Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Tomdstone]

Tom
A couple of questions:

1. If Maldacena duality provides a non-perturbative formulation of string theory with certain boundary conditions; just what are those boundary conditions?
2. Since anti-deSitter space has a negative (attractive) cosmological constant, isn’t that in conflict with a current observation of a positive cosmological constant and an accelerated expansion of the universe?
3. Are you a physicist? BS, MS, PhD?

Yppop

Answers:

1. I believe that they are Dirichlet BC. How much detail do you want?
2. It is possible that back reaction effects may lift the universe from an AdS phase to an inflating universe and I suppose that you may wick rotate from dS to Ads. However, I thought that WMAP results have shown that our universe has a positive cosmological constant, so I don’t think that the universe we live in today is an AdS space with negative cosmological constant. The AdS/CFT correspondence is useful not because the universe is an AdS space, but because it is helpful mathematically in solving certain problems. There is a paper by James B. Hartle, S. W. Hawking, Thomas Hertog which claims that “a wave function in a gravitational theory with a negative cosmological constant can predict an ensemble of asymptotically classical histories which expand with a positive effective cosmological constant. This raises the possibility that even fundamental theories with a negative cosmological constant can be consistent with our low-energy observations of a classical, accelerating universe.” But I suspect that there might be an error in that paper.
   arxiv.org/pdf/1205.3807v3.pdf
3. I have a general interest in varying topics. I am working part time with a janitorial cleanup job, cleaning toilets, washing floors, sweeping up, etc., which is not too bad, except that my boss is a tyrant. I got a cup of coffee at break time, and sat down to take a sip when all of a sudden he comes storming in, screaming and yelling that I was spending too much time for the break.

 

[Tomdstone]

Read Bankrupting Physics.by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones, one of several in the last few years exposing the warts on the " choir boys. "

Linus2nd

Read the book I recommended, then see what you think.
Linus2nd

I would not recommend a book which makes a sacrilegious mockery of Our Lord’s Prayer. Our Lord’s Prayer is the most perfect prayer Christians have, given to us by Our Divine Lord Himself. The last time I checked, it was a mortal sin of blasphemy and sacrilege, very serious and grave indeed, to make fun of holy Catholic prayers and rituals. I would not reproduce this sacrilege here, but anyone with the English version of the book, can check that the author states on page 183, under the title: Say a little prayer, that you cross yourself and repeat what only can be described as a mocking, insulting and blasphemous parody of Our Lord’s Prayer.
In addition, it appears that the author has little grasp of the usefulness of symmetries in physics.
I suspect that had the author made a joke out of a prayer of Mohammed or of an Islamic ritual, he would be on a list subjecting him to some rather serious consequences should he try to set foot in an Islamic country.

 

[afungusamongus]

To quote a famous Catholic. ‘A universe cannot create itself for the same reason a person cannot be its own father.’ I may be paraphrasing a bit.

 

[inocente]

I would not recommend a book which makes a sacrilegious mockery of Our Lord’s Prayer.

Parts of the book are online, including that part. I read some pages. It seems to be aimed at making the chattering classes feel good about themselves by mocking others - the cutting edge of science is hard, so let’s sit around and poke fun at those trying to face the difficulties.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would not recommend a book which makes a sacrilegious mockery of Our Lord’s Prayer. Our Lord’s Prayer is the most perfect prayer Christians have, given to us by Our Divine Lord Himself. The last time I checked, it was a mortal sin of blasphemy and sacrilege, very serious and grave indeed, to make fun of holy Catholic prayers and rituals. I would not reproduce this sacrilege here, but anyone with the English version of the book, can check that the author states on page 183, under the title: Say a little prayer, that you cross yourself and repeat what only can be described as a mocking, insulting and blasphemous parody of Our Lord’s Prayer.
In addition, it appears that the author has little grasp of the usefulness of symmetries in physics.
I suspect that had the author made a joke out of a prayer of Mohammed or of an Islamic ritual, he would be on a list subjecting him to some rather serious consequences should he try to set foot in an Islamic country.

Oh come on, that is stretching things. It is clear the authors are not of a Christian mindset. That puts them in the same mindset with most scientists these days.

I can see you have drank the cool-aid, you swollowed the bate hook, line and sinker. Sorry to see that. These " whiz kids " are all " foundation babies, " they live by the grant and will do or say anything to keep the dollars flowing in.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Optional then, like slapping yourself with a wet fish.

No, it is not optional. To stop at the First Cause would mean that one has not found the totality of Who God Is and What that means for us. But Thomas has demonstrated enough that anyone picking up a Bible should be able to say, " and so this is Who the First Cause really is, " and then fill in all the blanks left by philosophy.

Is that a Ford sedan? We don’t have many American cars here, no one would buy them. Ford sells proper cars that go round corners and have a European pedigree like the Focus. I just looked it up on Wiki, and apparently it’s what the Pope drives.

