

The Information of your thoughts has been freely shared with me and others viewing this thread. Code is the only thing that provides certainty. I do not consider "given, let out, produced, observed" as conditions. I consider them benefits of our sentient capacity. In that light, Sentient capacity is the only condition to receive Information and/or Love.

---------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 11:02 AM ----------

Deckard;125044 wrote:

I think the connection between Entropy and Information is overstated. Some facets of entropy and information can be represented by similar mathematical equations but the connection doesn't god much further than that.

Information Theory is a branch of Science devoted entirely to measuring Information Entropy and developing the protocols necessary to overcome it. Information and Entropy are intrinsically tied together.
Information theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125093 wrote:

Information Theory is a branch of Science devoted entirely to measuring Information Entropy and developing the protocols necessary to overcome it. Information and Entropy are intrinsically tied together.
Information theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I know. I've read Claude Shannon's book Mathematics of Communication. Shannon chose the word "entropy" only because the some of the mathematical equations are very similar to the mathematical equations used to represent thermodynamic entropy. In some ways his choice of word was unfortunate because some people latch on to the common word and say "Ah ha! information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are linked. I can explain God, the Devil, and everything in the universe now!" without ever taking the time to look into the math and science that is actually being represented.

0 Replies

@no1author,

Are you implying that other mathematicians would not have corrected Shannon's usage of the word Entropy if it indeed does not apply to the theory? Why would everyone just go along with it if it didn't apply? Why would Weiner then coin Negentropy to take the concept further if it didn't apply to the theory?

What other term would you use to depict what has been called Information Entropy for the past 50+ years?

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125070 wrote:

I'm not kidding. I'm not putting forth the notion that God = Truth = Information as a metaphor. I'm very serious Reconstructo and have spent the past decade coming to this discovery. I'm glad you're amused. It amuses me too and I thank you for the kind attention to my comments. Usually I'm brushed aside as just another opinion.

I am not a religious man. But I, (and many others) have discovered an unbelievable interdisciplinary relationship between Information Theory, Communication Theory, Genetics, and any world religion that bases its foundations upon principles of the Word.

My views are not a passing opinion to make pleasant conversation. My views are the carefully considered results of nearly a decade of discovery. I have very good reason to make the statements that I do.

Yet, I cannot expect a single internet thread to automatically convince others of what I have been made aware of slowly over time, skeptically at first, but now, more than convinced of.

If you define Love as "the giving of oneself", then you and I both are in complete agreement. Because that's what Information does... it gives itself to people, and unconditionally so.

Yes we do. But in this case, I do not. I'm serious as a heart attack and extremely precise in the definition of words that I use. In fact, most of the confusion of this theory comes from not adhering to specific definition of terms. This theory demands that we do not allow slang or metaphor in any way.

You have no idea how close you are to the truth with that statement. If you studied what a "Jesus Christ" is as much as I have, you may be surprised at what you find.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus return will manifest upon the clouds of heaven. Not just in one verse but in many verses.

Google is part of the Information Cloud. Cloud computing is bringing us into a new age of the Petabyte, where Information must be looked at in a completely different manner. It destroys the traditional scientific method and brings an end to the classic processes of developing a Theory.

This Wired Magazine article explains the implications. We are actually learning to image Absolute Truth. And what we are finding is that Truth is speaking for itself, without the need for Humans to taint it with opinion.

Welcome to the Age of the Petabyte... The End of Theory. The Petabyte Age: Because More Isn't Just More

Click all the links. The article has many fascinating claims.

This topic is much deeper than my comments here are capable of expressing.

I find your ideas exciting. I did not mean in any way to reduce them. It's just my view of language that encourages me to sniff out trope. I want to become more and more conscious of what words do. So I too am fascinated by information.
I do think cloud computing is amazing. I'm no expert but I have done some programming in my time. I will check out that link.

I applaud the novelty (for me) of what you are saying. Please, continue to present these ideas.

---------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 04:58 PM ----------

For myself, I must stress that "God" is a word. What this word refers to is another matter. I'm not committed to any particular referent at the moment.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;125222 wrote:

...exciting...

