The Science of God

Regarding the connections between religion and hard science, much of value is found by looking at the so-called Imiaslavie or "onomonodoxy" heresy associated with a radical splinter group of the Russian Orthodox Church. The group believed that the Name of God and God Himself were identical, since from a Platonic point of view a name (i.e., perfect Platonic form) is prior to the thing named. Since nothing was prior to God, this implies that God himself is the Name, and by worshiping the Name one worships God. (similar ideas are found in some forms of Buddhism, like Jodo-shu and Jodo-shin-shu).

The movement was filled with mathematics and the implications of the theory are very closely tied with mathematical set theory.

For more info:

A look at the Imiaslavie issue in connection with math:
people.math.jussieu.fr...

Decent 8-page PDF on Imiaslavie and math:
www.amacad.org...

A more general look at Imiaslavie itself
uk.geocities.com...

Wiki weighs in:
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 5/26/09 by silent thunder]

reply to post by SugarCube

Well, they say that illusion is the first of all pleasures

I would argue, in the interests of ontological economy, that delusion, not illusion, has primacy. The compliment remains extended.

I am proposing that the events of the singularity and universal model incorporating space-time is abstracted within a conceptual container of God to which no dimensional aspects pertain.

Yes, I understood that, although the above formulation greatly aids comprehensibility.

I'll return to this, our basic difference of opinion, in a minute. Meanwhile,

*

small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide a system's fate

For an outside observer unaware of the fluctuations (the "noise"), the choice will appear arbitrary

The bold text illustrates a cause, surely? The small fluctuations decide the system's fate. That is causal.

The fluctuations referenced are fluctuations within the system; the Wiki text needs an edit. Consider the motion of anions and cations in solution. Their motion is, of course, random. However, it is possible that in the course of these random motions, two ions of opposing charge come together to form a molecule. The molecule's presence catalyzes the formation of others; soon, a salt crystal has formed.

It is true that external factors, in a temporal view, promote or facilitate this symmetry breaking. The ambient temperature may fall or the concentration of the salt solution rise. In the context of spacetime, this naturally applies. It is not, however, necessary for symmetry breaking: we may assume a static set of conditions (complete with random fluctuations that do not invoke temporality because they do not involve state changes) which is then spontaneously broken. Thus the Singularity engenders the universe.

DaMod's concept of God is the same as that of others in this thread: the precipitator of the state change is deemed to be God. However (to return to the subject of my first post), this just multiplies entities without solving anything. What determines the state of the state changer?

Your candidate for God is of a quite different complexion, though:

The original symmetric system is the (nondescript) God that I speak of and we are a product of its noise.

It is the potential universe: the Singularity itself.

As I said before, I have absolutely no problem with this. If God is the Singularity, then He disappears in the act of creation, or is transubstantiated (literally!) into Creation itself, becoming Spinoza's God. To the extent that I am familiar with Spinoza's ideas, I find that flavour of deity quite acceptable.

*

I said I would return to the matter of our fundamental division. Allow me to come to it by way of reply to your comments on my 'contrariness'.

You speak of Anaximander as prescient and yet he expounded theories that were received as "fantasy" at the time.

Almost no information has come down to us concerning the intellectual atmosphere of Ionia in the 6th century BC. But even if Anaximander was called a fantasist (there is no mention of this in any source) it matters not at all; he merely stumbled upon a modern scientific idea without offering any empirical proof of it. His prescience, like that of the source you quoted, was charming, but he was no scientist and I do not claim him as one.

You are open minded concerning the universe/singularity yet you appear to limit your cognition of a possible greater system.

Here we come to the heart of it. I read, or rather have read, mountains of science fiction and fantasy, plus further mountain ranges of soi-disant literature that often trounces those genres for imaginativeness. I am fascinated by mythology and religion. And I am, myself, a writer by profession. There is no shortage of imaginative content, or fantasy for that matter, in my interior world.

However, when it comes to the exterior world, I am a scientific materialist, in keeping with my education (as you may have divined, I didn't learn my physics on the internet). As such, my Holy Writ includes Occam's Razor: entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily. It's in order to do it for fun (and, as in my case, for occasional profit), but when it comes to figuring out how things really are, I confine myself within empirical bounds. Gods, multiverses, unprovable string theories, veils of maya, anything that implies infinite regression is anathema to me. There you have it.

You cannot deny that we do not know either way and that you must accept that there could be a external system to our dimensional existence.

I do not deny it. I freely admit the possibility. But since it solves or simplifies nothing, I have no time for it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SugarCube
However, when it comes to the exterior world, I am a scientific materialist
:
I do not deny [an external system]. I freely admit the possibility. But since it solves or simplifies nothing

It seems that we have reached an agreement in too many areas to continue in debate. I concur completely with the above statement. However, I would just say that the realm of fantastical conjecture in which this thread resides is a pleasant distraction from the exterior world for a few moments. Specific thanks for the interlude Astyanax! At least you didn't have to leap from the walls this time.

