I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you a Muslim?

Just an armchair philosopher.

But you see my point, right?

I understand the point about different paths, but I don't think that Muslims believe that they are two separate entities.

That's true, but they'd be wrong

For a start it is fundamental to (some) christian beliefs that JC is a part of God. To Muslims JC was just a prophet.

The two entities are obviously different.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

If you come across a fork in the road where going left takes you to Colorado and going right takes you to New York then the two paths are no longer the same road.

what if they make a great big loop?

Since it was a historical analogy, wouldn't that involve time travel?

Dude, if we can think this all the way through there's a Nobel prize in it for us!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,080]

>For a start it is fundamental to (some) christian beliefs that JC is a
>part of God. To Muslims JC was just a prophet.

To me that's like one physicist believing photons behave like waves, and another who believe that they act like particles. Does that mean the particles they are examining are obviously different?

[pirana 0]

Quote

It's been an interesting topic, that's for sure. I just hope it doesn't turn into the "I'm a Christian...and proud of it" thread all over again.

We've all grown so much since then.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JackC 0]

Quote

>As I see it what happened before the big bang is a meaningless question
> since time is thought to have began with the big bang.

It is most definitely not a meaningless question, any more than "what's beyond the dome of the sky?" was a meaningless question back when we thought such things. Attempts to learn such things led us to our modern understanding of the universe.

Which is why I qualified it with "if that's true", the bit you deleted. It seems plainly obvious that if time began at some point, thare can be no before that point. This is of course providing time did actially begin.

Quote

>Either way, the universe contains all that we can know.

That's not supportable either. The "many-worlds interpretation" (relative state formulation) indicates there can be much, much more than we can observe in our universe. (I mean, you can play semantic games and say "I define the universe to be all we can know" but that's sort of self-limiting.)

Well, the universe is defined as everything that exists anywhere. So if it began, everything that exists anywhere began at that point, including all that can be known.

But if you think that the universe is less than everything that exists anywhere, which bits are not part of your universe and what do you call the complete set of everything that exists anywhere?

Anyway, the many worlds interpretation is just that, an interpretation. Just as valid as the copenhagen interpretation and as far as I know, there is no way to tell which is true. For all practical purposes, I use Richard Feynmans interpretation which seems to be the most useful. Feynman simply said "shut up and calculate".

Quote

>Even if there was a before, there is no way we can ever know about it
>because all the information, started with the big bang. Like a cosmic
>reformat. All previous information is wiped.

Ah, but there are those interesting broken symmetry questions, which indicates that perhaps it was not that perfect symmetric spherical-space event we consider it to be.

Sorry, I'll have to plead ignorance here. The implications of broken symmetry on cosmology is not something I am familiar with.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I can claim that matter and energy have simply always existed in one form or another (which is what I tend to believe), but for now that requires as much faith as believing that some sort of supernatural god/creator has always existed.

Actually, that part is established by laws of physics which are way way way at the other end of the spectrum from faith.

We have theories, based on observations and modeling, that take us back to within some ridiculously tiny amount of time following the BB. So technically, what we have is loads of evidence for a Big Expansion, which took place at mind boggling speeds - but let's not call it a bang if that makes people happier.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[SpeedRacer 1]

Incidentally, the word "Allah" is the arabic word for god.

so, yes, Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the God of Abraham. In fact, all of those groups believe that there really is no other god but god.

edited to add:

In fact, Arab Christians refer to God (when speaking in their native Arabic) as "Allah."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JackC 0]

Quote

For a person demanding that level of certainty, the only thing that can be certain is the here and now.

How can you be certain?

[billvon 3,080]

> It seems plainly obvious that if time began at some point, thare can be
> no before that point.

Literally true. But we have not established that time 'began' at any point.

>Well, the universe is defined as everything that exists anywhere.

Again, sort of a circular argument.

Let's say that if we someday can generate enough gravitational gradient to punch a hole through our spacetime into another part of space (call it hyperspace, or flat space, or space-beyond-the-universal-boundary or whatever) and enough negative energy density to hold it open - will that new space suddenly become part of the universe? If so, then the universe can indeed expand to house whole new concepts/spaces.

>Anyway, the many worlds interpretation is just that, an interpretation.

I agree! It's one interpretation in which our universe does NOT contain everything. Is it valid, or more valid than other interpretations? Not yet sure.

>The implications of broken symmetry on cosmology is not something I am familiar with.

Well, there are two - structural and matter balance.

In the structural sense, the universe should be a perfect sphere if it started from a single point with no outside disturbances. Energy should be spread out on a spherical wavefront, and the universe should be radially symmetric.

Of course, it is not - there's a lot of structure to it. What broke that early perfect symmetry to begin the creation of structures like stars? The leading candidate is "spontaneously broken symmetry" in which inherent instabilities in forces like gravity, which produced the first "wrinkle" if you will.

