1
   

For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 09:28 am
g__day wrote:
Frank - no problem Smile

Damn but you remind me of some Hollywood guy (I'm thinking Nautical movies)???


If it turns out to be Gilligan's Island, I'm gonna be very disappointed! :wink:


Quote:
I am very wary of infinities.


Yes, I can see that.

But the fact remains that EXISTENCE either is infinte -- or it isn't. Either EXISTENCE had a start and will have an end -- or it always has been and always will be.

Space either has boundries -- or it doesn't.

REALITY is either infinite and eternal -- or finite.

Let me tell you my take on this:

I do know know the answers to those questions -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonable guess.

I've listened to about as much scientific speculation on all this as any reasonable person would want -- and I have come to the conclusion that scientists do not know the answers to those questions either -- and they don't seem to have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess either.


I thoroughly enjoy listening to their speculations -- I applaud their efforts to make hypotheses and to test them -- and I encourage their continuing their work so we can gain as much information about what we can observe as possible.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS: We are in the dark.


Oh, by the way, the guesses offered by theists and atheists on these issues simply leave me cold.


Oh, another "by the way":

It is much, much, much easier for me personally to conceive of EXISTENCE and REALITY as infinite and eternal -- rather than the other way around.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 03:42 pm
Personally I think we need to understand "what is time" better before we can talk to infinities existing or not in theoretical physics.

Something in my gut makes me feel our definition of one dimensional time flowing in one direction is incomplete.

We know energy is quantised (photons) we are unsure if time is quantised (planck time 10 ^ -43 of a second as the smallest universal clock tick) and we are also unsure where space is also quantised 10 ^ -99 cubic metres being the smallest theoretcial unit of space (implying there are more quantum units of this space in a cubic centimetre then there are cubic metres of space in the known universe).
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 07:59 pm
g_day,

There is such a thing as a quantum headache, and your suggestions about quantized space and time promote them. I am able to form concepts of quantized mass, momentum, and energy as minimal disturbances of otherwise continuous space and time, but that is as far as I can go. No good answers there to the double slit experiment, but that baffles me anyway.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 10:14 pm
One trouble is we are using way too crude tools to ponder something far to small to observe directly; many things could be hidden below the surface of what we can see.

We have 18 fundamental atomic particles in our current theories and are struggling to unify relativity with quantum mechanics.

But what if there are really 5,736 particles but we don't have the technology yet to see so small?

We have gone from substance -> molecule -> atom very quickly

Then Rutherford took us from atom to nucleus and electrons. Then we went from nucleus to proton and neutrons. Within 30 years ago we went to 6 type of quarks, ferimons, boson etc to give us 16 family of sub-atomic particles.

These don't fit totally well with string and M theories - so maybe we haven't looked anywhere small enough to understand the fundamental nature or our reality yet.

A great, visual primer on this is here: http://www-atlas.lbl.gov/QuarkNet/Workshop2002/Standard_Model_Ian.ppt

but understanding the underlying maths get very hard, very quickly - e.g. modelling guage boson interactions with supersymmetry http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/See.html
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 05:53 am
A reasonable view. My understanding of M theory is quite superficial. However I view superstring theory more or less as I do Schroedinger's wave model - a somewhat useful mathematical expression of some predictive value, but lacking any power to illuminate what is really happening.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 11:53 am
Quote:
"A mathematical dilemma

When Einstein proposed that the speed of light is constant for all observers, he introduced a conundrum. How could different observers measure the same speed for light when the observers themselves were moving at different speeds? Speed is a measure of distance divided by time (for example, kilometers per hour or miles per hour). Einstein realized that for speed to remain constant, intervals of time and distance would have to change in a way that kept their ratio exactly the same"

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/time/revolution.php

Think of two cones, joined at the large end ... now place yourself in the middle of the connection. Time flows toward you from a point of perception ... visualized as the pointy end of the cone (foci), is sensed and translated instantly, either as it is passed through you or vice versa ... could be either, not sure of the ramifications of one over the other. It is only through that passage .... a second becomes a second ..... time is born .... orrrrrrr .... revisited, then flows off toward another point of perception as sensed.
The questioned that is begged? How many points of perception can a tri dimensional brain process .... simultaneously?


Quote:

Locating the Timekeeping Centers of the Brain

Timing is everything. It comes into play when making split-second decisions like knowing when to stop at a red light, catch a ball or modulate a rhythm when playing the piano.

