The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Ben Dhyan]

It seems to me that if we could get God out of the way,
we could discover the true 'edges' of the creation as intended.
There, would be the real 'container' of the Cosmos
Like a multiverse within an infinite singularity.
'Time' doesn't exist there either.
~
silliness abounds !
~
'mud

Nice... what shall we call it? ...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It does not address how and when time began because, by definition, there is no beginning of time.

Yes it has a definition, time zero. Wherever the dimension of time doesn't exist, we can't even talk about negative time, because whatever existence there is "there" can only be referred to as timeless. In such an environment, things can only be "is" or "are", not always was.

Like a movie. A movie is a set of pictures in sequence. It does not begin to exist when you play it. And when you have played it, the movie is still there.

But the film has a beginning which is obvious when you run it through the projector where there is no image until the film starts. Bang.

Question. If you think time had a beginning, do you also think space has an origin? An initial location? Can you pinpoint it for me?

Our 4-D spacetime did, yes, which didn't exist until 10 to the -43 seconds after time zero--aka, the Planck Epoch. But there's no way to tell, at least at this point, where that location is/was. We don't even know if the universe is infinite or not, and if it is, there would be no initial point of origin--and there likely isn't one even if the universe isn't infinite, if it's curved into a multidimensional quantumland, or whatnot. If we rewind the Big Bang, it comes to a point (singularity) but it's meaningless to ask where that point is or was--there's no reference.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes it has a definition, time zero. Wherever the dimension of time doesn't exist, we can't even talk about negative time, because whatever existence there is "there" can only be referred to as timeless. In such an environment, things can only be "is" or "are", not always was.

But the film has a beginning which is obvious when you run it through the projector where there is no image until the film starts. Bang.

But the concept of time zero is merely a reference to the theoretical start of the expansion...this is analogous to the reference start time of the running of the film through the projector.. Reality does not come into existence when the film starts...only an illusionary one....in the same way absolute reality does not start at the theoretical beginning of a manifested aspect of the infinite cosmos....only a finite aspect....eternity is without beginning or end...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

QM and GR are two of the most successful theories in science and as such, neither can completely rule the other out. A reconciliation must exist. Thats simply a math problem and not a problem for reality, in that the issues with spacetime don't just go away when things get too small to calculate.

It is NOT a math problem. First, those who are most fantastical in their notions that mathematics can provide the solution are well aware that their approach (string theories) REQUIRE infinitely many "theories" of the universe(s).
Second, even today (when mathematics underlies, serves to produce, and exists as, physical theory) there is no mathematical solution to the problems that exist in quantum field theory (the foundation of the standard model of cosmology and particles) are more than well-aware that the problems with quantum-mechanical theories as they relate to ontology can't possibly mean much as a "math problem" when it is only physical intuition and observation that has both motivated modern physics and has constrained otherwise uncountably infinitely theories consistent with all of modern physics to be actualized.

 

[idav]

It is NOT a math problem. First, those who are most fantastical in their notions that mathematics can provide the solution are well aware that their approach (string theories) REQUIRE infinitely many "theories" of the universe(s).
Second, even today (when mathematics underlies, serves to produce, and exists as, physical theory) there is no mathematical solution to the problems that exist in quantum field theory (the foundation of the standard model of cosmology and particles) are more than well-aware that the problems with quantum-mechanical theories as they relate to ontology can't possibly mean much as a "math problem" when it is only physical intuition and observation that has both motivated modern physics and has constrained otherwise uncountably infinitely theories consistent with all of modern physics to be actualized.

When the problem is the theories clash when the maths clash, then its a math problem. I doubt many people have issue with the ontology as much as they do with the math that never gets resolved.

 

[viole]

Yes it has a definition, time zero. Wherever the dimension of time doesn't exist, we can't even talk about negative time, because whatever existence there is "there" can only be referred to as timeless. In such an environment, things can only be "is" or "are", not always was.

Time has no objective reality. At least in relativity. So, I have no idea what time zero means.

But the film has a beginning which is obvious when you run it through the projector where there is no image until the film starts. Bang.

Yes, but the film is still there. Or do you think it poofed into existence when you start playing it?

Our 4-D spacetime did, yes, which didn't exist until 10 to the -43 seconds after time zero--aka, the Planck Epoch. But there's no way to tell, at least at this point, where that location is/was. We don't even know if the universe is infinite or not, and if it is, there would be no initial point of origin--and there likely isn't one even if the universe isn't infinite, if it's curved into a multidimensional quantumland, or whatnot. If we rewind the Big Bang, it comes to a point (singularity) but it's meaningless to ask where that point is or was--there's no reference.

Same with time. It is equally meaningless to speak of time zero as it is to speak of location zero. Unless you arbitrarily mark them so. They have otherwise no special ontology like a beginning or anything. They are just a location on the 4 dimensional manifold. Which is "still" there, by the way.

And what do you mean "it did not exist until..."? You are using tensed verbs that make sense only when you have a spacetime frame in place. It is like saying that spacetime had no location before existing.

I am afraid, you are committing the composition fallacy. Things that make sense within our spacetime, do not necessarily make sense for the whole 4 dimensional block.

