Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[yppop]

My explanation would be that, since the universe simply is all of space and time, considered as a whole, the “edge” of the universe, if edge there be, is merely a border to that space and time, beyond which is timelessness and spacelessness.

Timelessness, I can imagine; I can’t imagine spacelessness, can you? I can, however, imagine a spherical universe in an infinite expanse of nothingness and I bet you can to. And I believe, based on sound philosophical reasoning that there is a plausible explanation for the duality of a spatial border of the universe.

God, However, is present to the universe, and also present even without the universe, so I don’t think one needs to reach the edge of the universe in order to encounter him. His existence is simply necessary.

I wholeheartedly agree. The question then is how is God omnipresent, i.e., present beyond and within the universe? IMO a plausible answer can be derived from the premise that space exists in two forms. One from which matter is derived and the other which provides the spiritual aspect of reality.
Yppop

 

[Peter_Plato]

Timelessness, I can imagine; I can’t imagine spacelessness, can you? I can, however, imagine a spherical universe in an infinite expanse of nothingness and I bet you can to. And I believe, based on sound philosophical reasoning that there is a plausible explanation for the duality of a spatial border of the universe.

I am certainly interested in hearing more, but one question comes up, if beyond the boundary of physical space is “an infinite expanse of nothingness,” wouldn’t the word “expanse” designate this nothingness as having at least one spatial property or “somethingness?” I am not sure how nothingness can have expanse without becoming identical to empty space. Wouldn’t it save possible confusion simply to describe what lies beyond space as “nothingness” and leave it at that?

 

[SentinelofTruth]

yppop:

Timelessness, I can imagine; I can’t imagine spacelessness, can you?

I can imagine spacelessness. It’s called immateriality.

yppop:

One from which matter is derived and the other which provides the spiritual aspect of reality.

Uh, matter does not provide the spiritual aspect of reality.
Peter Plato:

Wouldn’t it save possible confusion simply to describe what lies beyond space as “nothingness” and leave it at that?

There is nothing that lies “beyond” space, for, everything physical is by definition spatial.

 

[mytruepower2]

Timelessness, I can imagine; I can’t imagine spacelessness, can you?

Yes. Spacelessness is a state of being in which one existent thing and another existent thing aren’t separated by distance, nor are they physical, as such. However, reality is not dependent on our imaginations.

I can, however, imagine a spherical universe in an infinite expanse of nothingness and I bet you can to.

Actually, for me, nothingness is much -harder- to imagine that spacelessness, because at least spacelessness has properties, while nothingness has none.

And I believe, based on sound philosophical reasoning that there is a plausible explanation for the duality of a spatial border of the universe.

I guess I’m not sure what’s dualistic about the border of space. We’re still not sure it even exists, as such.

I wholeheartedly agree. The question then is how is God omnipresent, i.e., present beyond and within the universe? IMO a plausible answer can be derived from the premise that space exists in two forms. One from which matter is derived and the other which provides the spiritual aspect of reality.
Yppop

God is present to the universe and the non-universe in that each state of being derives its existence from him, and he acts eternally on both. “Being” is a gift given by God, and without God’s causal power, it ceases to “be.”

However, I’m convinced that the spirit is not spacial in nature at all. If it were, we should be able to locate at least part of it, and yet, there seems to be no such location which contains our spirit.

The -soul,- however, is another story. I would agree that the -soul- has a form of spacial existence.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

mytruepower2:

However, I’m convinced that the spirit is not spacial in nature at all. If it were, we should be able to locate at least part of it, and yet, there seems to be no such location which contains our spirit.

The -soul,- however, is another story. I would agree that the -soul- has a form of spacial existence.

What line do you draw between soul and spirit?