It is exciting, and thank you for the patience and willingness to entertain extreme theory based in science.

A good introduction would be this video by Perry Marshall. The initial idea that DNA is a code and all codes are authored is his. I've been trying to shoot a hole through his argument for a very very long time. But all I come up with is support and confirmation across multiple disciplines. I probably know more about this subject that even Perry knows at this point, discovering connections that he never mentions, (like the cloud computing).

But this video is a fabulous introduction to the premise. I've watched it about a 100 times and cannot find a single flaw. I've researched every claim he makes and it is all confirmed as far as I'm concerned. Confirmed in spades. Take a look and welcome aboard!

Perry Marshall - Origin of the Universe

To all who would deny what is presented in this video, I'll tell you right now you better know your shmack real good before jumping to reject it. I'll answer any questions as best I can.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125221 wrote:

Are you implying that other mathematicians would not have corrected Shannon's usage of the word Entropy if it indeed does not apply to the theory? Why would everyone just go along with it if it didn't apply? Why would Weiner then coin Negentropy to take the concept further if it didn't apply to the theory?

What other term would you use to depict what has been called Information Entropy for the past 50+ years?

That's basically what I am saying. The word 'entropy' was used due to the resemblance between the mathematical equations. Unfortunately the word comes with a lot of connotative baggage. Scientists that use the equations on a regular basis understand that the resemblance of the equations does not prove that there is some connection between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy. The word entropy stuck and can't really be changed now. In the same way, for example, the word "pragmatism" stuck even though many so-called pragmatists didn't much like the term or think that it represented their philosophy. It happens all the time. Words are funny like that. The mathematical similarity is definitely interesting and may even point to some common underlying pattern but I think you are overstating its importance.

Here's another example. Differential equations can be used to model the relationship between predator and prey populations. Differential equations can also be used to model the process of radioactive decay. Is there a deep underlying connection between predator/prey systems and radioactive decay? In a way yes. In a way not so much.

I think even the following silly example is relevant.
2 planets + 3 planets = 5 planets
and
2 ants + 3 ants = 5 ants.
Does this mean there is some deep connection between astronomy and entomology? In a way yes. In a way not so much.

That's the point I'm trying to make here. I do like some of what you are saying about God being information. I've been fascinated by the connection. Right now I'm trying to understand the mathematics before I speculate any further.

Perhaps you have indeed found God. At the moment I think it's a false idol but as false idols go, I think it's a pretty good one. Maybe a bit of Spinoza in there?

Also I'm still working on this stuff and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125221 wrote:

Are you implying that other mathematicians would not have corrected Shannon's usage of the word Entropy if it indeed does not apply to the theory? Why would everyone just go along with it if it didn't apply? Why would Weiner then coin Negentropy to take the concept further if it didn't apply to the theory?

I don't see how entropy applies to his mathematical theories of communication data loss or information gathering. Especially when his ideas leave off information and stick to a basic level of the information. That flies against entropy by lumping off data like that.

I know a lot of creationists like to use the entropy argument to boast about the complexity of the universe however what they fail to ever do is continue the quote.

"Limits the ability of a natural system to have a decrease of entropy"

needs to have:

"only applies to closed systems."

When a system is open and can exchange energy with the outside, then that open system can have a decrease in entropy and an increase in order.

QuinticNon;125221 wrote:

What other term would you use to depict what has been called Information Entropy for the past 50+ years?

I like stated above I feel the same thing happens with communication and all information. Since time is a limitation and people are generally lazy they want the most information in the shortest amount of time. So what tends to happen is with language in particular is shorting of sounds, or lumping off complete words to shorten sentences. This is a loss of data but not always a loss of meaning, however; sometimes this behavior is lost when a person is not familiar with the missing data.

With information in general, there is a point when reducing it will actually cause more problems than it solves. Think about it in terms of a book. Books are really nothing other than assembled symbols in various orders in which we interpret to be words combined to form sentences. The part that his theory leaves off is the actual meaning of those sentences so in other words you can have any five word combo and they are all equal. It's not true though in terms of information or else I could say;

"This is the best post ever."

and it would be equal to:

"This was a waste of time."