Consider this. The popular science you can read in glossy magazines says the Universe is expanding. But against what reference frame are we measuring its expansion?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Time has no objective reality. At least in relativity. So, I have no idea what time zero means.



Yes, but the film is still there. Or do you think it poofed into existence when you start playing it?



Same with time. It is equally meaningless to speak of time zero as it is to speak of location zero. Unless you arbitrarily mark them so. They have otherwise no special ontology like a beginning or anything. They are just a location on the 4 dimensional manifold. Which is "still" there, by the way.

And what do you mean "it did not exist until..."? You are using tensed verbs that make sense only when you have a spacetime frame in place. It is like saying that spacetime had no location before existing.

I am afraid, you are committing the composition fallacy. Things that make sense within our spacetime, do not necessarily make sense for the whole 4 dimensional block.

Consider this. The popular science you can read in glossy magazines says the Universe is expanding. But against what reference frame are we measuring its expansion?

Ciao

- viole

Time zero means hitting an event horizon.

 

[idav]

Time is as real as space because it is really "spacetime".

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Time has no objective reality. At least in relativity. So, I have no idea what time zero means.

Yes it has a reality, it's a dimension without which space would be static, only one frame, if that.

Yes, but the film is still there. Or do you think it poofed into existence when you start playing it?

All analogies are flawed, and you just found yours.

Same with time. It is equally meaningless to speak of time zero as it is to speak of location zero. Unless you arbitrarily mark them so. They have otherwise no special ontology like a beginning or anything. They are just a location on the 4 dimensional manifold. Which is "still" there, by the way.

Location zero, equals time zero, equals the singularity.

And what do you mean "it did not exist until..."? You are using tensed verbs that make sense only when you have a spacetime frame in place. It is like saying that spacetime had no location before existing.

Precisely. Spacetime is in place at time zero plus the Planck Epoch.

I am afraid, you are committing the composition fallacy. Things that make sense within our spacetime, do not necessarily make sense for the whole 4 dimensional block.

But they do...except apparently not for quantum transactions "outside" of our 4-D universe that take place in a timeless quantumland.

Consider this. The popular science you can read in glossy magazines says the Universe is expanding

I'm no cosmologist, but I don't read the glossy mags either.
.

But against what reference frame are we measuring its expansion?

The universal constant of the speed of light, and the Hubble Constant which relates distance to red shift. The universe may be infinite, but our reference is a sphere with a radius of 13 billion light years. If there is an edge, it's not within that radius.

 

[viole]

Time zero means hitting an event horizon.

According to which observer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Time is as real as space because it is really "spacetime".

Which is in flagrant contradiction with relativity.

May I ask what your level of knowledge about relativity is? I need this information to correctly tune the parameters for my next posts.

Ciao

- viole

 

[`mud]

I really love quantumland
other than that......
~
'mud

 

[idav]

Which is in flagrant contradiction with relativity.

No it isn't.

Well regardless I like this answer which says time keeps slowing down as it approaches the event horizon but never really stops. It also addresses the issue that there isn't a way to calculate "zero time" because it becomes infinite.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...me-stop-at-the-event-horizon-or-in-the-centra

I've seen Michio Kaku demonstrate the issue in math terms and it simply becomes an issue of dividing by zero. To me this means the event horizon means timelessness but I'm not really married to the idea. In the video he says, and I quote "infinity is a monstrosity where gravity is infinite and time stops" and says something to the affect that it is impossible and "there is a fundamental flaw to einsteins theory." I found a 30 second excerpt.

So it sounds far-fetched but thats what the theory alludes to.

So what is your level of knowledge of relativity?

 

[Berserk]

This thread has understandably strayed from its original question of what the Big Bang implies about God and God's existence. To be meaningful, then, some working conception of the presumed deity seems advisable. The classic metaphysical question is: Why is there something rather than nothing at all? This question confronts us with a choice: Is the universe an unintelligible brute fact--a fact for which there can be no why? Or is the universe created by a Creator (God)? The next question is: What is meant by "God?" That question can initially be divided into 2 basic possibilities: (1) God is a Supreme Being, which after creation, is supreme among countless other beings. But that possibility must again confront the question: Is God then an unintelligible brute fact for which there can be no why? So what is the alternate conception? (2) God is not the Supreme Being. Rather God is the ground of all Being and, as such, has in God's own nature the reason for God's existence. E.g. "In God we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28)."

Is there any way to make this alternate definition meaningful? What might be meant by the ground of all Being? This question leads to the question, Is God universal Consciousness, from which all living and inanimate things are manifestations? That question in turn leads to the mind/body problem. Am I a ghost within a machine? Or as many neurologists now believe, is my brain like a transformer, transmitting consciousness into thoughts and somatic communication and functions? This view rejects the reduction of mind states to brain states, despite the fact that brain states affect how my mind can function through my body. But on that model, where and what is my mind? Is Universal Mind (God) experienced individualistically when my brain transformer makes it part of my experience? Or do living minds exist in other dimensions, having been created by or evolved from Universal Mind. In short, for me, any theistic understanding of the Big Bang's origin is connected to the question of whether God is Universal Consciousness and, as such, the ground of all Being. But that understanding makes consciousness (life) more fundamental to reality than our conventional understanding of matter/ energy. And consciousness is so poorly understood scientifically--and in terms of its role in evolution--that I can't get much further than this.