To the OP, DaMod - this has been an excellent thread and has attracted some intelligent discussion, both in support and at odds with the central premise. The majority of the contributors have added constructive points of interest and contention and this reminds me of the "old days" of ATS when discussion was the order of the day rather than the "slop-fest" that we tend to witness in threads now.

There isn't much more I can add unless it now goes completely off the rails



[edit on 27-5-2009 by SugarCube]

Cleaning Up

Originally posted by Toughiv
If people have come to the general agreement of symmetry breaking, why were/are there irregularities within the Universe? clusters of matter etc

Why, precisely because of symmetry breaking. The less symmetry, the more clumpiness. But on a cosmic scale, space is pretty symmetrical all the same.

Matter vs antimatter means matter is destroyed, but energy remains constant yes?

Matter and antimatter are both converted to energy. Mass-energy is conserved. Howevever, the energy produced is entropically dispersed through spacetime in a vast, wasteful explosion.

Science Daily article

Explains how matter is present in the Universe after the Anti-Matter/Matter battle at beginning of the Universe.

Not bad, but that's just an experimental result with respect to charge-parity violation; don't interpret it as implying the C-P violation is proven.

A more informative discussion of the subject can be found here.

* * *

Originally posted by DaMod
This discussion is about whether or not this entity could exist scientifically, and the reasons why or why not.

If that's so, a good place to start would be to ask ourselves whether there is any scientific evidence to suggest that a God exists. And in fact, that's what you did start, though you came up with the wrong answer.

The right answer is no.

Perhaps it is in the nature of science that it can give only negative answers to such questions. I'll let those with a stronger head for philosophy than mine debate the issue.

* * *

Originally posted by DaMod
Now there is supposed to be an infinite number of universes with infinite possibilities.

No, there is not!

Heaven preserve us from the dumbed-down pablum that passes for science in the media and the public mind... it leads so many people astray. An infinity of universes is just speculation - scientifically credible speculation, I grant you, but speculation none the less, regardless of what you may have seen on TV or read on the internet.

An infinity of universes need not be invoked to explain any physical phenomenon - not even probability wave collapse. There are other explanations for that, such as 'many minds' and decoherence, which multiply fewer entities. I know Stephen Hawking likes Everett's ideas but he's only one brilliant physicist among many - and an old man to boot.

Our universe is accelerating into the vastness of space.

The universe is not expanding into anything. Are you not reading what is being said here, or simply not taking it in? Look here:

Originally posted by constantwonder
in the singularity before the big bang there was no spacetime to distort. spacetime is a result of the big bang... so unlike a black hole singularity that bends space time, a big bang singularity is not a black hole, doesn't have an event horizon and contains all of spacetime within itself. therefore there is no gravity distortion of spacetime because there is no spacetime to distort

What the use, cw, what's the use? We're just not getting through. :shk:

[edit on 27/5/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by SugarCube

To the OP, DaMod - this has been an excellent thread and has attracted some intelligent discussion, both in support and at odds with the central premise. The majority of the contributors have added constructive points of interest and contention and this reminds me of the "old days" of ATS when discussion was the order of the day rather than the "slop-fest" that we tend to witness in threads now.

I'll second that. And my thanks to you, too, SugarCube.

To DaMOD - With regards to our debate about the Universe being open, flat or closed. You argued that the big crunch is not possible since the galaxies are accelerating (+) away from eachother. Here my friend you are wrong. While it is true that those galaxies furthest away from us are seen to be moving away from us at the greatest speeds, they are not 'accelerating' in their recession. The distance between galaxies and the speeds at which they move apart are directly proportional. However, gravity is slowing this expansion of the Universe.

Cheers!

Brad

reply to post by Toughiv


I actually think the universe is destined for the big rip and not the big crunch. Personally I think the big bang model is flawed anyway (even though that is really what we have been discussing).

reply to post by DaMod


Why do you feel it is flawed? I havent actually come across criticisms so id be glad to hear them!!!

Cheers

Brad

reply to post by Toughiv

While it is true that those galaxies furthest away from us are seen to be moving away from us at the greatest speeds, they are not 'accelerating' in their recession. The distance between galaxies and the speeds at which they move apart are directly proportional. However, gravity is slowing this expansion of the Universe.

DaMod is right on this one. According to all sorts of data, space appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.

* * *

I havent actually come across criticisms (of the Big Bang) so id be glad to hear them!!!

The universe doesn't look the way it should according to straight Big Bang theory, which predicts a universe steadily expanding at the speed of light. Limitations of the Big Bang Theory

[edit on 30/5/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


How can space expand if it is infinite big already?

If space is expanding what is it expanding in! what would you call that space? If not space!

Why don't you people say that energy is just changing within space instead of saying space is expanding. Because space can't expand its as big as it gets already.

Energy and space cant be one and the same thing. Think about that for a moment.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by Astyanax


In accordance to Hubble's law. The further galaxies are not accelerating from us, but it is true their recessional speeds are faster the further away from us we are.

Hubbles law has been disproved?

