Christian Cosmology?

[rookieonedge]

I was skimming through a book by Feynman, and my eyes lit on something that spoke to me. Basically that our knowledge cannot be reduced to a set of differebtial equations. Reductionist materialism falls on the simple grounds that they have never found anything to reduce it to. Bishop Berkeley, the “idealist” may not have disproved materialism, but I have never seen a convincing anwer to the question “What IS matter?” The deeper they go into the subatomic world, the less “there” do they find “there.” The deeper they go into space, the MORE they find “there.” So the interchangeability of matter and energy means thatthe “empty spaces” that so awed Pascal and no “empty” at all but have more “mass” than the galaxies. But at bottom “mass” is simply a ratio. And as to the term “energy.” I see only another way of talking about “place” when they are unsure what “place” means. They dismiss Aristotle’s notion of motion, but then say that, when theytalk to use, that physics is bodies in motion. Only there are no" bodies "and that motion is the measurement of these non- bodies. I trust I have sufficiently shared my confusion.

I can only heartily agree that, as you said, “our knowledge cannot be reduced to a set of differential equations.” However, “anti-theists” (as jd calls them), attempt to reduce the arguments of theists to “nothingness!” For examle, I inadvertantly got into a discussion of the existence of God and origins on a thread that was created as a forum on abortion. In trying to present Aquinas’ proofs, starting with the observation of “efficient causes in the world,” my opponent scratches that explanation maintaining that the assertion is only true on the macroscopic level, but false on the sub-atomic level, even though there is not an abundance of knowledge yet of sub-atomic particles (as least not to my knowledge, which isn’t saying much). As an aside, my own background is wanting in mathematics (just a few more credits for a second major but dropped it) and science (only basic physics), but my interest has always been in that direction. So, you see, I’m only on the level of Issac Asimov’s popular science books. I can see from what is being postulated, such as yppop’s hypothesis as well as others’ analysis, I’m out of bounds here. (Must do more reading, including the book by Feynman, which I’ve added to my list).

How true that we still cannot answer the question, “What is matter?” How does Einstein’s equation converting energy to matter actually work in the universe(s)? I read in another post that science suggests a universe that is infinite in spatial extent and infinite towards the future temporally. It is unclear about the past, although the evidence is towards there being a “beginning.” Space is said to be expanding, yet I had understood previously that the universe is a closed system. It’s irreconcilable to my mind.

So it seems that Pascal, being “awed” by the “empty spaces” delved into the incredible phenomenon that they have more “mass”, as you said, than the galaxies. It is my understanding that yppop is theorizing on the reason for this. As for making “energy” analagous to “place”, you said, “when they are unsure what ‘place’ means.” Trying to understand the four dimensions of “space”, “time”, “energy” and “mass” and how they inter-relate is an intellectual quagmire for scientists, but an intesting pursuit.

As for your contention that Aristotle’s idea of “motion” is summarily dismissed, you are right in pointing out the Reductionists’ inconsistency in their thinking. But, then, they dismiss Thomas Aquinas as well.

Sorry I can’t provide any logical arguments in this area or even present coherent understanding of these complex ideas. I’m just reading and trying to understand the basics of Cosmology. It’s really fascinating.

 

[rookieonedge]

Hi Rookie,
You are not alone in having trouble understanding my thesis. If you look at the statistics on my thread, there are 800 visits and only 29 replies and 16 of those are mine. Not a very good record for stimulating discussion. Since the 800 visits indicate an interest, I can only conclude that there is a lack of understanding. The interest in the subject of the nature of reality is also indicated by the number of threads (this one for example).in which the topic comes up.

Here is the basis for my thesis: I contend that the basic structure of reality is two kinds of space: infinite nothingness and discrete space. Infinite nothingness, which has the property of continuous space, existed before discrete space. Therefore, discrete space was derived from the infinite nothingness and first appeared at the big bang. Discrete space consists of points separated by gaps. Infinite nothingness fills those gaps. Infinite nothingness has all the attributes of the transcendent God the Father. It is infinite, formless, immutable, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. (I have arguments to support each of those characteristics). I argue that God the Father is infinite nothingness. One of the beauties of infinity is that you can subtract and infinite set of things from it and still not diminish it one bit. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that there are an infinite number of integers and for every integer you can create an even integer by multiplying each integer by two, so there is an infinite number of even numbers. This means that there are as many even integers as all the integers of which they are only a part. Infinity is a thing in which a part can equal the whole. We come from God without diminishing Him.

In my view, God uses the discrete points (s-points) to create objective reality using the big bang. From all that I have read I infer that the sequence of the big bang is: space, time and energy, and finally matter. It is from space that the other three primary elements of reality are derived. In a sense, discrete space is the ground of objective reality. Matter is nothing more than a distortion of discrete space. This is essentially what string theory, or quantum loop theory, the two most prominent attempts by modern science to get to the ground of reality, imply. Until one of those two theories break out of the mathematical cul-de-sac they are currently trapped in, the accepted theory for the creation of matter is the Higgs particle, which is associated with the Higgs field. The Higgs field incidentally is nothing more than space with a special property. I think the so-called Higgs field is nothing more than discrete space.

Congratulation of raising a son that has the intelligence and tenacity to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. Not an easy task, one that calls for a lot of work and sacrifice. Mechanical engineers have accomplished a lot of amazing things in the manufacturing and aero-space industries. Engineers get scant recognition, so you have a right to boast.

