C
coolduude
Guest
Well it does sound good. But most of what you said went over my headOh no! Did I shut this thread down? I must have said something too, well. . . definitive?
Sorry.
- Status
4
4Horsemen
Guest
Well, don’t feel bad, I’'m trying to understand post #18 the way the numbers work. It was said there are three numbers, so I guess 0 doesn’t count as a number? Anyhow, even then, I can’t see how they add up.Well it does sound good. But most of what you said went over my head
At the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, there was low entropy in the universe when The Second Law of Thermodynamics says disorganization should increase
or stay the same and never goes down. (Evidence is all the dark energy). Entropy gets released as stars burn, so there should be more entropy. But stars are continually forming and the universe is not being run down but expanding and producing more stars, yet the entropy is still low.
I’m sure some scientist on here could help us out.
L
Luke_K
Guest
I didn’t say this, but the numbers represent three different particles, which can have discrete energy levels of 0 (no energy),1,2 or 3. I said that they must add up to 3 in order to represent an arbitrary total energy of the system. The universe has an arbitrary amount of energy, so all the particles in it must have a combination of discrete energy levels that add up to that amount. The combination, or macrostate which is most likely is the one in which the particles have the most possible ways to arrange themselves, which is also the most disordered or dispersed one.
In AntiTheist’s card game example, it is true that each unique hand is just as likely as any other. But the point is that there are many more unique hands that are “losers” than there are unique hands that are “winners.” Analogously, there are conceivably many more unique universes which do not harbor life (losers) than which do (winners).
Entropy isn’t the whole picture however, in determining the spontaneous development of certain parts of the universe. Certain parts can decrease in entropy and become more orderly at the expense of a greater increase in entropy of the whole universe. The laws of the universe and the distribution of particles after the Big Bang were such that earth and the particles on it have naturally arranged themselves into a stunning ecosystem of self-preserving life.
L
Luke_K
Guest
I don’t see how gravity could be an eternal creating force because it doesn’t exist without mass and energy existing in the first place. It makes more sense to have an eternal transcendental thing create the universe than a thing which is affected by and dependent on the creation itself.
W
Windfish
Guest
Seriously. I’ve read this “objection” to the anthropic principle several times, and it’s just plain weird that the poster didn’t think it through. Haven’t been to Vegas, I guess.
C
coolduude
Guest
I don’t quite understand this, but judging from the reaction of other’s, I’m assuming it makes senseSince there is a theorem that establishes a boundary, the claim is that such a universe without a beginning is impossible. If classical gravity is operating near the boundary, then it’s a singularity and therefore has a beginning in time. If quantum effects are near the boundary, then it could be an opening to another earlier region of space-time which may or may not require a boundary. But the theorem (re: BVG for the three scientists) applies to any universe that there be a boundary which is an absolute boundary. The theorem responds to various scenarios such as string-theory, eternal inflation, etc . . . (Haven’t read all of the possibilities yet,)
Also, if the probability of our universe is the same for any other universes existing, it matters that our universe has an intrinsic order to be able to sustain a life form. In fact, there are enormous odds, like 10 to the 10thpower to the 123rd power. This is so extraodinarily rare for such “fine-tuning”. The argument that another type of universe coming into existence requires the same odds is meaningless since there would be no evidence of design. It would be disordered just like a bunch of other possible universes that don’t have the constants fitted exactly to make a setting for order and life.
Don’t understand this eitherWell, don’t feel bad, I’'m trying to understand post #18 the way the numbers work. It was said there are three numbers, so I guess 0 doesn’t count as a number? Anyhow, even then, I can’t see how they add up.
At the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, there was low entropy in the universe when The Second Law of Thermodynamics says disorganization should increase
or stay the same and never goes down. (Evidence is all the dark energy). Entropy gets released as stars burn, so there should be more entropy. But stars are continually forming and the universe is not being run down but expanding and producing more stars, yet the entropy is still low.
I’m sure some scientist on here could help us out.
