An Explanation of the Big Bang and Evolution that doesn't exclude God.

I wrote:

Life itself as lived on earth clearly "violates" the 2LoT by the creationist "reading" of it. You can observe this every day. Yet amusingly, the same creationists hold this law as "immutable" and say "no violation has ever been found" (conveniently using a different "interpretation" of the law for these cases).

In the mood to actually adress it?

/Z

 

Zap,

I have addressed it. If you'd bothered to have read the posts you'd have recognized that to be so.

At this point you are seeing what you wish to see while glossing over true empiricism to lean on hypotheticals you cannot establish nor corroborate.

Btw, Have you gone to the link and read Wallace reply to Schneider's slanderous assertions?

Wallace remains correct in his defense of the 2nd Law.

 

MasterZap wrote: One thing I forgot to comment on; You tried to make a distinction somehow that Neo waking into the "real world" would be somehow "different" because (in the analogy to "dying") it would be a "supernatural" realm.

But that doesn't fly, because that difference is not relevant. The higher level may be higher, but by there is no evidence it is the highest. The very fact that layers have been shown to exist, casts in doubt that any level is "the highest", even God's.

If you take it as a given that an omnipotent being exists, you've by definition entered a realm where human logic isn't the ultimate authority. Who are you to tell God he's not God just because there could theoretically be a one-higher-up God? In the realm of faith, God rules by fiat, which is why I never argue points of faith with people.

You try to argue that only the layered model (which you arbitrarily terminate at "God" for no particular reason that you can justify logically to me) sees truth with a captial T.

I say that the layered model makes truth with a capital T by-definition unattainable, since you can not know where the layering ends.

You don't have to call it "God" if you don't want to. You can call it "Harry" or "Enid" if you like. The fact remains that the only system of beliefs that can logically claim absolute truth exists is one that accepts the existence of an omniscient being. You'd have to be omniscient to be certain that no exceptions to a proposed Truth exist. If you're not omniscient, then there could always be some obscure little corner of the universe where your beliefs don't hold up.

Now, what exactly is "free will"? I'd say "free will" would be not being able to predict what choices will be made.

If unpredictability alone determines free will, then photons have free will. The weather probably has free will (although there will always be those who will claim that we really could predict it with 100% certainty if only we had a powerful enough computer). Ditto with the stock market and roulette wheels. If all you mean by "free will" is unpredictability, why not just say "unpredictability" and avoid the philosophical and religious connotations of "free will?"

To distinguish a human being from a roulette wheel, you need something more in the definition of "free will."

But if God knows the subatomics too, and can predict everything exactly?

That's a good question. The answer hinges on whether there are exceptions to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If there aren't, then predictable subatomic particles become a logical paradox, like a "square circle," and I've already discussed the fact that God would need to abolish the universe as we know it in order to eliminate logical paradoxes. So while in some theoretical universes God could know the state of every particle, in this universe he can't, unless the uncertainty principle doesn't hold.

1) Entropy is a measure of disorder

'tis not. It's a measure of the available energy gradients available to do useful work. It says nothing of "order" (which in itself is an ill defined word).

Well, okay . . . but you need to disseminate that information more widely. When you type define:entropy into Google, you get this:

Definitions of entropy on the Web:

A measure of the amount of disorder in a system.
www.genesismission.org/glossary.html

A measure of the disorder in a system.
chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/glossary/e.html

Measure of the disorder of a system.
www.shodor.org/unchem/glossary.html

A measure of the disorder of a system.
users.otenet.gr/~aris/hcsl/Glossary.htm

1. A measure of the extent to which the energy of a system is unavailable. A mathematically defined thermodynamic function of state, the increase in which gives a measure of the energy of a system which has ceased to be available for work during a certain process: ds = (du + pdv)/T >= dq/T where s is specific entropy; u is specific internal energy; p is pressure; v is specific volume;

 

Darth Brooks:

Point to the line and paragraph of what post where you adressed this?

Btw, Have you gone to the link and read Wallace reply to Schneider's slanderous assertions?

Have you bothered to read Scheniders reply to Wallaces reply?

Wallace remains correct in his defense of the 2nd Law.

No.


Ophelia I am not Lord Hydronium. And I must thank you for your thoughtful posts. I should clarify that in some parts I actually agree with you.