They are not equal.

0 Replies

@no1author,

Deckard;125285 wrote:

2 planets + 3 planets = 5 planets and
2 ants + 3 ants = 5 ants.
Does this mean there is some deep connection between astronomy and entomology? In a way yes. In a way not so much.

Krumple;125287 wrote:

It's not true though in terms of information or else I could say;

"This is the best post ever."

and it would be equal to:

"This was a waste of time."

They are not equal.

Fascinating that you guys are pointing basically to the same issue. Let's continue with this and see where we can take it. More discussion is exactly what is needed on this topic and we can only profit from the attention we offer it.

Krumple;125287 wrote:

The part that his theory leaves off is the actual meaning of those sentences so in other words you can have any five word combo and they are all equal.

Krumple;125287 wrote:

I know a lot of creationists like to use the entropy argument to boast about the complexity of the universe however what they fail to ever do is continue the quote.

"Limits the ability of a natural system to have a decrease of entropy"

needs to have:

"only applies to closed systems."

I completely agree. They do not account for the extra variables applicable to open systems that can contribute to either an increase or decrease of entropy. You are correct to note that the entropy argument typically works against the creationists position.

So, is our Universe an open or closed system?

2 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125342 wrote:

Fascinating that you guys are pointing basically to the same issue. Let's continue with this and see where we can take it. More discussion is exactly what is needed on this topic and we can only profit from the attention we offer it.

QuinticNon, I like your last post very much. This is going to be a bit of work I think but it's something I've been meaning to work on and I will benefit greatly if I have someone to work on it with, to check my work, ask the right questions, and keep me on task. At some point we will need to break out the equations.

I've already started a thread in Philosophy of Science on this subject that hasn't exactly taken off. I think it would be better to separate the figuring out of the relationship between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy (coining a portmanteau: "infropy") and the "What is God?" question. Feel free to copy paste relevant parts of your posts (somewhat concisely - I'm tempted to move the middle part of your last post over there myself) over to that thread. It makes sense to compartmentalize the discussion this way I think. Are you okay with that?

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/7512-thermodynamic-entropy-information-entropy.html

Also it may be somewhat slow going with my responses as I have a busy week ahead of me but I will work on this with you and Krumple and anyone else who wants to participate.

2 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;125368 wrote:

Are you okay with that?

I've heard it stated before, that many of the greatest discoveries are found with assistance from outside the discipline of which they are uncovered. I will assist with your research in any way I can. But it may not be in the manner you presume. PM'ing you now.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125372 wrote:

I've heard it stated before, that many of the greatest discoveries are found with assistance from outside the discipline of which they are uncovered. I will assist with your research in any way I can. But it may not be in the manner you presume. PM'ing you now.

For the record, I have presumed nothing. I will be happy to be proved wrong so long as I learn something in the process.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;125047 wrote:

samm I think your missing my point. If we cant have nothing but we can see a beginning, what are we to presume?

I give up. What?

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Samm;125376 wrote:

I give up. What?

I don't know, thats why Im asking you for your opinion.

0 Replies

@no1author,

Sam and Xris, when speaking of "nothing", can you agree that it means "no"+"thing"?

And if you can, does "thing" mean a "physical thing" consisting of energy and matter?

Do you not understand what I'm getting at? No "physical thing" exists beyond the realm of energy and matter. "Physical Things" were brought into existence at the very moment of the Big Bang. The question is, did some other type of "Non Physical Thing" exist before the Big Bang?

I say yes, because Norbert Weiner tells us that Information is not a Physical Thing. Information is a Non Physical Thing.

"Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present".
Cybernetics, p147

That's why I claim that God is a being of Pure Information. He doesn't need a Physical Realm to exist.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125410 wrote:

Sam and Xris, when speaking of "nothing", can you agree that it means "no"+"thing"?

And if you can, does "thing" mean a "physical thing" consisting of energy and matter?

Do you not understand what I'm getting at? No "physical thing" exists beyond the realm of energy and matter. "Physical Things" were brought into existence at the very moment of the Big Bang. The question is, did some other type of "Non Physical Thing" exist before the Big Bang?