 

[yppop]

Peter
my
Sentinel

Gentlemen
I intervened in discussion about space in order to give you my thoughts on the subject, a subject for which I’ve done much reading in the last decade or so, The result of my studies has resulted in an extended thesis, the basis for which I feel confident in making comments such as the following:

Post #438 "
Are you interested in a discussion on the nature of space, especially the nature of the “infinite nothingness” that came before and lies beyond our universe? I believe describing the nature of the infinite nothingness leads to the proof that the universe did not create itself."
**
Post #439
I wholeheartedly agree. The question then is how is God omnipresent, i.e., present beyond and within the universe? IMO a plausible answer can be derived from the premise that space exists in two forms. One from which matter is derived and the other which provides the spiritual aspect of reality.**

In concentrating on language (expanse, spacelessness) in your responses, you seem to have missed the two emboldened comments that should be of greater interest?

Sorry to intervene in your exchange of opinion snippets, I keeping forgetting the tenor of this forum. However if you do decide that those two emboldened comments might have something to investigate, the subject was extensively discussed in two previous threads:
SPACE now on pg.55 and GOD EXISTS, BUT HOW? now on page 69

Thanks for your responses.
YPPOP

 

[SentinelofTruth]

yppop:

In concentrating on language (expanse, spacelessness) in your responses, you seem to have missed the two emboldened comments that should be of greater interest?

I answered at least the second one. I asked how matter could provide the spiritual aspect of reality, and you ignored it.

 

[mytruepower2]

What line do you draw between soul and spirit?

The same one drawn by Saint Thomas Aquinas. The soul is “that which gives life to the body,” while the spirit would continue on, even if the body had no life.

 

[yppop]

Sentinel
In post 439 I wrote: “IMO a plausible answer can be derived from the premise that space exists in two forms. One from which matter is derived and the other which provides the spiritual aspect of reality.”

You answered:

I answered at least the second one. I asked how matter could provide the spiritual aspect of reality, and you ignored it.

I believe your answer was based on a misreading of my comment. I’ll accept the blame and ask if this modification is more understandable?

“IMO a plausible answer can be derived from the premise that space exists in two forms. One form of space from which matter is derived and the second form of space that provides the spiritual aspect of reality.”

In other words, matter is derived from discrete space; the spiritual is derived from continuous space. The duality is a mathematically plausible assumption that allows us to explain the omnipresence of God because the infinite nothingness that has the characteristic of continuous space not only extends to infinity beyond the universe but immerses every particle of matter within the universe.

Yppop

 

[SentinelofTruth]

mytruepower2:

The same one drawn by Saint Thomas Aquinas. The soul is “that which gives life to the body,” while the spirit would continue on, even if the body had no life.

This definition of spirit is what gives life to the body.

yppop:

In other words, matter is derived from discrete space; the spiritual is derived from continuous space. The duality is a mathematically plausible assumption that allows us to explain the omnipresence of God because the infinite nothingness that has the characteristic of continuous space not only extends to infinity beyond the universe but immerses every particle of matter within the universe.

I apparently did misunderstand what you said, but this paragraph seems to say exactly what I thought you had meant. Sentence #2: the spiritual is derived from continuous space. That was the whole topic of my objection.

 

[mytruepower2]

This definition of spirit is what gives life to the body.

By whose authority do you claim to make this definition? You’ve never once answered this. Who are you deriving these teachings from? Who gave them to you? I’ve told you the names of the people who I derive my Catholic beliefs from. Now present yours.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

mytruepower2:

By whose authority do you claim to make this definition? You’ve never once answered this. Who are you deriving these teachings from? Who gave them to you? I’ve told you the names of the people who I derive my Catholic beliefs from. Now present yours.

My beliefs are derived from reason, whereas yours come from blind obedience.

 

[mytruepower2]

My beliefs are derived from reason, whereas yours come from blind obedience.

I’m sorry, but I’m laughing now. You; Joe Internet Catholic on a message board, are claiming to have greater insight than the saints and doctors of the church.

Thanks, but until you’ve been canonized, I think I’ll stick to what works.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

An observation on two points under discussion. First, the human soul is a spirit, man does not have a soul and a spirit, he has a soul which is a sprit.

