God and time and space

[Cheerful Charlie]

Love how orthodox believers often pretend they know how the Supreme Being operates & under what (or no) parameters...until they reach a point where it would appear the S.B. is either hateful or noninterventional, and then it's back to "We are mere humans, and the created cannot understand the creator." It's a wretched fiction where they write all the rules to cover all the contingencies. BTW, believers, what are the specific texts that convince you that the SB is outside of space and time? (Not that the texts should prove anything, but just asking.) Also, how can a SB who is outside of time be angered and disappointed and change his (its) deal with mankind, i.e., the Genesis flood legend? Quote: And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

God is incomprehensible, so we cannot reason about God therefore God of the gaps.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is space a field or do fields exist in space?

As for the god angle, it's pretty obvious god can be anything and anything contradictory so what's the point of discussing the idea.

/rhetorical

 

[WAB]

Is space a field or do fields exist in space?

Canto XIII : the Knower of the Field

It is to such a loved and loving devotee that Krishna now offers insights into two of the subtlest concepts of Upanishadic philosophy : Purusha and Prakriti, and Kshetra and Kshetrajna. Loosely, one may translate the first pair as Male and Femal; or Spirit and Nature; or Soul and Matter; or Energy and Mass. The second can be Englished with greater precision : Field and the Knower of the Field.

from here:

http://thedivinedialogue.blogspot.com/2009/06/canto-xiii-knower-of-field.html

Just throwing this out as something to ponder.

 

[George S]

I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space. How can that be? If he has substance then he has space and is inside a space and if he thinks or does anything he is acting within time.

This creation is an artifact within God's universe. It has a beginning and an end and is a complete whole static and unchanging. Except that God pokes the thing from time to time. To the denizens it always was that way. He decided for reasons best known to Him (God's ways are mysterious) to make certain revelations available at some times and in some places. Inconsistencies just for grins and giggles (and wars in the Middle East, never mind).

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space. How can that be? If he has substance then he has space and is inside a space and if he thinks or does anything he is acting within time.

Something might exist outside our spacetime and on occasions perhaps negligently somehow move into it, causing confusion and mayhem. It might have created our universe too. Yet, I don't understand how all this might be possible at all unless our spacetime is not really four-dimensional. In this case, the situation would be more like this Thing is like a Neighbour for us, sometimes intruding into our little rather flattish universe while we would be almost entirely confined to it and would take it for the whole of reality, trying to figure out how this place works all on its own. In order for us to discover convincing laws of nature as it could be argued that we did, this Thing shouldn't intrude too massively and too conspicuously, but maybe It's a little shy or just too damn small for us to notice too well. Of course I can't see how that would make It a God but I can see how it would help some people believe It is a God. As to making claim about it, that would require evidence we don't have. More difficult still to justify would be the claim that this Thing exists outside our spacetime. Either we share with It one spacetime, although not necessarily the one we now believe we inhabit, and then maybe we have tea and biscuits with It someday, or It somehow exists outside our spacetime and I don't understand how It could cause any trouble within our universe or how anyone of us could justify knowing anything about it. So, overall it seems rather a desperate move to go into that particular direction. One could argue that such a Thing would be beyond our understanding anyway but then zillions of other putative Things would be too so I'm not sure what particular merit or attraction this fanciful idea has to its religious supporters. When you no longer know what you could do to come out of your prison then you can still try doing the first thing that pops up into your imagination. I'm sure it must have worked out fine for one or two desperados.
EB

 

[Underseer]

There's really no good reason to believe that metaphysical time is a valid concept. The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.

Who said anything about "metaphysical time"? Are you just throwing my words in a blender and assuming what you get out is equivalent to what you put in? The universe having 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is a valid concept; cause-and-effect partial order is a valid concept; they are two different concepts; and every physicist uses both of them. Those are facts, not matters of belief. But it is entirely likely that lots of physicists haven't ever thought about the difference between the two concepts. If so, that could easily lead those physicists to carelessly assume that what observation can tell us about one concept will also apply to the other; their belief on this point carries no more weight than Einstein's belief that God doesn't throw dice. When experts speculate beyond the evidence they're speculating beyond their expertise.