Researchers Stephen M. Rao, PhD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Deborah Harrington, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque, and Andrew R. Mayer, also of the Medical College, have now identified the areas in the brain that are responsible for perceiving the passage of time in order to carry out critical everyday functions.


http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/983222164.html
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 05:11 am
Correction to the Einstein quote: it wasn't Einstein who found the equations that solve the problem of equal light speed for all observers. It was physicist Lorenz, and the equations are named after him (Lorenz contraction, Lorenz time-dilation etc.).
Einstein did give this a new meaning though; but the origins of special relativity are somewhat unclear at best. (For example, the Mercator projection in use in 19th century and before, is using the same 'time dilation' equations as the relativity. They are deducible from Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics, etc.)
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 08:03 am
g__day wrote:
One thing I do note is we don't seem to have too many Christians posting here /shrug


One thing that I have noticed is that few Christians have sufficient scientific knowledge to post in these discussions. Perhaps the logical thinking typical of scientists precludes the acceptance of illogical beliefs that is required of Christians. Smile

Quote:
Also of concern - folk who want to balance a creationist God vs some other plausible creation factor allowing intelligent life all have to fall for an infinite something in their equations, either:

1) Strong anthrophic principle (which I see as a possible variant within M-Theory) = infinite Universes

2) Bouncing Universes (Big Bang <-> Big Crunch) = infinite time -> infinite Universes

3) God = infinite power / focus


There are other possibilities. My favorite is based on the Copenhagan Interpretation of quantum mechanics in which an observer is necessary to collapse the wave function. Out all possible states of the universe, only those in which cosmological constants had values such that observers could exist could ever become "real."

Imagine an infinite number of possibilities, one of which has a chain of quantum events which eventually lead to the evolution of conscious human beings. The first possibility of observation collapses the entire 13-billion-year-long chain of quantum events like a row of dominos and this universe becomes "real."
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 08:13 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Think of two cones, joined at the large end ... now place yourself in the middle of the connection. Time flows toward you from a point of perception ... visualized as the pointy end of the cone (foci), is sensed and translated instantly, either as it is passed through you or vice versa ... could be either, not sure of the ramifications of one over the other. It is only through that passage .... a second becomes a second ..... time is born .... orrrrrrr .... revisited, then flows off toward another point of perception as sensed.
The questioned that is begged? How many points of perception can a tri dimensional brain process .... simultaneously?


Brains don't perceive time as a point, but more like a wave. We are standing on the crest and there is no exact point where you can say that our sense of the "present" starts or stops. It can be a microsecond, a few seconds, or even hours, days, or years depending on context. (The "present" in geological terms can span millions of years.)
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 10:09 am
Terry wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Think of two cones, joined at the large end ... now place yourself in the middle of the connection. Time flows toward you from a point of perception ... visualized as the pointy end of the cone (foci), is sensed and translated instantly, either as it is passed through you or vice versa ... could be either, not sure of the ramifications of one over the other. It is only through that passage .... a second becomes a second ..... time is born .... orrrrrrr .... revisited, then flows off toward another point of perception as sensed.
The questioned that is begged? How many points of perception can a tri dimensional brain process .... simultaneously?


Brains don't perceive time as a point, but more like a wave. We are standing on the crest and there is no exact point where you can say that our sense of the "present" starts or stops. It can be a microsecond, a few seconds, or even hours, days, or years depending on context. (The "present" in geological terms can span millions of years.)


Terry, are you sure? Smile

Think of time as 'peanut butter' ... there has to be a point where peanut butter starts and a point where it stops ... else you got a universe full of never ending peanut butter and then the bottom falls out of the market and I'm not sure you want that ...........

I think you are confusing mind and brain ..... brains, like computers are devoid of intelligence. The end or point of the cone signifies the point where we 'sense' time that when sensed, becomes the present, as it passes, becomes the past and as it travels through the second cone, is sensed to a lessor and lessor degree til it passes into memory to be stored in the physical ..... the brain. Be it wave or binary code, time is measured in its comings and goings or more correct 'sensed'.

Terry
Quote:
(The "present" in geological terms can span millions of years.)


Wouldn't the 'present' be the brink of two eternities, the past and the future, or, right now?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 10:22 am
Just to comment that i am greatly enjoying the "cosmologic" discussion here. Carry on.


And, of course, we all know that you folks do carrry on . . .
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 10:36 am
Next lecture @ 2:00PM

Cheap shampoos .... are they really worth it?
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 04:38 pm
Terry wrote:
g__day wrote:
One thing I do note is we don't seem to have too many Christians posting here /shrug


One thing that I have noticed is that few Christians have sufficient scientific knowledge to post in these discussions. Perhaps the logical thinking typical of scientists precludes the acceptance of illogical beliefs that is required of Christians. Smile

Quote:
Also of concern - folk who want to balance a creationist God vs some other plausible creation factor allowing intelligent life all have to fall for an infinite something in their equations, either:

1) Strong anthrophic principle (which I see as a possible variant within M-Theory) = infinite Universes

2) Bouncing Universes (Big Bang <-> Big Crunch) = infinite time -> infinite Universes

3) God = infinite power / focus


There are other possibilities. My favorite is based on the Copenhagan Interpretation of quantum mechanics in which an observer is necessary to collapse the wave function. Out all possible states of the universe, only those in which cosmological constants had values such that observers could exist could ever become "real."

Imagine an infinite number of possibilities, one of which has a chain of quantum events which eventually lead to the evolution of conscious human beings. The first possibility of observation collapses the entire 13-billion-year-long chain of quantum events like a row of dominos and this universe becomes "real."


Terry

Isn't the Copehhagan Interpretation just a smart variant of the strong anthropic principle - adding wave functions to collapse possibility trees the moment intelligent life occurs and an observation is done?