The Crown Victoria was a powerful 4.6 Liter Sedan widely used by the police forces throughout the U.S. and Canada and beloved by the Arab Shieks. They stopped making them in 2010. Great engines, superb rids, and mechanical night mares. My Nephew’s is a 2000 model.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

No, it is not optional. To stop at the First Cause would mean that one has not found the totality of Who God Is and What that means for us. But Thomas has demonstrated enough that anyone picking up a Bible should be able to say, " and so this is Who the First Cause really is, " and then fill in all the blanks left by philosophy.

There’s a standard atheist joke: The unmoved mover proves Christ died for us.

They have a point, there is no logical connection whatsoever.

The Crown Victoria was a powerful 4.6 Liter Sedan widely used by the police forces throughout the U.S. and Canada and beloved by the Arab Shieks. They stopped making them in 2010. Great engines, superb rids, and mechanical night mares. My Nephew’s is a 2000 model.

4.6 liter. You don’t say. It’s worth destroying the planet for a superb ride.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There’s a standard atheist joke: The unmoved mover proves Christ died for us.

They have a point, there is no logical connection whatsoever.

4.6 liter. You don’t say. It’s worth destroying the planet for a superb ride.

1. You and the atheists have something in common then.
2. My Nephew is a big guy, he won’t fit in one of those Euopean gocarts. Besides, out in the wide open spaces here we don’t have rails every where one needs to go. Our socialst government hasn’t managed to carral us all into little bunches where they can control us for station to station movement. Though they are trying hard. But the " wild bunch " ( me and mine ) are resisting mightly.

Linus2nd

 

[hildegaard]

Unjustified dogmatism.

Scientifically and observationally informed.

 

[alevanpa]

Gentlemen,
Numbers do not take up space, but they can be used to represent points in space. Dedekind Axiom of continuity states that: "To every real number corresponds a unique point of a directed straight line and conversely to every point on this straight line corresponds a unique real number." In other words we can analyze space by analyzing numbers.

Yppop

Yppop,
Here’s the issue, as I see it: our universe is finite (it’s limits: distances and area are computable), while number sequences, we all agree, are “infinite” (no limits–although they are always “infinite” in a straight line (I know about sine curves, but they are calculated as consistent and predictable, too), while the universe is NOT finite in a straight line), therefore, how can a “infinite” sequence actually describe every point in a finite space? In other words, there is some point(s) of “infinity” that does NOT correspond to a point of finite space.

How can such a condition exist in a strictly physical universe? Isn’t what is being described–by comparing an infinite condition to a finite reality (or it’s converse)–the exact description of an argument of metaphysics and not physics.

Consequently, doesn’t this mathematical logic open the universe to be part of a creation? How else is it possible to deduce “infinity” from a limit; and wouldn’t that, in itself, move the question of a created universe from mathematical certitude to a question of metaphysics–I.e., a question of logic from what is visible?

If, in fact, these mathematical arguments are “metaphysical”, doesn’t that move ALL “philosophical” arguments for the existence of God from the realm of “non-scientific” to reality? This question assumes that mathematical descriptions of the universe are “scientific.”

Am I crazy here, or are these valid questions that indicate that “science”, while it is descriptive in a “micro” sense, fails in a “macro” sense?

 

[alevanpa]

There’s a standard atheist joke: The unmoved mover proves Christ died for us.

They have a point, there is no logical connection whatsoever.

4.6 liter. You don’t say. It’s worth destroying the planet for a superb ride.

Innocence,
Do you really think this, or is this a philosophical conundrum? It just is!
I think,
It’s God’s response to man’s fear of death. Everyone must go through it (death), but we (smarties) pretend to ourselves that we are brave and have no need of comfort regarding this precarious existence.

This is what the prayer does:
Our father:
It unites us with every other human being who was, is or will be. It makes us one with ourselves and, consequently, with the universe.
Who art in heaven:
“In heaven” It’s not some mutable philosopher/scientist who stands to be corrected sometime, somewhere, somehow. He is beyond any mutability, outside of our existence.
“Hollowed be thy name”
Since He is un-mutable, and binds us all together as one, and is the Father of us all, His name is sacred
“Thy kingdom come”
He is a king (His rules permeate everything) and his dominion is the universe–He is the father of it all. The universe, as we know, it will end, and His dominion will be all that remains.
“Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”
Self-explanatory, I think: the things of the universe obey the rules He created. This does not have to have been the only universe He could/may have created, but it is the only one we know of, and his rules have distinctly provided for the existence of life-in all it’s forms–and, it it right that we, His creation, strive to be one.

Anyway, that’s a logical start to accepting the Lord’s Prayer as the expressed wishes of the Deity Himself.