 

[viole]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. Differences in time and extensions of space, depend on the observer. And are therefore, not objective.

So what is your level of knowledge of relativity?

Enough to know the very basics. Like that distances in time and space depend on the observer, while distances in spacetime do not.
Unlike you, apparently

But we can work it out together if you want. Are you proficient in Lorenzian or hiperbolic geometries?

I need this information to correctly set the parameters for the rest of the discussion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Yes it is. Differences in time and extensions of space, depend on the observer. And are therefore, not objective.



Enough to know the very basics. Like that distances in time and space depend on the observer, while distances in spacetime do not.
Unlike you, apparently

But we can work it out together if you want. Are you proficient in Lorenzian or hiperbolic geometries?

I need this information to correctly set the parameters for the rest of the discussion.

Ciao

- viole

I cited a scientist saying essentially same as me, try addressing that first. Show me how Michio Kaku is mistaken on the ramifications of relativity.

 

[`mud]

If anyone believes in the Big Bang Theory,
must be pitied, no matter the name or origin.
No "singularity" !
~
'mud
.

 

[viole]

I cited a scientist saying essentially same as me, try addressing that first. Show me how Michio Kaku is mistaken on the ramifications of relativity.

Well, I am debating you, not M. Kaku. I always wondered why people delegate their thinking to someone else and expect we swallow it just because that someone has a "Phd" string that prefixes his name. This seems to be a pretty common tactic among creationists.

If I throw at you a list of tensorial differential equations and claim that they invalidate his reasoning, what are you going to do? Call him?

Incidentally, M.Kaku is questioning whether relativity is still valid at extreme regimes, like the ones we find at the so-called singularity (where everything becomes infinite), which is a moniker for "what we do not know". But I think all physicists question that, since physicists do not like infinities without an obvious renormalization available. When you do not know how nature behaves at certain regimes, it does not make much sense to say the relativity, or anything else, is still valid there. This is obvious.

But in general he does not seem to doubt the validitty of relativity, in general. I think he was one of the doubters of the the news of alleged superluminal neutrinos found during an experiment a few years ago. A finding that would have invalidated special relativity. Therefore, his confidence on the basic tenets of relativity seems intact.

The fact that intervals of time between two events is relative to the observer, and that there is not such a thing as objective simultaneity, are results of experiments. And are therefore accepted facts, independently from relativity breaking at the core of a black hole. Even if relativity were false, they would still be valid.

So, do you accept these facts? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Well, I am debating you, not M. Kaku. I always wondered why people delegate their thinking to someone else and expect we swallow it just because that someone has a "Phd" string that prefixes his name. This seems to be a pretty common tactic among creationists.

If I throw at you a list of tensorial differential equations and claim that they invalidate his reasoning, what are you going to do? Call him?

Incidentally, M.Kaku is questioning whether relativity is still valid at extreme regimes, like the ones we find at the so-called singularity (where everything becomes infinite), which is a moniker for "what we do not know". But I think all physicists question that, since physicists do not like infinities without an obvious renormalization available. When you do not know how nature behaves at certain regimes, it does not make much sense to say the relativity, or anything else, is still valid there. This is obvious.

But in general he does not seem to doubt the validitty of relativity, in general. I think he was one of the doubters of the the news of alleged superluminal neutrinos found during an experiment a few years ago. A finding that would have invalidated special relativity. Therefore, his confidence on the basic tenets of relativity seems intact.

The fact that intervals of time between two events is relative to the observer, and that there is not such a thing as objective simultaneity, are results of experiments. And are therefore accepted facts, independently from relativity breaking at the core of a black hole. Even if relativity were false, they would still be valid.

So, do you accept these facts? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

I didn't reference a scientist as some sort of appeal to authority. I did it to show my reasoning and understanding is sound and you have yet to show where I am mistaken.

Your delving into the observer issue which I also addressed with the scenario of a clock going into a black hole.

The simultaneity thing, can you reference experiments where it has been debunked? I don't believe anything travels faster than light, there would be other reasons it works I think because of the whole bending of spacetime thing.

 

[viole]

I didn't reference a scientist as some sort of appeal to authority. I did it to show my reasoning and understanding is sound and you have yet to show where I am mistaken.

Your delving into the observer issue which I also addressed with the scenario of a clock going into a black hole.

The simultaneity thing, can you reference experiments where it has been debunked? I don't believe anything travels faster than light, there would be other reasons it works I think because of the whole bending of spacetime thing.

The whole bending of the whole spacetime thing is general relativity. As such, it is based on the correctness of special relativity. Which includes relativity of simultaneity.

You seem to think that theory X, which assumes the correctness of Y, contradicts Y.

In other words, your attempt to salvage absolute simultaneity, by invoking a theory that assumes it, is self defeating.

Ciao

- viole