The second broken symmetry is matter/antimatter. In most views of how the universe produced matter, the process is fairly symmetric - as much antimatter is produced as regular matter. Yet in our universe, matter appears to greatly predominate. What caused this lack of symmetry? Again, there are several theories - but no solid answers yet.

That's not to say that that means the universe is not like we think it is. But even a tiny outside 'nudge' from, say, a bit of structure left over from the previous universe (or the parent universe) would account for such asymmetries.

(Or the more religious types could call that nudge 'God' - at this point there's not too much difference.)

[pirana 0]

Quote

>As I see it what happened before the big bang is a meaningless question
> since time is thought to have began with the big bang.

It is most definitely not a meaningless question, any more than "what's beyond the dome of the sky?" was a meaningless question back when we thought such things. Attempts to learn such things led us to our modern understanding of the universe.

>Either way, the universe contains all that we can know.

That's not supportable either. The "many-worlds interpretation" (relative state formulation) indicates there can be much, much more than we can observe in our universe. (I mean, you can play semantic games and say "I define the universe to be all we can know" but that's sort of self-limiting.)

>Even if there was a before, there is no way we can ever know about it
>because all the information, started with the big bang. Like a cosmic
>reformat. All previous information is wiped.

Ah, but there are those interesting broken symmetry questions, which indicates that perhaps it was not that perfect symmetric spherical-space event we consider it to be.

> I'd say that scientific knowledge probably has an asymptotic limit. Our
>understanding gets better and approaches some "perfect" understanding
>but it will never actually reach it.

I'd say that's true as well. However, we're still in the shallow part of the asymptote when it comes to understanding how our universe came to be.

I tend to fall on the side of the Universe being everything there is, and therefore containing everything we could know about what there is.

Agreed that at one time our knowledge was so limited we did not even know the questions to ask; but with our knowledge of physics where it is at, it does not appear there is any way to overcome things like the Planck limit, which would definitely come into play at the point of singularity (or anything that even comes close).

As far as the multiverse stuff that Hawking rambles on about; to me that is nothing more than mental masturbation. Great food for thought experiments, but it's gotta make experimental physicists roll their eyes.* The energy levels required to test such theories would make the Superconducting Super Collider look like a pee-shooter.

*Could you see Hawking applying for run time at Fermilab. The interviewer is asking some questions about the research he wants to do.

HAWKING (In his electronically synthesized voice): I plan to convert all the matter in our solar system into a pure energy beam of alternately pulsing photons and anti-nuetrinos, then aim it at the nearest black hole . . . .

INTERVIEWER (Interupting Hawking): Next candidate please.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you come across a fork in the road where going left takes you to Colorado and going right takes you to New York then the two paths are no longer the same road.

what if they make a great big loop?

Since it was a historical analogy, wouldn't that involve time travel?

Dude, if we can think this all the way through there's a Nobel prize in it for us!

Wouldn't that be I-80?

Where's my prize?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JackC 0]

Quote

> It seems plainly obvious that if time began at some point, thare can be
> no before that point.

Literally true. But we have not established that time 'began' at any point.

That's what I said in the very next sentence. The one you neglected to quote.

Quote

>Well, the universe is defined as everything that exists anywhere.

Again, sort of a circular argument.

Let's say that if we someday can generate enough gravitational gradient to punch a hole through our spacetime into another part of space (call it hyperspace, or flat space, or space-beyond-the-universal-boundary or whatever) and enough negative energy density to hold it open - will that new space suddenly become part of the universe? If so, then the universe can indeed expand to house whole new concepts/spaces.

I don't know why you think this is a circular argument, it might not be very interesting but I can't see why it's circular. Care to explain?

I just read the dictionary entry for universe and it said everyting that exists anywhere. With that definition, holes into hyperspace would be like going trough a door into the next room in the same house.

But if you think different, what do you call the set of all things that exist anywhere and which bits differ between your set of all things and your universe?

Quote

That's not to say that that means the universe is not like we think it is. But even a tiny outside 'nudge' from, say, a bit of structure left over from the previous universe (or the parent universe) would account for such asymmetries.

Like I said, the implications of broken symmetry on cosmology isn't my area of expertise. I am aware of the problems you mention, but quite what the implications of them are is not someshing I've devoted a great deal of time to. I wish I did have time to read up on it but alas...

[billvon 3,080]

>But if you think different, what do you call the set of all things that exist
>anywhere and which bits differ between your set of all things and your
>universe?

Well, I don't know that I buy into the many-worlds interpretation either, although I do see its application to several problems. The term used to describe all possible universes in the MWI is the multiverse.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Anyway, the many worlds interpretation is just that, an interpretation. Just as valid as the copenhagen interpretation and as far as I know, there is no way to tell which is true. For all practical purposes, I use Richard Feynmans interpretation which seems to be the most useful. Feynman simply said "shut up and calculate".

