Physics and Theology-- and your thoughts

[JimG]

For starters, consider the first Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Yet according to Catholic theology, God created it.

That is normally called a contradiction.

Physics deals with non-material reality just fine. Electromagnetic radiation, gravitational fields, electric/magnetic fields, and all known forces are non-material. That is exactly what physics deals with.

What kind of reality do you imagine that physics does not, or cannot deal with?

If, according to theology, the soul has the faculty of intellect, exactly what do you think that the brain does?

Your statement, “But the soul, being immaterial is not a subject of study by physics,” is no more valid in this paragraph than it was in the first. Physics became the force for understanding that it is by studying, primarily, the immaterial. You do know that only about 4% of the universe is composed of regular matter, do you not?

Electromagnetic fields, radiation, gravitational fields, (and yes, dark matter or dark energy) are all part of material reality, as are space and time, whether or not they are viewed as particles, or as waves, or as strings, or membranes, or as vibrations within space-time itself. Physics describes how matter and energy behave in its extension in space and time. Even a particle / anti-particle pair arising from a quantum substrate does not arise from ‘nothing’ in a philosophical sense, since the quantum substrate itself is something.

Theology deems God, (and angels) (and the human soul) to be non-material entities, with no extension in space or time. If God does not take up space, and has no temporal extension, and no parts, there is no way for physics to study him. That is the business of theology. See F.J. Sheed for an introduction.

You are right that Creation itself would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, if indeed it could be violated before it existed—before anything existed. The idea of creation ex nihilo is a (theological) explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. Once matter and energy exist, all the physical laws apply.

The brain does a lot, including organizing the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut from all areas of our body. Perhaps it was Aquinas who said “all knowledge begins in the senses.” I don’t recall. But in order for such sense knowledge to eventually result in ideas, concepts, theorems, one must be able to abstract from the particular to the general and universal. Humans can do that. I’m no neuroscientist. It will be interesting to see whether there can be a purely physcal explanation for the development of abstract ideas.

 

[JDaniel]

For starters, consider the first Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Yet according to Catholic theology, God created it.

That is normally called a contradiction.

Greylorn:

You are “postulating” (in precisely the meaning of that word) that something has always existed that was not God, it appears. Are you not?

If, prior to anything physical whatsoever, there was absolutely nothing physical that existed, and thus no reason for any Laws, then that which created all things, i.e., God, must have been able to do it without having to resort to pre-existing, extraneous stuff that was exclusive of God. But how? There wasn’t any extraneous stuff in my, Catholic, view. There wasn’t anything that he could have commandeered/confiscated/expropriated or used with which to shape into something. So, despite the seeming contradiction with thermo 1, it should be easy for Omnipotence to extract, so to speak, “point particles” from his mind (they are nothing but abstractions anyway) and configure them much the way Fred suggests, as bumps in discrete space.

“postulate - with an object
1 - [to] suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief” - Oxford Dictionary"

Physics deals with non-material reality just fine. Electromagnetic radiation, gravitational fields, electric/magnetic fields, and all known forces are non-material. That is exactly what physics deals with.

Actually, your previous is a contradiction. There is no such thing as a “field” absent of something. We test for it by the introduction of something else into the proposed proximity of the field. But, we can’t test for a field within a pure vacuum.

Sound, for instance, is the mechanical oscillations of pressure within a physical medium, such as air or water. It requires a physical medium, not for propagation, but for transmission, as from its source to my ear.

What kind of reality do you imagine that physics does not, or cannot deal with?

In my opinion, just what men have called the spiritual for a couple thousand years. Why can’t the spiritual exist? What is in all those gaps between electrons and their nuclei? What is in those gaps between protons and neutrons? What is in those gaps between quarks? The God of the Gaps, as Fred might say?

If, according to theology, the soul has the faculty of intellect, exactly what do you think that the brain does?

It provides a “reactive” point of impetus and memory for survival. And, it provides a home office for analytical stuff, i.e., impetus for comparisons and memory of those things that are not for survival purposes.

Electrical impulses travel to and fro, appearing for all intents to actually be “thoughts.” They translate into, possibly, one’s and zeroes. Or, something else. We see it as physical material, rather than as the lattice of point-gaps, which they might be. It’s easier for our intelligibility, at this time in our evolvement. (See, I avoided that other term, that describes a kind of science fiction.)