Really? Now you're claiming that you have thought about time and space more carefully than physicists?

When are you going to publish your work? I can't wait to tell everyone that I knew you before you were famous!

 

[Bomb#20]

... But it is entirely likely that lots of physicists haven't ever thought about the difference between the two concepts. If so, that could easily lead those physicists to carelessly assume that what observation can tell us about one concept will also apply to the other; their belief on this point carries no more weight than Einstein's belief that God doesn't throw dice. When experts speculate beyond the evidence they're speculating beyond their expertise.

Really? Now you're claiming that you have thought about time and space more carefully than physicists?

What, are physicists a type of demigod in your mind? They're regular human beings with a specialization, just like electricians. Some of them have thought about time and space more carefully than me, and some of them haven't. Duh. Some physicists have no interest in philosophy and have taken to heart Feynman's advice to shut up and calculate. My point was that I don't know whether the earlier poster was correct when he claimed "The majority of physicists believe time had a beginning.", and there's no reason for any of us to care whether he was correct. Their opinions have no bearing on whether there was a first cause.

When are you going to publish your work? I can't wait to tell everyone that I knew you before you were famous!

I take it you've resorted to ridiculing me because you're certain I'm wrong but you're utterly unable to articulate a reason.

Why on earth would you imagine that my claim is the sort of discovery that would be fame-inducing, or publication-worthy, or even original? It follows trivially from two well-known facts: the fact that our universe might be a simulation, and the fact that certain formal systems that don't depend on being embedded in spacetime dimensions, such as lambda calculus and counter machines, are Turing equivalent. I can't plausibly be the first person to have noticed. If you haven't seen it before, so what? It's not as though it provides a prediction of an observable. So why on earth would you assume if I were correct then you'd have seen some famous physicist pointing it out? Physicists who've thought about time and space more carefully than me usually have better things to do with their time and space than refute yet another lame-ass "God is the First Cause" argument. Refutations of theists are a dime a dozen.

 

[Underseer]

What, are physicists a type of demigod in your mind? They're regular human beings with a specialization, just like electricians. Some of them have thought about time and space more carefully than me, and some of them haven't.

I am not claiming that physicists are demigods. I am simply aware that time and space are part of their area of expertise because it is the very thing that they study, and here you are clearly claiming to know more about time and space than the experts who study time and space. While it is entirely possible that you are correct, perhaps you can understand why I find your claim highly unlikely.

First you would have to demonstrate an understanding of what physicists understand about time and space before you can claim to know more than some of them, and you have not as yet demonstrated that. You have simply made the claim that you understand time and space better than some unspecified subgroup of physicists.

It is entirely possible that you know more about medicine than medical researchers, but if you want me to believe that is the case, then you're going to have to do something to demonstrate that this actually is the case. It is entirely possible that you know more about circuits than electrical engineers, but if you want me to believe you, you are going to have to demonstrate that this is actually the case.

You have made the claim that you understand time better than the people who study time (among other things) for a living, yet so far you have not demonstrated that you have any understanding at all of what the experts actually know or don't know about time. You simply declare your superior expertise and expect me to accept you at your word.

 

[Bomb#20]

What, are physicists a type of demigod in your mind? They're regular human beings with a specialization, just like electricians. Some of them have thought about time and space more carefully than me, and some of them haven't.

I am not claiming that physicists are demigods. I am simply aware that time and space are part of their area of expertise because it is the very thing that they study, and here you are clearly claiming to know more about time and space than the experts who study time and space. While it is entirely possible that you are correct, perhaps you can understand why I find your claim highly unlikely.

First you would have to demonstrate an understanding of what physicists understand about time and space before you can claim to know more than some of them, and you have not as yet demonstrated that. You have simply made the claim that you understand time and space better than some unspecified subgroup of physicists.

It is entirely possible that you know more about medicine than medical researchers, but if you want me to believe that is the case, then you're going to have to do something to demonstrate that this actually is the case. It is entirely possible that you know more about circuits than electrical engineers, but if you want me to believe you, you are going to have to demonstrate that this is actually the case.