I say yes, because Norbert Weiner tells us that Information is not a Physical Thing. Information is a Non Physical Thing.

"Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present".
Cybernetics, p147

That's why I claim that God is a being of Pure Information. He doesn't need a Physical Realm to exist.

I wont dispute the fact that we have a conundrum that nothing can not define something. I will be honest , I cant get my head around the fact we see the universe actually have a beginning but no before. Everything starts but you cant say start because that infers a before and there was no before. So is everything and nothing just the same?

I have thought of existence without this enclosed space filled with something. Does a box exist if it has nothing inside it? I could like you speculate and make assumptions but I need to be confident that its not just my desire. You can claim and I can understand your reasoning but not your certainty.

0 Replies

@no1author,

Well it's no secret that the Big Bang was also the beginning of Time... time and space actually, and time is a measurement of the motion of an object through space. So time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Thus there was no such thing as "before" prior to the Big Bang. Time is a phenomenon that exists only in the realm of energy and matter.

My certainty lies in the careers of the greatest minds of our modern day. By acknowledging that Information is not a product of the material realm, then we must conclude the existence of an immaterial realm. A realm independent from the cause/reaction of chaos.

Language is our only tool to be aware of this realm. Language is a physical tool that we use to tap into the realm of mind. Language is a physical bridge that allows access to the immaterial Information of Mind. Code is a physical lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of Information.

Our comments to one another are more than the words on our screens. These pixels we see, they are allowing us to share the thoughts from our minds. Our thoughts are real, but they are non physical. Our thoughts are proof of an immaterial realm beyond energy and matter.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125424 wrote:

Well it's no secret that the Big Bang was also the beginning of Time... time and space actually, and time is a measurement of the motion of an object through space. So time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Thus there was no such thing as "before" prior to the Big Bang. Time is a phenomenon that exists only in the realm of energy and matter.

My certainty lies in the careers of the greatest minds of our modern day. By acknowledging that Information is not a product of the material realm, then we must conclude the existence of an immaterial realm. A realm independent from the cause/reaction of chaos.

Language is our only tool to be aware of this realm. Language is a physical tool that we use to tap into the realm of mind. Language is a physical bridge that allows access to the immaterial Information of Mind. Code is a physical lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of Information.

Our comments to one another are more than the words on our screens. These pixels we see, they are allowing us to share the thoughts from our minds. Our thoughts are real, but they are non physical. Our thoughts are proof of an immaterial realm beyond energy and matter.

I take the best of both worlds...Why cannot you assume that Information is Order in this Universe and for this Universe alone witch is God like...for a metaphor take Information as if it was another "dimension" on things... It

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;125342 wrote:

So, is our Universe an open or closed system?

It must be an open system. There are several examples I could give to back up my statement but I want to use the easiest one.

Hydrogen is one of the most stable elements in the universe and also one of the most plentiful molecules. We know that hydrogen clumps together to form stars because of gravity. Through the process of fusion hydrogen atoms combine to form heavier elements, such as helium, lithium, beryllium, and so on. These stars explode extruding these heavier elements out into space where they coalesce into either more stars or planets. If they produce new stars sometimes they end up larger than those first generation stars because of the heavier elements. Through the process of fusion again these heavier elements are made into even heavier elements. These stars explode and the process repeats creating the heaviest known natural occurring elements like uranium.

We know that elements also break down over time, basically reverting back to more stable elements. Uranium is a great example of this process, which we have named radioactivity. All elements do this except for hydrogen, so in theory, if given enough time and as long as no new stars are formed, all elements will eventually return to hydrogen atoms. This of course would never happen unless gravity stopped happening, but instead the process repeats. These elements break down and will eventually coalesce into new stars.

This is why I do not buy the theory that our universe will end in a cold chill. The reason being gravity and the process of radioactivity prevents loss of energy. What happens is those elements will eventually clump back together and the whole chain of events repeats. I believe this has been happening and instead of one big bang, I believe there are pockets of bangs that happen when a critical amount of mass is gathered. Probably through the process of super massive black holes uniting. There probably is a threshold when they actually explode. Just my theory though.