I’m not sure this screed even means anything–to anyone.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yppop,
Here’s the issue, as I see it: our universe is finite (it’s limits: distances and area are computable), while number sequences, we all agree, are “infinite” (no limits–although they are always “infinite” in a straight line (I know about sine curves, but they are calculated as consistent and predictable, too), while the universe is NOT finite in a straight line), therefore, how can a “infinite” sequence actually describe every point in a finite space? In other words, there is some point(s) of “infinity” that does NOT correspond to a point of finite space.

How can such a condition exist in a strictly physical universe? Isn’t what is being described–by comparing an infinite condition to a finite reality (or it’s converse)–the exact description of an argument of metaphysics and not physics.

Consequently, doesn’t this mathematical logic open the universe to be part of a creation? How else is it possible to deduce “infinity” from a limit; and wouldn’t that, in itself, move the question of a created universe from mathematical certitude to a question of metaphysics–I.e., a question of logic from what is visible?

If, in fact, these mathematical arguments are “metaphysical”, doesn’t that move ALL “philosophical” arguments for the existence of God from the realm of “non-scientific” to reality? This question assumes that mathematical descriptions of the universe are “scientific.”

Am I crazy here, or are these valid questions that indicate that “science”, while it is descriptive in a “micro” sense, fails in a “macro” sense?

The simple numbers we use are finite numbers. They can be used to describe anything that we can see. We can settle on a convention that uses the number three to describe one unit plus one unit plus one unit. Every time we see this configuration, we know that it is “three.” But we can’t put a number on infinity. We can use a symbol to describe something infinite and that we cannot see, but it is meaningless to us except to say that it is beyond what can exist in the finite universe. But infinity exists and someone can see it and that someone is God. I guess He can put an infinite number on it, or is infinity really only one? It just may be that anything that we think of as infinite is really not too many to describe, but instead, it is simply one. All things infinite resolve to unity in my way of looking at it. God. who is infinite, does not go on and on and on. No, He just is. He is one. So maybe I am contradicting myself in saying that we can’t put a number on what is infinite. Infinity equals one. I don’t think we will make much science out of that conclusion. lol

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Infinity equals one. . .

In order to have a universe, The One has to be three: the Father begets the Son, the Two united in the Holy Spirit. This perfection is glorified in creation brought into existence by the Word and loved though the Holy Spirit.

 

[JamesCaruso]

In order to have a universe, The One has to be three: the Father begets the Son, the Two united in the Holy Spirit. This perfection is glorified in creation brought into existence by the Word and loved though the Holy Spirit.

Actually,the one (God) is not three (Gods):but there are three persons in one God. The principle of God is not divisive, it is unitive. Each person is wholly God, but there are not three Gods, only one God.

 

[Tomdstone]

In order to have a universe, The One has to be three:.

I don’t understand why this is necessary in order to have a universe. Did people believe this during Old Testament times, before 1 B.C.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t understand why this is necessary in order to have a universe. Did people believe this during Old Testament times, before 1 B.C.

:twocents:

Because the universe is relational in nature.
There is nothing in isolation.
All models by which we understand our world are based on particular ways in which we relate to what is other.
Love is the perfection of relationship.
Something like that.
It doesn’t matter whether they believed it.

 

[Tomdstone]

All models by which we understand our world are based on particular ways in which we relate to what is other.
Love is the perfection of relationship.

Why does this imply that “In order to have a universe, The One has to be three”?
It seems a non-sequitur to me. For example, why could not the One be five. If the One were 5, wouldn’t you have more love and more opportunity for relating?

 

[Analogia_Entis]

In order to have a universe, The One has to be three: the Father begets the Son, the Two united in the Holy Spirit. This perfection is glorified in creation brought into existence by the Word and loved though the Holy Spirit.

The tri-unity of the Trinity is wholly different than numerical value. In fact, the likeness of any created thing or idea–numbers included–to God is infinitesimally small; otherwise, the Trinity could be deduced from the natural realm using some sort of natural reason. However, the Trinity is a divine mystery, while the necessity of the existence of God is knowable through natural reason. I will concede, however, that a positive knowledge of the existence of God, which is beyond our negative knowledge of the necessity of his existence, is in that sense a grace.

 

[Analogia_Entis]

:twocents:

Because the universe is relational in nature.
There is nothing in isolation.
All models by which we understand our world are based on particular ways in which we relate to what is other.
Love is the perfection of relationship.
Something like that.
It doesn’t matter whether they believed it.

The universe is relational inasmuch as it exists in relationship to God. However, God’s subsistent relationality within himself (the act of relating between the divine persons) is infinitely different than the relationality between the created order and God. It’s unsure what you mean when you say “love is the perfection of relationship.” Do you mean “mutual love”? Or do you mean only one party must love? Is there a gradation of perfection in love?

 

[Aloysium]

Adam, Eve, love: self and other, communing
I am other to you, as you are other to me in this relationship: we are all the same in this regard.
Knower, known and knowing.
Everything is like that; it can’t be otherwise. What stands alone?
The cosmos is other to God, and we yearn for our Creator, to exist ultimately in a state of mutual love.