Secondly, although spirits may indeed exist in our space or universe, there is nothing to prevent that; before the existence of the universe, there was not a " space " in which God and the Angels existed. Spiritual beings do not require a " space, " only material beings require a " space. " I believe St. Thomas described a space as that contained by a physical object. In the case of the universe, that would be that space contained within the universe. That is as far as he went. There is really no reason to go further. I don’t think we should allow certain theories based on Quantum Mechanics to confuse our thinking. We live in a real universe, not a theoretical one.

Linus2nd

 

[mytruepower2]

An observation on two points under discussion. First, the human soul is a spirit, man does not have a soul and a spirit, he has a soul which is a sprit.

Secondly, although spirits may indeed exist in our space or universe, there is nothing to prevent that; before the existence of the universe, there was not a " space " in which God and the Angels existed. Spiritual beings do not require a " space, " only material beings require a " space. " I believe St. Thomas described a space as that contained by a physical object. In the case of the universe, that would be that space contained within the universe. That is as far as he went. There is really no reason to go further. I don’t think we should confuse certain theories based on Quantum Mechanics confuse our thinking. We live in a real universe, not a theoretical one.

Linus2nd

True, but the topic of the difference between the soul and spirit came up, and on -that,- he had -much- to say.

 

[yppop]

I apparently did misunderstand what you said, but this paragraph seems to say exactly what I thought you had meant. Sentence #2: the spiritual is derived from continuous space. That was the whole topic of my objection.

Once again I must apologize for a poor choice of words. Of course the spiritual does not derive from continuous space, I guess I sacrificed clarity for parallel sentence construction. Let me explain. I believe that in order to make sense of the interaction of the spiritual with the material, we must find a way to describe the spiritual in a physical way. Continuous space is the only “physical” element (space, time, matter, and energy) that meets the criteria for the spiritual, namely, it is formless, timeless (thus eternal), infinite (in fact, infinitely infinite), and because it is infinitely infinite we can argue its potential for omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. So when I describe what came before and lies beyond the universe as infinite nothingness, it is with the understanding that the nothingness is not a void but is a plenum; it is something that can appropriately be described as the Mind of God.

Thank you for responding to my posts in a REASON-able way, a way that might actually lead to a philosophical discussion. I have been responding in this forum for five years in all of that time I have exchanged posts with scores of people and have been able to engage only a handful in a meaningful discussion; the rest preferred an adversarial engagement and needed only to find errors, express disagreements without explanation as to why they disagreed, or invoked a superior knowledge of what they believe is the defined dogma of the church.

My aim at developing a thesis is not theological; rather it is to provide we theists a counter argument to that of the materialistic non-believer that uses science to imply that God does not exist.

This definition of spirit is what gives life to the body.

My thesis explains how the spirit gives life to the body, but my explanation requires an understanding of how God works at the ground of reality. Something I call the “holonomic mechanism”

My beliefs are derived from reason, whereas yours come from blind obedience.

My thesis is derived from reason in accordance with fides et ratio; hence I am also obedient to church dogma. I see no conflict. My aim at developing a thesis is not theological; rather it is meant to provide we theists a counter argument to that of the materialistic non-believer that uses science to imply that God does not exist.But if there is a conflict I would surrender any of my philosophical beliefs that are in conflict with the rules of the church and in regard to the rules of the church. I am kept on the straight and narrow, however, because my one of my sons is a Catholic priest, a monsignor, and a canon lawyer.
Yppop

 

[Peter_Plato]

Once again I must apologize for a poor choice of words. Of course the spiritual does not derive from continuous space, I guess I sacrificed clarity for parallel sentence construction. Let me explain. I believe that in order to make sense of the interaction of the spiritual with the material, we must find a way to describe the spiritual in a physical way. Continuous space is the only “physical” element (space, time, matter, and energy) that meets the criteria for the spiritual, namely, it is formless, timeless (thus eternal), infinite (in fact, infinitely infinite), and because it is infinitely infinite we can argue its potential for omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. So when I describe what came before and lies beyond the universe as infinite nothingness, it is with the understanding that the nothingness is not a void but is a plenum; it is something that can appropriately be described as the Mind of God.