Your statement, “But the soul, being immaterial is not a subject of study by physics,” is no more valid in this paragraph than it was in the first. Physics became the force for understanding that it is by studying, primarily, the immaterial. You do know that only about 4% of the universe is composed of regular matter, do you not?

What the heck is ‘regular matter’? Is it that which we perceive and agree (with others) to call ‘regular matter’? Or, is it something like that which we regard on our LED, or LCD, television screens: incrementations of light, dark and colors, merely translated in our minds into the perception of real?

(It might be easier if only knew where to find your book! )

God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

Electromagnetic fields, radiation, gravitational fields, (and yes, dark matter or dark energy) are all part of material reality, as are space and time, whether or not they are viewed as particles, or as waves, or as strings, or membranes, or as vibrations within space-time itself. Physics describes how matter and energy behave in its extension in space and time. Even a particle / anti-particle pair arising from a quantum substrate does not arise from ‘nothing’ in a philosophical sense, since the quantum substrate itself is something.

Theology deems God, (and angels) (and the human soul) to be non-material entities, with no extension in space or time. If God does not take up space, and has no temporal extension, and no parts, there is no way for physics to study him. That is the business of theology. See F.J. Sheed for an introduction.

You are right that Creation itself would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, if indeed it could be violated before it existed—before anything existed. The idea of creation ex nihilo is a (theological) explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. Once matter and energy exist, all the physical laws apply.

The brain does a lot, including organizing the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut from all areas of our body. Perhaps it was Aquinas who said “all knowledge begins in the senses.” I don’t recall. But in order for such sense knowledge to eventually result in ideas, concepts, theorems, one must be able to abstract from the particular to the general and universal. Humans can do that. I’m no neuroscientist. It will be interesting to see whether there can be a purely physcal explanation for the development of abstract ideas.

Material means, composed of matter. Matter is a specific form of energy. The entire universe is “physical,” by definition. Only a small percentage of it is material, including dark matter.

I’ve long since learned that it is an utter waste of time to discuss anything with someone who adjusts the meaning of words to make his points. So, let us not bother with further communications.

 

[JimG]

Yes, the entire universe is physical, by definition which includes all extensions of matter, energy, space, or time. But the spiritual, such as God, is not material (i.e. not matter-energy or space-time), and not part of the universe, which is why they are distinct fields of study.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:
You are “postulating” (in precisely the meaning of that word) that something has always existed that was not God, it appears. Are you not?

“postulate - with an object
1 - [to] suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief” - Oxford Dictionary"

I am indeed, although I never thought of it formally like that.

However, my postulate was not pulled out of a hat. What is a mere postulate at the level of philosophy is also The First Law of Thermodynamics in physics.

If, prior to anything physical whatsoever, there was absolutely nothing physical that existed, and thus no reason for any Laws, then that which created all things, i.e., God, must have been able to do it without having to resort to pre-existing, extraneous stuff that was exclusive of God. But how? There wasn’t any extraneous stuff in my, Catholic, view. There wasn’t anything that he could have commandeered/confiscated/expropriated or used with which to shape into something. So, despite the seeming contradiction with thermo 1, it should be easy for Omnipotence to extract, so to speak, “point particles” from his mind (they are nothing but abstractions anyway) and configure them much the way Fred suggests, as bumps in discrete space.

As you already know, my ideas about the beginnings of things are as different from those of conventional religions as from conventional science, although as a philosopher/mathematician friend recently pointed out, they have been proposed before.

I ran into difficulty with omnipotence in 4th grade religion class, where I (for myself) invented the question, Can God make a rock so big that He cannot move it? The priest teaching that class became very angry with me, so I shut up for a long time.

I subsequently put my objections to the omnipotence concept in physics terms, on the grounds that omnipotence is a worthless attribute, for it implies the reality of a mathematical abstraction, namely infinity. Were an omnipotent being to apply infinite force to a bean, it would immediately accelerate to infinite velocity. On the way it would reach lightspeed and acquire infinite mass. This mass would produce an infinitely large gravitational field that would immediately suck all matter and energy into it, thus destroying the universe.

After these considerations I realized that God did not need to be omnipotent in order to create the universe. He simply needed to be powerful enough.

So I set about seeking a better and simpler way to explain creation, struggling with possibilities for about 40 years until talking a lesson from Newton and realizing that just like at least two things are required to cause an event in our universe (force and counterforce) the same was true pre-universe.