You have made the claim that you understand time better than the people who study time (among other things) for a living, yet so far you have not demonstrated that you have any understanding at all of what the experts actually know or don't know about time. You simply declare your superior expertise and expect me to accept you at your word.

Let's back up a second here. Where the hell are you getting the notion that I expect you to accept me at my word? I was arguing with Random Person. You butted in with a pile of insulting nonsense. Whether you accept my expertise is immaterial because I am not offering an argument from authority. I explained why Random Person was wrong, and that explanation is equally solid whether it came from me, from Stephen Hawking or from a million monkeys at a million typewriters. (Oh, and I bloody well do know more about circuits than most electrical engineers. I'm a professional electrical engineer with a dozen-odd patents and a well-above-average EE salary, and it's no skin off my nose if you don't believe that.)

The second claim at issue here is unimportant and let's dispose of it quickly: the claim that I understand time and space better than some unspecified subgroup of physicists. That's not something I need anyone to believe; I only pointed it out because for some reason best known to yourself you chose to take for granted that it isn't the case and insulted me over it. You're talking as though it's an extraordinary claim. Why would you imagine such a thing? What, you seriously think every single physicist understands time and space better than some random but competent EE? That would be the extraordinary claim -- that's not the way human expertise is distributed. You might as well claim every single professional chef can make better stroganoff than my mother. There's a Gaussian distribution of understanding among physicists as among every other specialty; of course some of them are going to be below me. If you've ever had a college physics class them some of them are probably below you -- that's Gaussian distributions for you. Moreover, you're wrong about what it is physicists do. No, time and space are not what physicists study, for the most part. The great bulk of what they study is the particles and waves that fly around in time and space. Einstein studied time and space; but the average working physicist takes time and space as a given and doesn't even use what Einstein found out about them. 90+ percent of quantum mechanics problems are solved non-relativistically, because it's a lot easier and the resulting inaccuracy is tiny. So no, here I am clearly not claiming to know more about time and space than the experts who study time and space; I'm claiming to know more about them than some subset of the experts who study band-gap energies and nuclear reactions and leave time and space to the Einsteins of the world. Clear?

Now, as to what I was actually claiming when you butted in. What is it you disagree with? That a time dimension and causality are two different things? Do you understand the difference between a "weak order" and a "partial order"? Look them up in Wikipedia if you don't. A time dimension puts a weak order on events. Causality puts a partial order on events. A partial order is a mathematically looser constraint on a relation than a weak order. Therefore causality doesn't logically require a time dimension. Therefore discovering that a time dimension has a beginning wouldn't imply anything one way or the other about whether causality has a beginning. If abstract math doesn't convince you, just consider the possibility that what we think of as "the universe" is actually a simulation (which it might be for all we know). Just because the computer running the simulation doesn't start counting simulated time until it simulates a Big Bang doesn't mean it wasn't executing instructions in a cause-and-effect sequence while it was getting itself set up to simulate a Big Bang. So unless you can prove our universe isn't a simulation you have no grounds for jumping from a beginning of our universe's time to a first cause.

Or do you disagree about the standard model of physics breaking down and not telling us what was happening before the Planck Time? If so, tell me, as a matter of logic, how there could possibly be evidence for an actual singularity at Time Zero. Big Bang cosmology is based on starting with observation of current conditions and mathematically running the laws of physics backwards. We infer a hotter, denser past because the known laws predict that a hotter, denser world would change continuously into the sort of world we see now. That's how we deduce what the universe was like three minutes into the Big Bang, and three seconds in, and three nanoseconds in. But all of those laws say how a finitely dense universe behaves. To extrapolate back to a singularity at the beginning of time is to say "It was infinitely dense, and then it changed to finite density." But we have no laws of physics to back us up on such an inference, no laws that say what happens when you start with an infinitely dense state. So there is no basis for predicting that a singularity would change into the sort of world we see now. So any extrapolation all the way to T=0 is illegitimate. Any physicist who does that is speculating, not reasoning. Why would you believe him, unless you think he's a demigod?