If you take it as a given that an omnipotent being exists, you've by definition entered a realm where human logic isn't the ultimate authority.
Who are you to tell God he's not God just because there could theoretically be a one-higher-up God?

By what external standard to God can God define he is God? He cannot. Because he can sense no such thing. He thinks he is omnipotent. Yet any definition of "omnipotent" to God must by definition be self-referential (since he can detect nothing else to refer to) and even he cannot know if he is right or not.

It's Gödels Theorem all over again. God is string G. The barber that shaves everyone that doesn't shave themselves. (Hint: Make the barber female, or bearded, or both to solve the riddle)

In the realm of faith, God rules by fiat, which is why I never argue points of faith with people.

Thats why it's called faith.

You don't have to call it "God" if you don't want to. You can call it "Harry" or "Enid" if you like.

Blyton?

The fact remains that the only system of beliefs that can logically claim absolute truth exists is one that accepts the existence of an omniscient being.

Maybe Equating God to Gödel and the self-referential problem is the path to actually define away omniscence as logically condradictory. I'm fine with that.

I find omniscence one of Gods most logically contradictory alleged "properties".

You'd have to be omniscient to be certain that no exceptions to a proposed Truth exist. If you're not omniscient, then there could always be some obscure little corner of the universe where your beliefs don't hold up.

But what is truth without an external objective layer? If God has no external objective layer, only self reference, is it then really Truth? Isn't it merely an idea God came up with?

And if thre is an external layer, does that layer not need to be checked to the next higher layer? And how is THAT Truth?

Isn't it so, that ultimate capital-T Truth is by definition unattainable, and you simply have to settle for the level you arbitrarily give up at?

Isn't it so with every human endevaour, that everything is, ultimately, unproovable because every proof hinges on an earlier proof ad infinitum, such that you cannot arrive at an original proof that needs no proof? You simply have to say "nuff's nuff" and give up at point X?

I fully concede that. I have argued this many times before (this kind of reasoning tends to come up when people attempt Lews Carolls 'argument from reason' to prove theistic notions).

I say we as human has no better way to see what is "Truth" than "choose the level to give up on". And I assert that it's the same for God. I'd say God has a harder time deciding on what is "Truth" since he doesn't even perceive a higher layer to compare to (being of the belief he is omniscent).

If unpredictability alone determines free will, then photons have free will.

Thats neither what I said nor what I meant.

For a "will" to be "free" there must first BE a "will", i.e. a conscious entity. If this concious entity is predictable (deterministic) can it's will ever be truly free? Even if the entity may have all the illusions of it being free?

That's a good question. The answer hinges on whether there are exceptions to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If there aren't, then predictable subatomic particle

 

If this thread doesn't cool it, right now, it is going to be injected with a large dose of an anesthetic agent. Intelligent discussion is ok, sarcasm, arrogance, and baiting are not. Let's knock that off. Thank you.

V-03

 

This was such a quant little thread.

Just out of pure curiosity, how much does everyone here know about entropy? Without looking it up, what are its units? I mean, all the experts on both sides should know something so basic about a topic we all know everything about...



I said it before, and I will say it again. Any entropy lost due to the order and structure of life is more than taken back by the heat transfer involved. The analogy is almost (almost because the unity of entropy are not dollars) perfect that life may take a dollar of entropy, but the creation/transfer of heat takes a buck twenty five (such as the entropy created by the burning of the sun), so there is still a net increase of entropy. This little bit of information is obvious and it IMO refutes everything said at true origins (and here).

People keep saying that the universe is a closed system, and to that I ask so? The earth is not.

Also the 2ed law makes no mention of intelligence. So what if something is intelligent, the second law will still be violated. We are part of the system, not outside of it. If I clean my room, or if a computer chip is built, entropy is decreasing....

Except it is like the previous analogy. Cleaning my room will result in some very odd way (I say odd because it is not a transfer of heat which is what the 2ed law is meant to describe) decrease entropy, but the heat that my body will produce in doing that activity will cause more entropy than the order of a clean room.