I’m quite an ironic person. I love reading up on philosophy and such, but it seems I don’t understand most of it
4
4Horsemen
Guest
Thank you for the explanation. That analogy with the numbers representing the three particles is very helpful in understanding the idea of a macrostate and a microstate. I can see that there are many more options of particles in the macrostate.
Cosmology is a fascinating subject. Without much background, I’m just trying to learn more about how the Great Designer arranged our universe. And there’s much more of it, most likely, than we can actually observe. I’ve been reading Fr. Robert Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God. I recommend it to everyone on this thread. It’s not just about the physics but also the metaphysics. He gives a metaphysical argument for God’s existence and a proof by Bernard Lonergan. (I’m not that far yet).
4
4Horsemen
Guest
The question of this thread “Other eternal forces?” which I believe you mean other than God? So do you think that God is out there but He’s not the only one? You said your faith tells you differently. Your faith is right, but reason also shows us the way to God. So does the study of our natural world and the universe. So should the story of our life as it is manifested. And what a great discovery it is to find God in the natural world, in the universe, and in the story of our life.I’m quite an ironic person. I love reading up on philosophy and such, but it seems I don’t understand most of it
C
coolduude
Guest
Indeed, I know that God is there. Yet, I can’t rule out why gravity is created and is not the ‘creator’.
The_Reginator
Active member
I must be misunderstanding you – the creator can create gravity, but gravity cannot create God. Right?
As a Catholic surely you’re not suggesting that gravity and IS God. Gravity cannot ‘create’ anything. The effects of gravity have actions in this universe, but creation belongs to a mind. The mind of God.
Am I missing your point?
C
coolduude
Guest
I think you are. Let me try to explain myself better.
I must be misunderstanding you – the creator can create gravity, but gravity cannot create God. Right?
As a Catholic surely you’re not suggesting that gravity and IS God. Gravity cannot ‘create’ anything. The effects of gravity have actions in this universe, but creation belongs to a mind. The mind of God.
Am I missing your point?
Suppose (just suppose) that there is no God and that gravity is the eternal force, the force that explains it’s own being and is existence itself. Now, this can’t be. But why? There must be a God, not just gravity- but why?
I hope that helps!
4
4Horsemen
Guest
I don’t quite understand this, but judging from the reaction of other’s, I’m assuming it makes sense
L
Liinus
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that God created the universe, including physical and spritual substances in time, before which nothing existed but Himself . The physical substances would inclued all nebulous substances like waves, forces, gravity, aether etc. as well as those things like the elements and living substances with which we are more familiar ( so there are no eternal elements). The Church also teaches that God maintains all things and their acts in existence by his continuous creative act and directs all to their proper end. And that there are no accidents or random acts in the universe and there have never been. This is what Thomas Aquinas teaches as well.
C
coolduude
Guest
Question:
Several posters here have said that for gravity to work, it must act upon matter, of which there was none pre-big bang. But couldn’t gravity act upon itself? Isn’t that what it does in a blackhole?
I suppose my question ultimately comes down to “could gravity have acted on itself in a gravity field and spawned the universe?”
See what I’m trying to ask?
Thanks
Several posters here have said that for gravity to work, it must act upon matter, of which there was none pre-big bang. But couldn’t gravity act upon itself? Isn’t that what it does in a blackhole?
I suppose my question ultimately comes down to “could gravity have acted on itself in a gravity field and spawned the universe?”
See what I’m trying to ask?
Thanks
D
DPMartin
Guest
coolduude
Look at the stars in a clear sky, note, nothing is out of order. Order comes from order, not from chaos. And nothing is exposed to order without the Presence of order.
Hence understand:
Gen:1:
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This verse alone says what science has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in order to say all things are made of :
beginning- time,
God- something that stared it
created-energy
Heave- space
earth- matter
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
No presence of order what so ever
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The Presence of that which gives order, in the mist of no order
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
God giving order, for order is of the Knowledge of order.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
God fulfilling, and completing the order given. For only of He who is the Knowledge, Understands what the true fulfillment of order is.
- Status