The principles inherent in the three laws of thermodynamics provided a subtle force within energy, and God provides the counterforce. In the process I realized that by giving up the omnipotence principle and allowing energy to consistently follow its own laws, rather than introduce theological theory, I could develop a perfectly logical God-concept which was entirely consistent with the principles of physics, thus integrating hard science and theology.

Of course nothing is free. There are some principles of physics which require a bit of tweaking in order to make this scheme work, and obviously, my theology differs from yours.

And for me, that’s okay. I’m not interested in converting Catholics. I am interested in stopping the spread of atheism, which IMO is the inevitable consequence of religious beliefs that are out of sync with science.

Actually, your previous is a contradiction. There is no such thing as a “field” absent of something. We test for it by the introduction of something else into the proposed proximity of the field. But, we can’t test for a field within a pure vacuum.

Agreed. But given the recently discovered pervasiveness of dark energy and dark matter, and the psi-research experiments which show that not even a Faraday cage can block telepathic information, do you believe that there is such a thing as a pure vacuum? If there was, how would we know?

Sound, for instance, is the mechanical oscillations of pressure within a physical medium, such as air or water. It requires a physical medium, not for propagation, but for transmission, as from its source to my ear.

Correct. The same is true for light. The medium is the long-discarded aether.

In my opinion, just what men have called the spiritual for a couple thousand years. Why can’t the spiritual exist? What is in all those gaps between electrons and their nuclei? What is in those gaps between protons and neutrons? What is in those gaps between quarks? The God of the Gaps, as Fred might say?

I like your thinking. Would you consider dark energy as a candidate?

The “spiritual” can exist more effectively, I think, if it is defined. The notion will always exist for mystics, those who claim that they want to understand the universe but cannot imagine how a physics course might be helpful. They will believe whatever amuses them anyway, or whatever they were taught to believe as children, or whatever those with whom they associate believe.

However, my goals are to integrate science and theology, which I can do quite nicely without claiming the existence of something which cannot possibly be detected. It is, IMO, ill-defined notions like “the spiritual” which keep science and religion separated, because any religionist can pull out whatever rabbits he wants from a spiritual hat, to answer any argument.

It provides a “reactive” point of impetus and memory for survival. And, it provides a home office for analytical stuff, i.e., impetus for comparisons and memory of those things that are not for survival purposes.

Electrical impulses travel to and fro, appearing for all intents to actually be “thoughts.” They translate into, possibly, one’s and zeroes. Or, something else. We see it as physical material, rather than as the lattice of point-gaps, which they might be. It’s easier for our intelligibility, at this time in our evolvement. (See, I avoided that other term, that describes a kind of science fiction.)

If you remove the not in your 2nd sentence, which I’ve emphasized for this point, I can generally accept this analysis. It is quite good, actually.

What the heck is ‘regular matter’? Is it that which we perceive and agree (with others) to call ‘regular matter’? Or, is it something like that which we regard on our LED, or LCD, television screens: incrementations of light, dark and colors, merely translated in our minds into the perception of real?

That was good too. My best theory of “regular” matter is that it is some tightly woven energy knots which tie up, literally, a disproportionate amount of energy in a small space. Matter is actually composed of waves. It has these properties.

• The ability to reflect/absorb electromagnetic radiation, which allows us to “see” it.
• Inertia, the tendency to resist any change in its state of motion, whatever that means.
• Gravitational mass, the warping of space in its vicinity.
• Stability.
• The ability to maintain electric charge, in some of its geometries. This allows us to “touch” it.

(It might be easier if only knew where to find your book! )
God bless,
jd

Thank you for asking, which allows me to tell you and remain within CAF guidelines. Printing finished last Friday. By its formal publication date, 4 July, you’ll be able to find it by searching for Greylorn Ell or Digital Universe-- Analog Soul. I’ll PM you in case your browser misses it.

 

[yppop]

Thank you for asking, which allows me to tell you and remain within CAF guidelines. Printing finished last Friday. By its formal publication date, 4 July, you’ll be able to find it by searching for Greylorn Ell or Digital Universe-- Analog Soul. I’ll PM you in case your browser misses it.

Hey GL,
Send me a PM also; I’ve been waiting for 3 years; Can’t wait to read it, if it doesn’t cost more tha $5, especially with that intriquing title " Digital Universe-Analog Soul". Who 's the publisher???
Yppop

 

[Abba]

I do not believe that the method of obtaining an experience invalidates, or necessarily validates the experience.