You still have an infinity in your calculations, making matters just that extra degree more out there.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 09:42 pm
g__day wrote:

3. The mind of God actually does exist and God actually did select our Specific Universe with its variables so well tuned to allow for our existence and henceforth God used science - not magic - to direct our existence and development.


right now I am just a dilettant of physics, however, I plan on eventually working to achieve a PHD in philosophy and physics. Also i am a devoute Christian. I believe so firmly in God and Christ because of my hours of discussion, reading and thought about just this very topic about science and theology. Theological physics is the only possibility I can forsee as being the explanation which breaks the G.U.T. which would describe the 'actual' laws of the universe and what ever lies beyond.

I have been lead to this by the process of thought everyone has gone through where did we come from - that leads inevitably to the 'well what created that - what did that come from' chain all the way till you must say 'I dont know' or ' I cannot answer that' and at that point when I see such perfection such "fine tuned" laws and universe that you spoke of I see an awesome intellegence was involved in its Creation.

I did have a question though G_Day.. where did this 'not magic' come from? just curious not attacking you


g__day wrote:
Terry wrote:
g__day wrote:
One thing I do note is we don't seem to have too many Christians posting here /shrug


One thing that I have noticed is that few Christians have sufficient scientific knowledge to post in these discussions. Perhaps the logical thinking typical of scientists precludes the acceptance of illogical beliefs that is required of Christians. Smile


From what i have read of hawkings he leans greatly towards the belief of God that I hold. I was very comforted when I read 'A Brief History of Time' as it reinforced many of my beliefs.

however I will agree with you that many christians are very subjective - but sadly thats how some people must live. If they stray their minds cannot handle it and they become destructive. Thats stepping into psychology though.

when someone who had only half knowledge of the anthropic laws explained them to me I was dismayed greatly that someone could feel that would be a possible explanation.. lol of course me being me I went and checked a book out about it and read that the anthropic principles are great explanations of possibilities.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 05:43 am
visavis

Not magic is in my book science. And Science is the way it is for reasons we can't fully understand yet - as Frank says!

Personally I think Science and Faith can tune each other and work out where to strengthen each other and where to battle - rather than just be irrationality at each others throats all over the place.

For all we know and suspect we still can't rule out we one day in the future will become smart enough to loop time and invent ourselves - at a quantum level. Although this seems ridiculous - our science isn't advanced enough to show this isn't plausible.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:53 am
visavis wrote:
g__day wrote:

3. The mind of God actually does exist and God actually did select our Specific Universe with its variables so well tuned to allow for our existence and henceforth God used science - not magic - to direct our existence and development.


right now I am just a dilettant of physics, however, I plan on eventually working to achieve a PHD in philosophy and physics. Also i am a devoute Christian. I believe so firmly in God and Christ because of my hours of discussion, reading and thought about just this very topic about science and theology. Theological physics is the only possibility I can forsee as being the explanation which breaks the G.U.T. which would describe the 'actual' laws of the universe and what ever lies beyond.


I had a discussion earlier about that word "believe" and "believe...firmly" with G.

I would appreciate understanding what you mean when you use it the way you did here.

Do you mean you KNOW it to be a fact?

Do you mean, based on the evidence, you are guessing or estimating that a "God" and "Jesus as God" exist -- and if you say 'yes' to this, what is the evidence you see that Jesus is God?


Quote:
I have been lead to this by the process of thought everyone has gone through where did we come from - that leads inevitably to the 'well what created that - what did that come from' chain all the way till you must say 'I dont know' or ' I cannot answer that' and at that point when I see such perfection such "fine tuned" laws and universe that you spoke of I see an awesome intellegence was involved in its Creation.


I also notice that you refer to "this" as a creation.

When G did that, I mentioned that using that word gratuitously infers a Creator -- where none really is needed. He disagreed.

Do you?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 07:01 am
g__day wrote:
visavis

Not magic is in my book science. And Science is the way it is for reasons we can't fully understand yet - as Frank says!

Personally I think Science and Faith can tune each other and work out where to strengthen each other and where to battle - rather than just be irrationality at each others throats all over the place.

For all we know and suspect we still can't rule out we one day in the future will become smart enough to loop time and invent ourselves - at a quantum level. Although this seems ridiculous - our science isn't advanced enough to show this isn't plausible.


Dare I say that it would be extremely helpful if the human or physical form were not such a self imposed precondition in the search for our identity ....

If this is all there be then truly we live in a prison of flesh.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 07:08 am
Morning Frank, stop me iff you've heard this one ...
What do you get if you cross an agnostic, an insomniac, and a dyslexic?







Ans

A man that stays up all night wondering if there is a dog
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 08:33 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Morning Frank, stop me iff you've heard this one ...
What do you get if you cross an agnostic, an insomniac, and a dyslexic?







Ans

A man that stays up all night wondering if there is a dog


Stop, Ge!

Ooops, too late.

But I love the story each time I hear it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:12 pm
Thanks Gel, I love it!

JM
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.86 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:17:23