EDIT: Zap is right about evolution. All evolution says is that a species may divide into two (or more) groups (just for example say that a flock of birds migrate and half of them get blown off course, one ends up in a hot environment, the other cold), that natural selection may cause certain changes between the two groups (individuals in the warm environment who can tolerate the heat will survive better, thinner, better at conserving water, whereas in the cold environment the fatter, stronger, more resistance to heart disease will survive better), and if brought back together they cannot produce a successful offspring, they are now different species. That is all evolution itself says.

 

MasterZap: Did I misattribute your entire post? I'm so sorry . . . I've been up for the better part of 3 days, and have a migraine coming on. I had to adjust my sleep schedule suddenly, and it is *not* working out. If I've done anything else like that please let me know . . . preferably in the next 90 minutes, when I can still edit this.

By what external standard to God can God define he is God? He cannot. Because he can sense no such thing. He thinks he is omnipotent. Yet any definition of "omnipotent" to God must by definition be self-referential (since he can detect nothing else to refer to) and even he cannot know if he is right or not.

Every logical system has to bottom out somewhere in order to avoid eternal recursion and total irrelevance, as you say. A computer bottoms out in its hardware, our minds bottom out in the "wetware" inside our skulls, and a theist's belief bottoms out in God. Douglas Hofstadter, who may or may not be a theist (I can never tell), says his belief system bottoms out in G.O.D., or "good, orderly direction." He's substituted a general sense of optimism for an actual deity, but at least he admits that it's a fiat position, and that his belief structure is founded on faith. He's basically elevated science the quasi-religion to science the actual religion. Actually, I think there's a page in the beginning of Godel, Escher, Bach where he calls the book "a statement of my religion." Hey, he's got the right. I don't argue items of faith with people. You can't, unless you want to get lost in the eternal recursion problem you brought up.

Maybe Equating God to Gödel and the self-referential problem is the path to actually define away omniscence as logically condradictory. I'm fine with that.

Well, I was aiming for something close. Actually the position is C.S. Lewis'. The idea is that God does not need to be able to resolve logical paradoxes in order to be God. The only way to make sure paradoxes never occur is to have a universe of pure chaos, in which, ironically, there would be no such thing as knowledge, much less omniscience, since chaos is by definition unpredictable.

It's very much like the "Principia Mathematica" and Godel's Theorem. If you create a system with physical laws (logical rules) you create the possibility for recursive logical paradoxes. *Could* God have created a universe of pure chaos instead? I suppose so, just as Russell and Whitehead could have put the Principia in a blender and hit frappé. They wanted to get rid of paradoxes; that gets rid of paradoxes.

In creating the universe, God actually limited his power twice. Simply in creating *any* universe, he limited his power to have created any other universe instead. All the alternate "universe drafts" went into the trash bin. (Unless you believe in the multiverse theory, but that's another story.) He *also* limited his power by creating a world with logical rules instead of chaos. With chaos, anything could theoretically happen. In a universe with laws, only *some* things can happen. In a similar sense, an artist limits his own power by painting on a blank canvas. When the canvas was blank, his power was infinite; he could have painted anything. Once he starts painting, he limits his power more and more. The moment he puts an orange line on the canvas, a near infinity of possibilities--those designs which do not contain orange lines--is eliminated. The very act of creation involves limiting of power.

However, I hardly think it's fair to say, "Aha! God limited his power by creating the universe! He's not omnipotent at all--he's just some guy masquerading as an omnipotent God!" I see this as playing with the word "omnipotent" the way you see creationists playing with the word "entropy."

The classical Judeo-Christian model of God does not require him to eliminate logical paradoxes from the universe. God need only be able to do all possible things, not things which are definitionally impossible, like creating a square circle.

The

 

Ophelia,

Your posts are fun.

 

Ophelia

Love your post

Will be back later

Just want to make a regexp replacement.. I had a brain fart, I meant C.S. Lewis, not Lewis Caroll, gosh darn it.

*duh*

/Z

 

Zap,


Consider this:

Where did the energy come from to create the big bang? How'd it get there? How old is it? How does (or did) it self-perpetuate? Just stretch your brain back a little (or alot) further than the Big Bang.

 

That's the million dollar question Undomial, and if you are able to answer it definitively you'll be rich!

I'm not sure its possible to answer, our entire existence is bound within space-time, I don't see how we can speculate about 'before' or 'outside', because this is self evidently to speculate about the nature of non-existence. It bakes your noodle, but being enquiring creatures I'm sure we'll keep asking these questions.