Without extrapolation to T=0, all we have is T=1, and before that T=0.1, and before that T=0.01, and so on, indefinitely. None of those times we can legitimately infer give a sign of being the Beginning of Time.

None of the foregoing depends on you believing in my expertise. Work the problem for yourself.

 

[George S]

...Big Bang cosmology is based on starting with observation of current conditions and mathematically running the laws of physics backwards. We infer a hotter, denser past because the known laws predict that a hotter, denser world would change continuously into the sort of world we see now. That's how we deduce what the universe was like three minutes into the Big Bang, and three seconds in, and three nanoseconds in. But all of those laws say how a finitely dense universe behaves. To extrapolate back to a singularity at the beginning of time is to say "It was infinitely dense, and then it changed to finite density." But we have no laws of physics to back us up on such an inference, no laws that say what happens when you start with an infinitely dense state. So there is no basis for predicting that a singularity would change into the sort of world we see now. So any extrapolation all the way to T=0 is illegitimate. Any physicist who does that is speculating, not reasoning. Why would you believe him, unless you think he's a demigod?

Without extrapolation to T=0, all we have is T=1, and before that T=0.1, and before that T=0.01, and so on, indefinitely. None of those times we can legitimately infer give a sign of being the Beginning of Time.

Hawking doesn't like t=0 either.

Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the universe has no origin as we would understand it: the universe was a singularity in both space and time....

View attachment 813

When the universe is/was very small quantum effects take hold. In the above diagrams the first is an annihilation/recreation of an electron and positron. For a brief while it was just a photon before it was an electron and a positron again. The second is a photon as the mediator (force carrier) so the interacting point particles (if such there are (I think there are no point particles, just mathematical centers.)) never touch.

Thought experiment:

Let the incoming particle and anti-particle represent shrinking space. In the first they meet at a point, but not really. A photon adopts the characteristics of a wave of probability as it begins its existence. Distinctly non-pointlike. And an expanding universe with the same energy and form emerges. In the second there is no point where they meet. In the first there is a t=0, but not really. In the second there is obviously not. Time runs left to right or right to left, your choice. Arrows consistent with time's arrow are universes moving forward in time. Those with the arrow reversed are that same universe moving backward in time or the anti-universe moving forward.​

Note that there is, from our perspective a whole shrinking universe where, to the denizens therein time runs the other way from our time. To them, of course, we are shrinking into theirs. And physics need only represent what is going on back to Planck time because that is all there is that is real.

The metaphor "works" if Feynman diagrams represent reality when the "particles" are space and anti-space changing over time. I see no singularity over time. Energy and space are strongly interrelated. "Energy," Feynman says, "comes in lumps." It has both a center and extent. A photon, massless energy, has the locus of a sphere expanding at the speed of light in space (all points on the sphere at once, weighted by probability) until the dice are rolled and the energy delivered to the "particle" nearby (the particle's being right there, right then, with the wave arriving being the cause of the dice roll). We force the dice roll by painting the wall black. Or silver too. In the latter case the amount absorbed is tiny, but the photon that bounces is not identical to the one that arrived. It is red-shifted by that tiny amount.

 

[Underseer]

Bomb#20, you are claiming to be a better expert than the experts. Here's the problem: you don't know what they know about time (that much is obvious from your posts), therefore you don't know what it is they don't know, so when you claim to know what they don't know, you're claiming to understand something you obviously don't understand, and your own posts make this very clear.

I know that it is tempting to think that any  just-so story (ad hoc fallacy) you make up on the spot must necessarily be more true than all that tedious math and evidence stuff, but if you want people to think you are as expert as you already think you are, you're going to have to stop doing that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space. How can that be? If he has substance then he has space and is inside a space and if he thinks or does anything he is acting within time.

The best example to begin understanding the intelligible universe is the question how do numbers exist?

 

[George S]

I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space. How can that be? If he has substance then he has space and is inside a space and if he thinks or does anything he is acting within time.