Thank you for responding to my posts in a REASON-able way, a way that might actually lead to a philosophical discussion. I have been responding in this forum for five years in all of that time I have exchanged posts with scores of people and have been able to engage only a handful in a meaningful discussion; the rest preferred an adversarial engagement and needed only to find errors, express disagreements without explanation as to why they disagreed, or invoked a superior knowledge of what they believe is the defined dogma of the church.

My aim at developing a thesis is not theological; rather it is to provide we theists a counter argument to that of the materialistic non-believer that uses science to imply that God does not exist.

My thesis explains how the spirit gives life to the body, but my explanation requires an understanding of how God works at the ground of reality. Something I call the “holonomic mechanism”

My thesis is derived from reason in accordance with fides et ratio; hence I am also obedient to church dogma. I see no conflict. My aim at developing a thesis is not theological; rather it is meant to provide we theists a counter argument to that of the materialistic non-believer that uses science to imply that God does not exist.But if there is a conflict I would surrender any of my philosophical beliefs that are in conflict with the rules of the church and in regard to the rules of the church. I am kept on the straight and narrow, however, because my one of my sons is a Catholic priest, a monsignor, and a canon lawyer.
Yppop

Perhaps I am misreading where you are leading, but would it be correct to say that an implication of your thesis is that the “physical” is a kind of limited representation of what is a fuller actual “ground” of reality? That we understand space because it mirrors or is representational of an aspect of the spiritual (the ground of being or reality) to which our minds must have a kind of “innate” access to make sense of it? Forgive my attempt to put this idea into words and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

I think CS Lewis may have had a similar idea regarding time (assuming I am reading you correctly.) He thought (at least by my reading of him) that eternity was was not timeless - in the sense of absent time - but more like fullness of time. Eternity is not "no time” but rather “all time.” Instead of a limited linear or sequential time (picture an arrow pointing in one direction) that we experience, he suggested something like 3D time (as duration extending in all directions.)

Another thought occurs to me that there is some connection to a Platonic view here - again if I am not misreading you. The realities that we experience are a kind of “limited” representation of what is far more real and enduring.

An example might shed some light.

Vision as instantiated in a physical mode such as the eyes of living creatures could merely be a symbol or limited representation of a far greater reality (archetype?) - something like awareness or knowledge - but which allow physical creatures limited access to limited physical reality. The fact that eyes and vision as a natural function exist points to and are symbolic of the greater reality. Likewise, space may be a limited spatial representation or symbol of what you are suggesting is the “creative space” - speaking metaphorically - in the mind of God.

Is that in the ballpark - to use another metaphor?

 

[yppop]

Perhaps I am misreading where you are leading, but would it be correct to say that an implication of your thesis is that the “physical” is a kind of limited representation of what is a fuller actual “ground” of reality? That we understand space because it mirrors or is representational of an aspect of the spiritual (the ground of being or reality) to which our minds must have a kind of “innate” access to make sense of it? Forgive my attempt to put this idea into words and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

Let me give you an example that might help you to better understand where I am going. Consider the hydrogen atom. It consists of three quarks making up the proton and a single electron located in a volume of space, the dimension of which is 30,000 times the size of the proton. The quarks and the electron are “point particles” meaning they have no measureable dimension. Hence the hydrogen atom is essentially all space. And since the same argument can be made of all the atoms, and hence all molecules, etc., etc., objective reality is nothing but space. Now here is how I interpret that example: the quarks and the electron are formed from discrete space, the emptiness of the atom is filled with continuous space that represents the spiritual. We are immerse in an ocean of God. That is what is meant by God’s omnipresence.