A mathematical formulation is the surest way to establish a thesis as science. The problem is that the variables of the phenomena being modeled have to have consistent relationships with one another. What I am dealing with is the nature of the spiritual impact on the meaning of life, which isn’t susceptible to mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation that was devised by Newton increases in complexity with depth of the investigation. String theory that attempts to describe the ground of matter is a mathematical nightmare. On the other hand, there is a trend in the literature to look to the algorithm as the modeling tool of the future. The algorithm is the soul of the computer. It does not do away with mathematical formulation, it merely subsumes it. Equations are built into the algorithm as sub-routines. What an algorithm provides is a means for modeling contingency.

I do have a couple of my grandchildren that appear to be interested in my thesis and will listen to me, but I suspect that is out of respect, which counts more to me than genuine interest. I have been supremely fortunate in living within easy access of all my children and grandchildren and spend an inordinate amount of time seeing them, especially the younger ones.

to be contnued—

Yppop

Well, there’s certainly a lot of interest in your thesis with over 800 hits! I guess everybody is waiting for the book to come out. It sounds plausible to me, but I’m just a “rookie!” You wondered why I go by “rookieonedge.” It’s related to skating, both figure skating and hockey. I took lessons in figureskating for several years. I have a daughter who played Division I hockey but is in law school now (Notre Dame, no less!). Skating requires being on an edge. Applying that moniker to these boards, it is essential to “be on edge” and absorb the knowledge contained therein of which, I, myself, am lacking.

In my opinion, er. . . humble opinion, that is, it is God who created ALL things, as the Catechism states, but we want to know just how He did it. Right? That’s what your analysis is all about. With twenty years of thought invested, you might be on to something. But don’t expect the “anti-theists” to give you any accolades. However, this could be the structure behind Intelligent Design.

I saw a documentary on “string theory” but my experience ends there. Sounds like a “mathematical nightmare” you said. I’ll have to talk to my son about the algorithm or some of the smart people on these threads. (My son has been studying for his PE exam. I guess having the standing as a professional is not required but encouraged. . . and when you’re paid a nice lump sum to take the test. . .)

Many blessings,
Rookie

 

[yppop]

An interesting endeavor, that book you’re writing. The research for it must be quite exciting. Please let us know when it is published.

jd

Hello jd,

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, I certainly enjoy the research; moreso than the writing. I am in my 76th year of life and at the rate I write I may run out of time before it’s finished. Writing is one thing; getting it published is another matter. I have read over 90 science and math books and not one of them, as I recall, was written by someone without a PhD, a college professorship, or a job as a science writer. My academic career ended at MS.Physics. I am writing for personnel edification, so it doesn’t matter whether or not it is published. I am in good health and a project like this keeps my mind active; an active mind contributes to good health; and the encouragement I get from the posts like yours keeps the project going.
Thank you.
Yppop.

 

[yppop]

Hello Rookie and RobbyS

Looks like we may have a three way discussion going. You both expressed interest in several subjects that I have been extremely interested in for a long time and about which I have read extensively. Feynman was an excellent teacher, a great mind, and a so-so writer. The best book I ever read about cosmology is: “The Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos” by Dennis Overbye. Overbye is a writer that studied physics at MIT, so it is better written than most books by physicists that think they can write. My favorite science writer is Paul Davies. His two best are:”The Mind of God” and “The Cosmic Blueprint”. There are many good books, if you name the subject, maybe I could suggest a book.

If you are interested I could share what I know about some of the subjects that were mention in your last couple of posts. I could, for example, discuss at the amateur level (no math): the nature of matter, space, motion, energy, infinity, string theory, the big bang, and others. The key to understanding my thesis is to grasp what David Bohm (a highly regarded physicist) means when he refers to the explicate order vs. the implicate order. Modern science describes reality with an explicate view, which effectively excludes God. My thesis proposes a possibility that explains reality at a deeper level, the implicate level, at which God exists. It isn’t that hard to comprehend once a few important concepts are grasped. In my next post I will get back to your last posts and comment on specific items. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to get to it for a couple of days. I have a busy weekend ahead of me: a First Holy Communion tomorrow in New Jersey; the Big East Track Championship in Philadelphia on Sunday; I clean the church every Monday morning, and by that time my grass will be a foot high (lots of rain here in eastern PA the last couple of days)

I find that both of you express a pertinent inquisitiveness that strikes my thesis dead center.

Yppop

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Heaven, Hell, Purgatory… (and Limbo?)

Have any particular definitive statements been made about the existence of such places? I’ll assume that despite talk of “Up and Down” - most Christians these days do not identify Heaven or Hell as being located somewhere beneath the Earth or up in the clouds.

Do they even reside in the physical universe? Or are they just “somewhere?”

After a person’s personal judgment(their body dies), Heaven is being close to God, Hell is being distant or not with God, and purgatory is a ‘state’ not a place, a state of being purified before one can be in the presence of God. I definitely do not think it is a physical place as we would define a ‘space’ or place.

 

[rookieonedge]

After a person’s personal judgment(their body dies), Heaven is being close to God, Hell is being distant or not with God, and purgatory is a ‘state’ not a place, a state of being purified before one can be in the presence of God. I definitely do not think it is a physical place as we would define a ‘space’ or place.

If Heaven and Hell are “a state of being,” how will we function when we get our bodies back after the Final Judgment? I think God gave us the earth as a prelude to the beauty of what we’ll find in Heaven. However, “material” might not mean exactly the same thing as it does on earth. Recall that after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared in His glorified body, showing us what we will be like at or after the General Resurrection.