I disagree. You, of course, are free to follow a madman or someone’s psychedelic hallucinations in search for truth. I am not. It matters to me because hallucinations are caused by a malfunction of the mind. I consider it illogical to do so.

1. Now, if we disregard as the origin of the experience the experiences of a madman or as having been caused by drugs and we say that we are considering the experience of a healthy person, then I would first of consider the spiritual origin of the experience and not necessarily the type of experience (OOB, etc…).

You will, of course, not take the following route but I would. I would try to discern the spiritual origin of the spiritual experience. The principal source could be from God or Satan. I think it is important to make the distinction because the spiritual source of Satan is of creature but that of God is divine. They are very distinct in the spiritual realm and you do not want to start with a wrong source (Satan) to draw conclusions about non-Satan and put the data and deductions and findings with the label “God”. Now, if you wanted to prove the existence of Satan you want to make sure that it is Satan that you are dealing with but if God make sure that it is divine.

1. Now, as far as finding a particle or a theological system that will harmonized physics and theology, well, I don’t like that ether theory nor the possibility of weighing the soul. It just does not seem very plausible to me for many reasons mostly theological ones (e.g. matter is subject to change and God does not change as God is perfect) you will recall this old article of Duncan MacDougall, M.D.: Hypothesis Concerning Soul Substance Together with Experimental Evidence of The Existence of Such Substance]. ghostweb.com/soul.html

Greylorn, I read this article by Sean Carroll a grad of Harvard who is now teaching at the California Institute of Technology. He is saying nothing new and his Darwinian perception does not even allow him to be open to exploring the possibility. I would be more respectful to a theologian for having such a disposition than to a scientist. Science does not know everything so it cannot state what there is not. Carrol seems to consider it a big waste of time and an idea that should just be let go and people should just get back to scientific work: Physics and the Immortality of the Soul blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/ There is nothing original there, just a lot of regurgitation.

For entertainment sake and keeping an open mind and following through the thought; I would eliminate the possibility of an actual physical substance for spirit and go as far as to consider ‘energy’ as possibly being a composition of spirit or an effect of spirit or an accident. These immediately would eliminate the divine but, you never know - the energy of Satan (experienced through a curse or possession) is very different from that experienced by the Holy Spirit. Given that Satan is a creature his energy may be detectable, who knows, although he is still spirit and spirit is non-material , if you prove Satan you may convert some people any way. I like the movie the Rite, it is not a great movie but it was okay and based on a true story. The priests finally became convinced of the existence of God because he came to know that Satan exist. Here is a nice article, I am going to have to read it again, I do not know if you have already: Substance newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm It appears as though that even if you are able to detect the energy effects of spirit it is just that an effect that the spirit not the substance.

1. The other thing that you would want to consider is the inability of human beings to believe in the existence of God. Not all non-believers do not believe due to lack of scientific proof.
2. Finally, in my estimation, what would harmonize theology and science in a more scientific way, I would say is mathematics. I think a mathematical theory that proves time travel or at least a statistical or probabilities system that demonstrates the future can be known will help many to come to believe in the existence of God. My suggestion to the modern day geniuses of Augustine and Thomas that you propose (which by the way a lot of their knowledge was given to them by the Holy Spirit) would be a mathematical theory concerning time.

Better get back to work. It’s been fun. Although, I must say, it can get kind of freaky to consider and contemplate time and how the past and the future are now and time is the only thing keeping them apart etc…and the stillness of an object - frozen in time.

 

[JDaniel]

I am indeed, although I never thought of it formally like that.

However, my postulate was not pulled out of a hat. What is a mere postulate at the level of philosophy is also The First Law of Thermodynamics in physics.

Greylorn:

That it is. But . . . but postulation does not confer reality (unless it is God doing the postulating). (In my view, of course.)

I ran into difficulty with omnipotence in 4th grade religion class, where I (for myself) invented the question, Can God make a rock so big that He cannot move it? The priest teaching that class became very angry with me, so I shut up for a long time.

That supposed conundrum has never been a problem to me. I have always viewed it as an anti-logic. It presumes two contrary, conflicting, and diametrically opposed premises attempting to occupy the same Truth at precisely the same time, in precisely the same place, and in precisely the same way.