Another way to think of the two kinds of space is to imagine the seashore. The grains of sand represents the points of discrete space; the ocean represents continuous space. The dimensions are not to scale (the grains are relatively much too large) and one must suspend the knowledge that the water is composed of discrete molecules and imagine it as a continuous substance, but it helps me especially when I think about hylomorphism. One cannot build sand castles unless the sand is wet just as bodies gain their form from the spiritual and just as the sandcastle reverts back to a pile of sand when the wetness has been dried up, the living body returns to dust when the spirit departs.

That matter is composed of configurations of space is something physicists allude to when they invoke string theory. What they don’t do is differentiate the space that forms the the strings from the space in which strings are immersed. I contend that both cannot both be the same form of space, which currently are assumed to be continuous space. Knowing the difference between discrete and continuous space is the essential first step towards understanding this thesis. Interested?

I think CS Lewis may have had a similar idea regarding time (assuming I am reading you correctly.) He thought (at least by my reading of him) that eternity was was not timeless - in the sense of absent time - but more like fullness of time. Eternity is not "no time” but rather “all time.” Instead of a limited linear or sequential time (picture an arrow pointing in one direction) that we experience, he suggested something like 3D time (as duration extending in all directions.)

I deal with time after I describe the mechanism that provides change and motion at the ground of reality.

Another thought occurs to me that there is some connection to a Platonic view here - again if I am not misreading you. The realities that we experience are a kind of “limited” representation of what is far more real and enduring. An example might shed some light.
Vision as instantiated in a physical mode such as the eyes of living creatures could merely be a symbol or limited representation of a far greater reality (archetype?) - something like awareness or knowledge - but which allow physical creatures limited access to limited physical reality. The fact that eyes and vision as a natural function exist points to and are symbolic of the greater reality. Likewise, space may be a limited spatial representation or symbol of what you are suggesting is the “creative space” - speaking metaphorically - in the mind of God

.To jump ahead, I do include a more modern Platonic view based on Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance modified so it is not inconsistent with established scientific theories.

Is that in the ballpark - to use another metaphor?

Thank you for joining our discussion. I think we are in the same ball park.

Yppop

 

[SentinelofTruth]

mytruepower2:

I’m sorry, but I’m laughing now. You; Joe Internet Catholic on a message board, are claiming to have greater insight than the saints and doctors of the church.

Thanks, but until you’ve been canonized, I think I’ll stick to what works.

No, that is not what is happening. You see, my faith in catholicism is grounded in reason, ie. I believe it because reason supports it. You, however, accept blindly what you have heard that the saints have said, but you have no real reason to think that the saints actually said anything you’ve quoted. Since, apparently, you don’t believe in the self-evident axiom of reason over authority, you have no rational grounds for faith in catholicism. In fact, the word “rational” means “in accord with reason”, so by definition it is irrational to deny what one’s own reasoning says, even when “authority” demands it.

yppop:

Once again I must apologize for a poor choice of words. Of course the spiritual does not derive from continuous space, I guess I sacrificed clarity for parallel sentence construction. Let me explain. I believe that in order to make sense of the interaction of the spiritual with the material, we must find a way to describe the spiritual in a physical way. Continuous space is the only “physical” element (space, time, matter, and energy) that meets the criteria for the spiritual, namely, it is formless, timeless (thus eternal), infinite (in fact, infinitely infinite), and because it is infinitely infinite we can argue its potential for omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. So when I describe what came before and lies beyond the universe as infinite nothingness, it is with the understanding that the nothingness is not a void but is a plenum; it is something that can appropriately be described as the Mind of God.

We cannot describe the immaterial in a material way. It simply has nothing in common.

 

[yppop]

We cannot describe the immaterial in a material way. It simply has nothing in common.

Are you objecting to my use of the word “physical” to refer to not just matter but also space, time and energy? In order to have a meaningful discussion, you need to put some effort into understanding what I mean.I never “described the immaterial in a material way.”
What I am stating is that If we accept the observation that matter is, at the ground of reality, nothing more than configurations of discrete space, then we can use continuous space to represent the spiritual. To understand that you must understand the difference between continuous and discrete space.
Do you have any background in math or physics?
Yppop