 

Shroom,

I love those kinds of questions because they indicate amazingly wonderful things. To me, they indicate that there literally is more than is dreamt of in our philosophies. Much more.

Here's another. Someone suggested that reality in this dimension is an one second symphony (for lack of another word to give to an "instant") and time is the mechanism in which temporal beings are allowed to view it, sequentially. That is so loaded with potential, it astounds me.


Edit: A variation on that is, time is the mechanism that keeps everything from happening at once.

 

ophelia

The entropy information was not really directed at you

Hey, I said that here!

I thought you said it was like that, not that it actually was that.


However you are touching on a problem that I have mentioned a few times. Basically there is a contradiction being all knowing and all powerful. If you know what you will do later, you cannot change your mind (or else what you knew was wrong). Since you cannot change your mind, you are not all powerful. The most common way out of that argument is to say God is timeless, but I don't think anyone understands how that would work really.

And what you are saying about God limiting His power makes sense, however theists then must be careful if they wish to remain accurate. Currently God is not all powerful or all knowing, but He can be and was 'before' He made the universe. It is a semantic issue, but just something everyone should be careful about (you have been good about it). I really like the second line of my sig.

Also, about your disclaimer...

When you say God cannot be proven, does that mean even if He proved Himself to me individually? If God showed Himself to me, does that mean my free will is gone? Also, even if we don?t know about the law of gravity, we still obey it. Is free will simply ignorance?

Undomiel

That is the real question, however the exact same questions can be asked about whatever god one may worship, and usually the answers are (to me) less satisfying than those currently offered by scientific theories.

Also, I feel that science has a better chance of explaining those things eventually than religious explanations. I would love to hear detailed religious explanations of where did God get the energy/by what process did He make it/how God made the earth, however what I have heard has not really explained anything (usually it gets into a debate over me not being objective and that I will automatically reject any religious explanation given. Although that is an important topic, it is still odd because the people who usually say that usually don?t give any answers to how God did what He did). However my point is that science is trying to understand, and potentially can succeed whereas I feel that most of the time, the answerers are just that God can do it or that God did do it (nothing about how He did it).

The thing with the big bang is that there is very simple, very obvious evidence that it did happen. The universe is expanding and with an understanding of Newton?s Laws of motion which have been tested millions of times, we know that an object in motion will stay in motion unless affected by a force. We have never seen a discreet force act with enough umpf to move the universe (the 4 fundamental forces, gravity, magnetism, strong and weak nuke forces act with an inverse square of distance, so they do act over the universe, but they get extremely small with distance).

Since the universe is in motion, and there appears to be no force with enough strength to make it start moving from some initial large size, it makes sense that it has always been in motion since the beginning. Do we fully understand it? Heck no. Do we know what caused it, nope. But we know something happened to make the universe start expanding, and that something has been called the big bang.

 

Enforcer,

You said:

That is the real question, however the exact same questions can be asked about whatever god one may worship, and usually the answers are (to me) less satisfying than those currently offered by scientific theories.

My response:

I suggest it's always been there. It's eternal, which is one description of God. To understand eternal, you have to consider space-time (see my post above yours).

 

Where did the energy come from to create the

See my earlier post on the potential zero-sum total energy of the universe, i.e. you'd need no energy whatsoever to create the universe.

Also my notes on expansion being time, and time being expanision. The two are not separate, they are one and the same. They may also be perceptions, in the sense that we perceive time, and by doing so, the universe expands to accommodate that perception. Talk about Schrödingers cat cubed; The REASON the universe expands is BECAUSE you are sitting there perceiving the passage of time.

So the question is, on that boring tuesday when time seemed to drag, did you cause the universe to expand slower that day?

Food for thought.

Another thought is this; The expansion we observe is that of space itself. So if a meter is getting longer, isn't it so that everything that is one meter is also getting bigger? Which means that relatively to eachother, nothing is really expanding at all? You still get the redshift that way, but nothing is really moving anywhere. And there was no Big Bang at all.

/Z

 

Zap,

You said:

The REASON the universe expands is BECAUSE you are sitting there perceiving the passage of time.

My response:

Wheee. Exactly.

