PART 1 (/cont.)

Will continue above later. Space problems.

Hawaiilawyer:

1. Zeus. What have provided is a definition of Zeus. What is asked is, "How does Zeus exist?". Please revisit. Sells, comment please.

2. Where infinite dimensionality exists, there is no requirement for
nothing. There is no space, no time. "Nothing", some see as in opposition to reality. Reality comes into existence from wave reduction. Some QM physicists would hold reality is not a very exact term. Not the philosoper's "do we exist" thing.

Reality is a state. "Nothing" is an irrelevant term. Even more so; "null", which in a way is less substantial than nothing is also irrelevant. Creation without a Creator.

If one assumes God has always existed, one can say that this begs the question, when [time] or what condition [outside of time]existed BEFORE God, when there was "nothing".

[Christian] religion does not explain how god came out of nothing and equally doesn't explain "nothing" itself. QM does explain what is loosely called, "reality": "Unreality" to "unreality" is not a sequential nothing/something, as with more primitive concepts. It is a [tentatively] explanable change of state shift from the infinitely indeterministic to the finite deterministic (Penrose).

Just shows we can get all manner of funny stuff when we talk teddy (i.e. god). Within this thread we read a wide variety of beliefs but are all held together with a common belief that it is worthwhile to express opinions no matter how wacky. That's excellent but it seems teddy can range through some particularly virulent forms, from a fundamentalist vengeful jack-in-the-box type teddy to others with wild apocalyptic and messianic visions, or even with a realestate focus or a childish truth as revealed focus as within Peter's article. i.e. Revelation from the divine hands of provident teddy to free us from the darkness of sin and death.

Then we get Oliver. I wonder if he can expand his thoughts on ... "BRIDGING the infinite to the finite." and how "the created universe(s) does not need a creator." i.e. Isn't this the funny belief in a curved space-time, finite universe? I like his thoughts on "nothingness" though.

Of course I mention infinity many times. My understanding is that the universe is infinite which is really not so far-fetched because it is based on observation and reason. When you look at the vast expanse of endless galaxies how can anyone believe that it all came from NOTHING. If it is expanding out then what is it expanding into ............. ITSELF? Just seems that an anthropic mindset cannot think outside the box and want to understand infinity. Even from ancient times infinity as a subject was one to be avoided with the essential view that infinity is a nothing, an incomprehensible that we should avoid referencing. My question is WHY, when it offers unparalleled richness?

It is a fair enough proposition to suggest the human mind can have little grasp on infinity – far better to accept, therefore, and to be content with the alpha and omega points our lives contain.

Let’s use The anthropic principle, as devised by Barrow and Tipler, which suggests, “The universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.” From this we can develop a non-theistic ‘physical eschatology’, “if life evolves in all of the many universes in a quantum cosmology, and if life continues to exist in all of these universes, then all of these universes, which include all possible histories among them, will approach the Omega Point. At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end. This perhaps stretches the limits of our logic – but, nevertheless, logical it is. A theologian today could well add that the totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!…. Can this be some strange sort of metaphor? I’m reminded of the pulsing of a wave (as in light particles) - both discrete and continuous.

In ascribing to the ‘Big Bang’ theory of the universe, the first fractions of a second after its formation, the universe was governed by a single fundamental interaction; the very early universe, being microscopic, was a quantum phenomenon. The first quanta thus pulsed into the macroscopic – that which is observable. As the "Strong Anthropic Principal" suggests (inferred from QM), “Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being." Another paradox: I cannot comprend infinity, but somehow, I know it to exist.

I like the question “How does Zeus exist?” The answer is the reason that the Greek gods were eliminated by the spread of Christianity. It became apparent that these were all projections of the mind. The existence of Zeus is subjective, he does not exist outside of the believer’s mind. This is Feuerbach’s original criticism of Christianity that is repeated ad nauseum on these pages.

Granted, much belief in the Christian God falls under this criticism but not essentially. This is surely what my article is about. If God is pure event then history is the medium of his revelation and that does not mean that he is pure projection.

I quite agree with Robert Russell when he says, “….we are moving into an era of radically new possibilities. Religion once again needs the rigors of science to rid it of superstition, for religion inevitably makes truth claims about this world that "God so loves," claims which must be weighed against the gruelling tribunal of evidence. More surprisingly, science needs religion to expose its pretensions to absolute authority and unique and unequivocal truth”

One can well understand the scientific atheism reached in the face of a preached and pedantic theism. Equally, the reaction to gross scientific materialism in ‘New Age’ remedy is also well understood. It is important to recognise, however, in the absence of any real ‘grounding’ we are “easy prey to New Age illusions wrapped in science-sounding language - the ‘cosmic self-realization movement' and the ‘wow of physics’- while our ‘de-natured’ religion, attempting to correct social wrong and to provide meaning and support for life's journey, is incapable of making its moral claims persuasive or its spiritual comfort effective because its cognitive claims are not credible.” Professor Robert John Russell (Centre for Theology and the Natural Sciences)

I agree Sells, there is a part of history in need of noting, recognition and believing. Seldom is it clearly understood.

Relda, your alpha and omega is classic funny stuff .... absolute beginnings and endings, bangs in vacuums, multiple universes all culminating with the totality of carbon based life as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. LOL

Just seems for the teddy believers it is mind before matter which is impossible. Your classic alpha and omega is mind over matter which is insecurity. Mine is mind out of matter which matters a great deal with unparalleled richness.

Relda, the "Strong Anthropic Principal" is weak and unimaginative on just about every level. Systems people only know closed systems which is not surprising really but if the universe is an infinite ENVIRONMENT then it is not a system however one wants to look at it. So let's not have silly cosmological models that are nonsensical and no different to earlier examples like the "wonderful" idea that the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle.

Just believe in an infinite universe ........ always existed and will always exist, infinite in the three spatial directions, infinite in the macro and micro. Infinite here refers to a process needing assumptions only to understand and this point explains why assumptions and not absolutes are necessary for thinking.

For example neither empty space nor solid matter can exist because they are human idealisations ..... i.e. absolutes. The reality in an infinite universe can only be the continuum between ..... never being an absolute solid nor an absolute space that we call a vacuum. If there can be no true vacuum then it is reasonable to conclude that the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility.

We cannot ignore the imperfections produced by INFINITY so truth is a relative process, not an end point.