I love Feynman's stuff. Ironically, one of his books was titled "Why Do You Care What People Think" or something like that.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JackC 0]

Yeah Feynman was something special. Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman is one of my all time favourite books. QED is the best intro to quantum electrodynamics I've ever read and still the only pop science book I'd recommend.

[pirana 0]

Quote

But even a tiny outside 'nudge' from, say, a bit of structure left over from the previous universe (or the parent universe) would account for such asymmetries.

MOMMY UNIVERSE: Honey, have you seen the kids?

DADDY UNIVERSE: Yeah, I dropped off the Little Angel at the new Multiverese's place up the street. She's gonna have dinner with them. And I think Bobby is out back getting ready for another inflationary/expansion phase again. That kid is never gonna stop growing.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Yeah Feynman was something special. Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman is one of my all time favourite books. QED is the best intro to quantum electrodynamics I've ever read and still the only pop science book I'd recommend.

I'm a bit backed up, I can never find much time to read in the summer, but I'll consider that one (You're Joking . . .). For others you might like, have you glanced over Lederman's The God Particle? The subtitle is If The Universe Is The Answer, What Is The Question. He's a very entertaining as well as informative writer.

On the topic at hand I'd highly recommend When The Clock Struck Zero, as well as The Last Two Minutes. Alice In Quantumland is not bad either.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

> It seems plainly obvious that if time began at some point, thare can be
> no before that point.

Literally true. But we have not established that time 'began' at any point.

That's what I said in the very next sentence. The one you neglected to quote.

Next thing you know, he'll be claiming you're intentionally misunderstanding him.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Well, I don't know that I buy into the many-worlds interpretation either, although I do see its application to several problems. The term used to describe all possible universes in the MWI is the multiverse.

For most practical applications "shut up and calculate" works fine. That's one of the minor annoyances about being a physicist, people always want to debate the pros and cons of loop quantum gravity or string theory and they don't really appreciate the mechanics of doing the stuff before they get to the philosophy of it. I think it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse. But such is life.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm a bit backed up, I can never find much time to read in the summer, but I'll consider that one (You're Joking . . .). For others you might like, have you glanced over Lederman's The God Particle? The subtitle is If The Universe Is The Answer, What Is The Question. He's a very entertaining as well as informative writer.

On the topic at hand I'd highly recommend When The Clock Struck Zero, as well as The Last Two Minutes. Alice In Quantumland is not bad either.

I generally don't read pop science books now because they always seem to miss the boat somehow. I read Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind and didn't much like it, similarly with Hawking's Brief History of Time. I read that one twice. Once before my undergrad course and it was a total mind fuck, and once after my PhD and I saw all the flaws in it because he'd written it for the pop science audience. I doubt I could do better though, it's slippery stuff. I've been reading Michiao Kaku's QFT but I need to learn the maths for SU(3) gauge symmetry first which has slowed me down a bit. That's a real head ache. I might try The God Particle though, I'm assuming that's about the search for the Higgs Boson?

Surely You're Joking is Feynmans memoirs and it's a fantastic read. Full of really useful titbits and crazy anecdotes.

[pirana 0]

If you have a graduate degree in the sciences then what I've read is probably not for you - although The God Particle is very good because of his style (and The Clock Struck Zero might be worthy because ot was such a good discussion of time). It (The GP) is an overview of how we got where we are in our knowledge of physics, as told early in the book via an interview with Democritus (I think). I found it very entertaining. Then it gets more serious as it closes in on current knowledge and the search for the Higgs.

Fascinating stuff. The world is an amazing enough place without miracles. Have a great weekend.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JackC 0]

It's rarely a mistake to read about this stuff, you can usually find a nugget of gold in even the worst book. I'd thoroughly recommend QED by Feynman though. It's a rare gem in that it makes a tough subject completely accessible without glossing over anything or over simplifying and losing the point. I wish Feynman had written more, he was bloody brilliant.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

So first off, he'd have to rewrite it to clear up all the gibberish in there.

OT completely but River doing exactly that in an attempt to make it mesh with 'science' was one of my favorite scenes from Fire Fly...

Incidentally I thought the list quite funny (and very apt for some small %. No 'side' can claim all its adherents are well educated in the tenets they profess to believe) but it could have been more accurately titled "Top 10 Strawmen Fallacies used by Christians to dismiss the arguments of Atheists"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Incidentally, the word "Allah" is the arabic word for god.

so, yes, Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the God of Abraham. In fact, all of those groups believe that there really is no other god but god.

edited to add:

In fact, Arab Christians refer to God (when speaking in their native Arabic) as "Allah."

Exactly.. All 3 religions claim the same 'starting point' but they also claim that the others are 'corrupted beliefs' from their's which is the 'true path'.

none of them really have persuasive arguments however it is equally likely that they are ALL 'corrupted beliefs' from whatever the original inspiration may have been...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

an interesting read I ran across recently...

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.