Cheers

Brad

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Toughiv]

reply to post by Astyanax


Also, reading the links you have put, the "all sorts of data" does not promote that universes are accelerating away from us, but the expansion of the universe is accelerating in all directions - cosmological principle.

That has already been explained by the big bang and there will be a time where gravity determines whether or not the Universe is Open, flat or closed.

Cheers

Brad

Originally posted by Toughiv
Also, reading the links you have put, the "all sorts of data" does not promote that universes are accelerating away from us, but the expansion of the universe is accelerating in all directions - cosmological principle.

Yes, that's right. I didn't say anything about accelerating universes, only that the universe - space, in fact - is expanding. You told DaMod that galaxies aren't accelerating away from one another. In fact, they are: the expansion of space is carrying them apart at an ever-increasing speed. That's what the supernova evidence shows: that there has to be, pace Einstein, a cosmological constant.

Hubble's 'Law' is like Moore's Law: it's a statistical prediction, not the expression of a fixed mathematical relationship. It's not a fundamental law of cosmology or anything like that.

In its original form it is only valid for relatively nearby galaxies. Nowadays, it needs a lot of tweaking to make it fit the observed results. Some say it's statistically invalid; I don't pretend to know enough to judge whether that is true.

* * *

Originally posted by spy66
How can space expand if it is infinite big already?

It isn't 'infinite big' already. Or at least, it doesn't have to be. The part we can observe is finite.

If space is expanding what is it expanding in! what would you call that space? If not space!

I understand that you have difficulty visualizing this. The solution is to stop trying, because you can't - nobody can. There is nothing outside the universe. Space, empty space, isn't nothing, you see. It's something.

[edit on 30/5/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


On what grounds can you tell me and the others that space ain't infinite big already!

And why don't space have to be infinite big. Are you saying that there is something else beyond it that we cant comprehend!

That is one big assumption ain't it!

NB I am not trying to be mean but trying to learn



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by DaMod
Lets Begin!

A big ball of matter!

Without a god there could not have been a beginning of time.

The idea to begin with a conclusion about the consequence of "god" -- a term that you failed to define, described or at least explain to the point of making such a conclusion assumable is a big stop sign for anyone interested in a method of investigation called "theoretical science." There are certain rules that govern over the process of conveying ideas so the arguments would not form goulash of propositions, and you just violated rule #1.

This is not to say to stop having fun with whatever you decided to have fun with.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Yes, that's right. I didn't say anything about accelerating universes, only that the universe - space, in fact - is expanding. You told DaMod that galaxies aren't accelerating away from one another. In fact, they are: the expansion of space is carrying them apart at an ever-increasing speed.

So the rate at which the Universe is expanding isnt slowing down?

Originally posted by spy66
On what grounds can you tell me and the others that space ain't infinite big already!

It could be, spy66, but there is no good reason why it should be and no evidence that it is.

On the contrary, it makes far more sense to regard the universe is finite. It began 13.7 billion years ago. Evidence for this. It began as a dimensionless point and has kept expanding ever since.

The speed of its expansion was not infinite. Therefore, since

(distance) = (speed) x (time)

neither is its size.

Here is a link written in simple everyday language that may help you understand.

Here is another, not so simple. I have included it to show how decades of research support the idea of a finite universe. It shows how data from the WMAP space probe confirm the idea that the universe is finite in space and time.

Are you saying that there is something else beyond it that we cant comprehend!

You have asked this question many times already. The answer is no. There is nothing beyond the universe. The universe isn't expanding into anything, it's just expanding. Yes, I know it's hard to picture. In fact, it's impossible to picture. That's a pity, but there's nothing we can do about it, so you'll just have to get over it like the rest of us did.

* * *

Originally posted by Toughiv
So the rate at which the Universe is expanding isnt slowing down?

No, it is increasing.

In 1998 observations of Type Ia supernovae* suggested that the expansion of the universe is speeding up.

In the past few years, these observations have been corroborated by several independent sources: the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, age of the universe and large scale structure, as well as improved measurements of the supernovae

Wikipedia

Universe expansion may be accelerating Space.com, 1999

A Cosmological surprise: the universe accelerates Europhysics News, 2001

Confirmation of the accelerated expansion of the Universe National Centre for Scientific Research, France, 2003
*The subject of the article I linked to earlier.

reply to post by Astyanax


so the acceleration of the universe cannot be explained by the big bang?

Cheers

Brad

reply to post by stander


I set a definition for the word "god" as it is to be used in this thread. A being or deity of some sort that created the universe, how he did it, why, etc etc.

I did not break rule number one because the term by definition towards this thread is a general one.

I specifically asked for no one to use terms associated with any religion except for the word "god" which is a general term.

God as a scientific concept. If god exists at all then he is in essence part of science. A fundamental force if you will. That is the purpose of this thread. God as a scientific concept.

I would assume someone with a Mandelbrot set in their avatar could do better than that.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by DaMod]

Originally posted by Toughiv
so the acceleration of the universe cannot be explained by the big bang?

That's a toughie. Why don't you read some of the cosmology links I've provided and tell us what you think?

Then we can (all) discuss your answer.