You said:

See my earlier post on the potential zero-sum total energy of the universe, i.e. you'd need no energy whatsoever to create the universe.

My response:

Soo, are you saying the matter that had the potential to become the Big Bang never existed?

EDIT: As regards your edit - I will rephrase my response above and say, Soo, are you saying matter doesn't exist?

 

Undomiel and all others who want an answer to this question. Where did all the energy in the Universe come from to generate all the atoms that create all the matter that make up the universe?

Amazingly there acually is a scripture in the bible that answers this. And just to show you that the bible has been right on other scientific points I quote the one we know for a fact to be true first.

Interestingly both are found in the same book and chapter, written by the prophet Isaiah in his completed book in 732 BCE, we also know this book is very authentic because we found the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I find it it interesting that God choose this part of the bible to survive and be found, which is historically the oldest paper document from the bible,
2 BCE.

First

Isaiah 40:22 There is One that is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are like grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavans just like fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.

Yet Isaiah wasn't some great scientist who knew the earth was circular in nature, even though most people back then thought the earth to be flat. No by divine inspiration Isaiah penned those words. God knew the truth then, and he still knows it today nothing has changed.

And the scripture that answers so much

Isaiah 40:26 Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he call even by name.Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power,not one of them is missing

There it is folks, the energy to create the universe that was orginally devoid of all matter, resided only with God himself.

With all this in mind you cannot discount or write off what is said in the mentioned verses. To do so shows not a lack of faith but....well let's let the bible describe these ones.

Psalms 10:4 A wrong-doer loftily insults God, does not look out for his anger; All his calculations are that there is no God.

Psalms 14:1 The sensless one has said in his heart:"There is no God"

 

BlueJedi,

Thanks. I think you and I are saying the same things. It's just a matter (no pun intended) of explaining the existence of eternal existence to those who subscribe to the concept that something cannot be created from nothing and yet insist that matter came from nowhere, from nothing, when describing the Big Bang. If it came from nowhere, I'll be expecting a scientific definition of nowhere. And if it came from nothing, I'll be expecting a scientific definition of nothing and how both nowhere and nothing can be reconciled with the debunked theory of spontaneous generation. Nowhere and nothing, don't exist. And both religion and science are all about "existence." In fact, that's how God describes Himself, "I am." Pure, unadulterated scientific (edit: and religious) fact.

 

Soo, are you saying the matter that had the potential to become the Big Bang never existed?

Of course.

Matter requires space to occupy. Before Big Bang there was no space. Of course there was no matter before. I find this obvious.

something cannot be created from nothing and yet insist that matter came from nowhere, from nothing, when describing the Big Bang.

Amusingly, it is generally the theists who vehemently assert that something cannot come from nothing. Then of course immediately proceed to proclaim the "exception", i.e. God.

Nowhere and nothing, don't exist.

Not withing space and time. But before the Big Bang, only nowhere and nothing existed.

/Z

 

So how are you here?


EDIT: As regards your edit -

You said:

Amusingly, it is generally the theists who vehemently assert that something cannot come from nothing. Then of course immediately proceed to proclaim the "exception", i.e. God.

My response:

Space-time and matter arrived, POOF, outta nowhere and nothing. Nothing caused it to happen. Nothing existed. The Nothing is Nothing. It didn't exist. If it didn't exist before then, it can't exist now. So in the absence of space-time, what do we have? You say nothing. I say everything (because everything comes from something). Which makes more sense?

Spontaneous generation was disproved by science not theists.

 

Which makes more sense?

Nothing makes less sense, then that a sentient being, possing all sorts of random and mutually logically contradictory properties decided one day (yet being "outside time") to create it.

I cannot fathom any hypothesis, no, not a single one, making less sense than that. Really.

Spontaneous generation was disproved by science not theists.

I hope you are not on Pasteur? Becuase thats a whole different ball of wax.

Billions of Universa could be born every "minute", if you go the latest M-theory (a form of string theory)

/Z

 

Zap,

String theory is something. It isn't nothing. Everything is something.