So to finish this off, I believe space/time is infinite in all directions however the matter in the universe is NOT infinite. It is basically a reoccurring process of building up and tearing down with some energy given off but gravity is the key to where energy re-enters the equation. Without gravity we would lose all energy eventually.

---------- Post added 02-06-2010 at 08:27 AM ----------

QuinticNon;125424 wrote:

Well it's no secret that the Big Bang was also the beginning of Time... time and space actually, and time is a measurement of the motion of an object through space. So time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Thus there was no such thing as "before" prior to the Big Bang. Time is a phenomenon that exists only in the realm of energy and matter.

You must never read my posts. So I'll repeat this here again, and I apologize to those who have read my response to this before.

You can't have a big bang if there was no time to start with. You can't have a happening without time. You can't even produce time without time. It is impossible. If you run the math, it becomes infinite, meaning you can never get the step you require for the event to trigger. To put it in another term, it would be like expecting to wake up from a dream but only if your alarm clock goes off. Your alarm is set to 6am however it is currently 5:59am, you can never get that last minute because it requires time to give it to you. Not even inventing time can give you that minute you need. Because an event "the giving" would have to occur, so you get stuck in an endless loop of needing something to happen to give you that minute you need. Those who say it is, haven't done the math.

1 Reply

@no1author,

xris and QuinticNon,

Please let me clarify my position about "nothing." When we say that "something cannot come from nothing," I specifically mean that ***existence of some kind*** cannot come from ***the absence of existence of any kind***. Thus, by "nothing" I mean absolute nothingness, not only the absence of all matter and energy, but the absence of any other manner of being including ideas, emotions, potentials, spirit, God. Nothing means the absence of anything of which you can even conceive. Existence cannot possibly come from such an absolute nothing.

I hope you will agree with this. You will see that it agrees with what both of you are saying I think. You are bothered, xris, by the fact that the universe's beginning was also the birth of space & time; therefore there could be no "before" the universe. But can we then speak of a beginning or start if there was no change from, what shall we say, universe=0 to universe=1? I think we can, and here's why.

This is where your idea, QuinticNon, comes in (and Norbert Weiner's idea).

I had a beginning. I was born. And yet birth was not really the beginning of me. There was a fetus in a womb before my birth. And we know further that before the fetus, the substances that made it were present in the world as food's my mother ate for sustenance, and before it was food it was soil, and so on back in time. The point here is that I can conceive that I have always existed, because of the laws of the conservation of matter and energy. My birth was not the beginning of my physical substance, it was only the culmination of a transition of that substance into my physical form as a living being.

I am saying that the universe has always existed in time and space, and time and space have always existed in the universe, BUT what we are talking about is the first time, T=0. We know that there can be no infinite regression of time. There was a point of origin, an initial state of the universe before which there was no before. In other words, something has always existed, as we have argued, but we know that in its initial condition there was no change in time. In its initial condition, there was the potential for an unwinding future but there was no past. In its initial condition, there was no matter and energy and space had no extention; they all existed only as potential in that ground state of the universe.

When I say "potential" I mean closely what you mean, QuinticNon, when you say information. Not information in process since that requires the passage of time, but information as potential, a kind of being or state of being (rather like wisdom as opposed to reflection or thought, I think). Because this information exists only as potential, there is no process, no change.

When I talk about the ground state of being, existence independent of space and time, this initial condition is what I am describing. Time and space are not non-existent here, but they are only potentials, time without change (T=0) and space without extention (S=0). With these values for space and time, nothing that we recognize as part of our universe now could have been manifest in substance or form. Only the information could exist as an innate potential of that initial condition.

We can't know everything about that initial condition. We can't know if it is or isn't God. We can't know how it suddenly transitioned from its zero values to an ever-expanding manifest universe. We can't know what caused the big bang or whatever to get this whole ball a-rolling, but something did. Some characteristic of that initial condition made it happen.

All my arguments, I've spoken of existence before the universe, but I should have spoken about the initial condition from which the universe evolved or developed, and that initial condition, that ground state of being had all the characteristics I described including limitless (?) potential (e.g., information).

Does this bring the three of us all closer together?

Samm

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know