The best example to begin understanding the intelligible universe is the question how do numbers exist?

Choose any dichotomy. Any yes/no. Black/White. Existence/non-Existence.

non-Existence is 0
Axiom. Existence is 1

And so it begins.

Axiom. Just as 1 is 0+1 we suppose each number has a successor which, too, is a number and has that interval from 0 to 1 to the successor.
+1 at a time it continues as long as time is 1. All natural numbers here.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Do numbers exist in time and space?

 

[George S]

Do numbers exist in time and space?

Do concepts exist in time and space?

At least self-concepts do. Existence has the logical value 1, not 0, therefor. Again, 1 and the successor operator generate all ordinals. Unary representation may be used to generate all natural numbers. | || ||| |||| ||||| |||||| ...

 

[Horatio Parker]

Do numbers exist in time and space?

Do concepts exist in time and space?

At least self-concepts do. Existence has the logical value 1, not 0, therefor. Again, 1 and the successor operator generate all ordinals. Unary representation may be used to generate all natural numbers. | || ||| |||| ||||| |||||| ...

If that's a yes, then when and where are they ie numbers? Where in time and space is a geometrical point?

 

[Bomb#20]

So no, here I am clearly not claiming to know more about time and space than the experts who study time and space; I'm claiming to know more about them than some subset of the experts who study band-gap energies and nuclear reactions and leave time and space to the Einsteins of the world. Clear?
...
None of the foregoing depends on you believing in my expertise. Work the problem for yourself.

Bomb#20, you are claiming to be a better expert than the experts.

Either (a) identify some experts on time and space and quote me claiming to be a better expert on time and space than them; or (b) stop putting words in my mouth. You are ignoring the content of my posts and setting up a strawman to argue against, much as you do in your endless insulting "[/conservolibertarian]" diatribes. You are writing posts you do not have an intellectually honest reason to write. Why do you behave this way?

Here's the problem: you don't know what they know about time

According to George S, Stephen Hawking agrees with me that from known physics it is not valid to infer an origin of the universe. So put up or shut up -- go ahead, tell us all something I don't know that "they" know about time. And if it's that "they" know time had a beginning, then also tell us how you know "they" are better experts on time than Stephen Hawking.

I know that it is tempting to think that any  just-so story (ad hoc fallacy) you make up on the spot must necessarily be more true than all that tedious math and evidence stuff,

, says the guy who ignored the tedious math I already posted and who made up stories on the spot and imputed them to me.

Here's some more tedious math for you: topology. Do you understand the difference between closed and open intervals, for example, the interval (0,1) vs. the interval [0,1]? If you don't, go look it up. Now, in the case of dimensions of space and time, which type of interval does applying a law of physics to a set of observations let you make inferences about? And which type of interval is a time dimension that has a beginning?

but if you want people to think you are as expert as you already think you are, you're going to have to stop doing that.

Which part of "Work the problem for yourself." don't you understand? I'm not an expert on time and space. I have not claimed to be one, and you are committing libel by repeatedly falsely claiming that I have, which you are doing with reckless disregard for the truth and probably with malice. Nothing in my argument requires expertise, just straightforward reasoning.

 

[Underseer]

According to George S, Stephen Hawking agrees with me that from known physics it is not valid to infer an origin of the universe.

And right here, we see the extent of your delusion. Have you actually read any of Hawking's recent books? He's willing to go a step further than most other physicists and strongly express the opinion that there was an actual singularity at the moment of creation, and then draw further conclusions from that.

 

[Kharakov]

According to George S, Stephen Hawking agrees with me that from known physics it is not valid to infer an origin of the universe.

And right here, we see the extent of your delusion. Have you actually read any of Hawking's recent books?

You talking about Georges Secret Key to the Universe?

He's willing to go a step further than most other physicists and strongly express the opinion that there was an actual singularity at the moment of creation, and then draw further conclusions from that.

Dude, opposite day again (or always??)? What about his "Top Down Approach" paper from 2007?

 

[Underseer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the singularity central to his "There is no god" argument?