You said:

(yet being "outside time")

My response:

Einstein proved mathematically, it was possible to define a sort of temporal state of eternal being, in this dimension, for matter. The closer matter approaches the speed of light, however, the slower time goes for the matter travelling at that speed, relative to the matter not travelling that speed. Once lightspeed is achieved, time stops and matter becomes (light) energy. God describes Himself as Light. So it is possible to see how He could refer to Himself as being outside time if we can find an instance of outside time in this temporal existence.

 

MasterZap wrote: I meant C.S. Lewis, not Lewis Caroll, gosh darn it

Okay, but C.S. Lewis is very sharp. I've seen arguments of his that seemed to appeal to such fine logical niceties that the subject matter became irrelevant (most notably in "The Problem of Pain," I thought), but I've never yet seen him turn out half-baked illogical goo. I'm not sure which work of his you're referring to, but my suspicion is that if people are saying nonsense and attributing it to him, they're oversimplifying something or leaving out some important caveat. In general, if you accept Lewis' premises, you have to accept his conclusions.

Also my notes on expansion being time, and time being expanision. The two are not separate, they are one and the same. They may also be perceptions, in the sense that we perceive time, and by doing so, the universe expands to accommodate that perception. Talk about Schrödingers cat cubed; The REASON the universe expands is BECAUSE you are sitting there perceiving the passage of time.

Okay . . . this is special relativity plus the observer principle of the Copenhagen Interpretation? Does the Copenhagen Interpretation apply to things above the subatomic level--weird experiments with cats aside? Or is it special relativity plus ordinary Idealism--your senses may be lying to you, you may be living in the Matrix, etc. My quantum mechanics knowledge is a little rusty . . . it's been about a year since I was really reading about it.

(Proposed new thread title: "Zen and the art of quantum mechanics: or Special relativity for special children")

Another thought is this; The expansion we observe is that of space itself. So if a meter is getting longer, isn't it so that everything that is one meter is also getting bigger? Which means that relatively to eachother, nothing is really expanding at all? You still get the redshift that way, but nothing is really moving anywhere. And there was no Big Bang at all.

<Neo>Whoa.</Neo> ::After much puzzlement:: Oh, okay--I think I get it. This isn't technically "relativity" because nothing's moving relative to anything else. Space is getting stretched out, and we get stretched out with it . . . like if you picked up the ink of a cartoon with Silly Putty and then stretched it. Normally (as if anything involving relativity seems normal) if a meter were getting bigger, the observer would be slowing down, and time would be getting longer. But you need to be moving *relative* to something for that to happen. In your scenario, the universe is just getting scaled bigger--all the size ratios remain the same, so nothing's "moving." If this were happening, we'd never really notice. BTW, are you imagining that the mass of things is increasing, or just that we're getting thinner and longer?

If our mass was increasing, we ought to see changes in light, since that has no mass, and it wouldn't be "growing" like everything else. I don't think red shift is what you'd see in this case--I think you'd see light bending the way it does around black holes. If our mass were increasing, I think we'd notice.

I don't know that we could get infinitely thinner and longer, without our mass increasing, before noticeable, bad things started to happen . . . the molecules in our bodies would be getting further apart too, and eventually we'd be pulled apart. I think what you're describing would be like getting pulled into a black hole. Usually, when things are getting longer, it means time is slowing down, which would be consistent with what we think happens around a black hole. Of course, with no relative point to check a clock against, we'd never know that time had slowed. I guess maybe we'd be getting "pulled into a black hole" so slowly we wouldn't notice, but my understanding is that things are moving away from each other pretty fast, so we'd have to be stretching relatively fast too. I have my doubts that life on earth could have arisen under these conditions.

Unless I'm way off here, I'm betting on a big bang. A big, donut

 

Undomiel:

You have a simplified and rudimentary understanding of relativity I'm afraid.

Allow me to cut and paste from my post in the Atheism thread:

---

Going back to the discussion on entropy we had this little detail about volume, where entropy is a per-volumetric-unit property. Hence, if the total volume increases entropy can go down.

It may even be so that the actual 2nd law of thermodynamics for the universe reads "entropy is a constant" (remember the law itself that entropy can increase or remain constant, i.e. it's a "greater than or equal" sign in the mathematical equation). Never forget that equal. On a cosmic scale, entropy may be a constant.

A further clue to this lies in superstring theory. As we all know from special relativity from a superstring interpretation, we are all moving with the speed of light along the time axis all the time. (I.e. the old notion "you can never move faster than the speed of light" actually becomes, in this frame work "there is no other speed than the speed of light, only most of the time you are travelling at c along the time axis")

Any time you move in space, you divert some of this motion vector to spatial dimensions. This is the reason time slows down at high speeds (you have diverted time axis vector to a spatial vector). Of course TO YOU, you are not moving at all, regardless of speed (relativity) so to you, you are still moving along the time axis, i.e. the new diverted vector is your new time axis.

The angular difference between the observers time axis and your time axis causes the relativistic effects. That is why you see their time as slower AND they see your time as slower; YOUR time axis measured along the length of THEIRS is shorter, but THEIR time axis measured along the length of YOURS is ALSO shorter! (You can draw a trivial 2D diagram of this on a napkin to verify this yourself; Two vectors of equal lenght at an angle; Measure the length of one in the direction of the length of the other - measured such, both see the other as shorter)

Anyhow, this equality between space and time and the absoluteness of the speed of light coupled with expansion, leads us to the thought that the dimensions - all of them - are unfolding at constant rate - the speed of light. This means the universe is not only expanding in the spatial dimensions, but also the temporal, since they are equal, interchangeable, and one and the same.

Hence the universe doesn't "expand over time" as we interpret it from our point of view. Expansion is time. Time is expansion. Time is the unfolding of the dimension we happen to think of as "time", and the unfolding of the others we interpret as "expansion of space".

Hence it is possible that entropy is constant and the change "over time" is precicely and totally offset by change "over volume".

So when does it end? Never. But it surely began? Yes. Why? How?

Membrane theories within superstring theory also allows for this. As a matter of fact, this means that entire universa are created all the time, by spontaneously budding off from nothingness. We are just in one of them that got lucky and evolved humans. We should be thankful for that.

ID's and creationists like to yammer on about the low probability of life evolving "undesigned". But in the light of superstring theory and the membrane equations, this is not strange at all.

The complaint "there was not enough time from big bang to life to evolve by chance" gets null-and-voided by the simple fact that entire universa is born by the gazillion, every "billisecond" (a meaningless consept since the true void void that spontaneously buds off universa has no 'time axis' at all, so it is all simultaneous).

Now if you not only have the entirety of the expanding universe, but you have an inifinte supply of infinite numbers of universa all being created every moment of time, an infinite number of times "per second" it doesn't really matter how low the probability is, it will happen.

We just happen to be in the one where it did. And if it didn't h

 

Zap,

It behooves me to attempt to be circumspect in contemplation of various statements and subjects, turning the ideas on their head, so to speak, and probably most importantly my own.


"Now if you not only have the entirety of the expanding universe, but you have an inifinte supply of infinite numbers of universa all being created every moment of time, an infinite number of times "per second" it doesn't really matter how low the probability is, it will happen."

That's mathematical irrationality, and causal event is a singularity which is by definition finite, not infinite.

When thinking in terms of infinite possibility, to use a sci-fi concept, we may deduce quickly that if all of the possibilities of infinite possibilities are possible, say in a 'multi-verse' setting, then,...one of those infinite possibles is a universe which subsists seperate and apart as a single, isolated system of which there are no other parallax universes and only a finite variety of possibilities. Ergo, that one possibility then eliminates all other abstract potential alternate universes leaving us back in the reality of our own, unique and sole existence.

(And, if it were otherwise, there could be no discernment of reason or logic.)

Infinity, then, becomes an illusory abstract convention in such a sense, of that which is without end, and exists only as a Moebius loop, which seemingly presents an endless cycle but is actually finite within it's own self-containment. Ergo, your premise self-destructs.



"For people allegedly dealing with an "infinite God", creationists worldviews can be suprisingly "limited" when trying to comprehend and infinite supply of infinite infinities infinitely regenerating an infinite number of times per second. No matter how many zeroes you have after your probability statement, it is still equal to "complete certainty" in that scenario."


And, in turning this around, for an atheist to suggest there are unlimited, "infinite" potentialities, but no possibility of God, becomes an inscrutable intellectual gridlock and a logically fallacious and self-destructively contradictory premise. You inherently limit that which you are attempting to portray as infinite.

In other words, methinks thou hast outsmarted thyself.