I think of it as what might happen when two strongly opposed charged entities are packed together so tightly that there is no separation between them. Contraries exist, this we know. In my opinion, they are God-created exigencies that are extraordinarily purposive for maintaining fine balances. But, there is no convincing purpose, or usefulness for anti-logic. Except as bad conclusions from equally bad propositions. (Well, you were only in fourth grade - and I will admit that it was not bad for a fourth grader!)

I subsequently put my objections to the omnipotence concept in physics terms, on the grounds that omnipotence is a worthless attribute, for it implies the reality of a mathematical abstraction, namely infinity. Were an omnipotent being to apply infinite force to a bean, it would immediately accelerate to infinite velocity. On the way it would reach light speed and acquire infinite mass. This mass would produce an infinitely large gravitational field that would immediately suck all matter and energy into it, thus destroying the universe.

Don’t apply “infinite” force. Problem solved. If God manifests as Infinite (continuous) Space, and there is a finite number of points, latticed into a universe, in his mind, infinite force is not necessary. God builds in only what is needed for the algorithm to produce the effect he intends. Omniscience is required where God intends to bring into existence that which has never existed, and that which does not displace any part of him.

After these considerations I realized that God did not need to be omnipotent in order to create the universe. He simply needed to be powerful enough.

This opens up a plethora of new questions that perhaps your book will answer.

So I set about seeking a better and simpler way to explain creation, struggling with possibilities for about 40 years until talking a lesson from Newton and realizing that just like at least two things are required to cause an event in our universe (force and counterforce) the same was true pre-universe.

You have further piqued my interest.

The principles inherent in the three laws of thermodynamics provided a subtle force within energy, and God provides the counterforce. In the process I realized that by giving up the omnipotence principle and allowing energy to consistently follow its own laws, rather than introduce theological theory, I could develop a perfectly logical God-concept which was entirely consistent with the principles of physics, thus integrating hard science and theology.

Where is he hiding? And, why reveal himself only as he has?

Agreed. But given the recently discovered pervasiveness of dark energy and dark matter, and the psi-research experiments which show that not even a Faraday cage can block telepathic information, do you believe that there is such a thing as a pure vacuum?

It seems theoretically possible, but I doubt one exists.

If there was, how would we know?

Well, that’s simple: We have to open up the container as fast as we can and test what’s inside.

I like your thinking. Would you consider dark energy as a candidate?

Yes. “Dark matter” is still very nebulous stuff to me. But, I could liken it to Yppop’s continuous space. If it is, then it must permeate all of what confronts our senses, in some manner.

The “spiritual” can exist more effectively, I think, if it is defined. The notion will always exist for mystics, those who claim that they want to understand the universe but cannot imagine how a physics course might be helpful. They will believe whatever amuses them anyway, or whatever they were taught to believe as children, or whatever those with whom they associate believe.

Is it “defined” in your book?

However, my goals are to integrate science and theology, which I can do quite nicely without claiming the existence of something which cannot possibly be detected.

You mean stuff like “dark matter?”

It is, IMO, ill-defined notions like “the spiritual” which keep science and religion separated, because any religionist can pull out whatever rabbits he wants from a spiritual hat, to answer any argument.

You mean like evolutionists do?

If you remove the not in your 2nd sentence, which I’ve emphasized for this point, I can generally accept this analysis. It is quite good, actually.

Thank you.

I’d prefer not to remove the “not,” though. I think we often do things that are not intricately bound to survival. For instance, what we’re doing right now. Of course, one can attribute anything to anything, but, how does the enjoyment of the sweet scent from a field of flowers directly aid survival? How do multiple re-enjoyments of re-stimulating a future perfect event directly aid survival? I know that I can look forward to a time when I will be able to re-enact our present conversation with a pleasantness practically equal to today’s. How is it related to survival?

My best theory of “regular” matter is that it is some tightly woven energy knots which tie up, literally, a disproportionate amount of energy in a small space. Matter is actually composed of waves. It has these properties.

• The ability to reflect/absorb electromagnetic radiation, which allows us to “see” it.

• Inertia, the tendency to resist any change in its state of motion, whatever that means.

• Gravitational mass, the warping of space in its vicinity.

• Stability.

• The ability to maintain electric charge, in some of its geometries. This allows us to “touch” it.

Do you think matter has these properties by virtue of their mere existence?

Thank you for asking, which allows me to tell you and remain within CAF guidelines. Printing finished last Friday. By its formal publication date, 4 July, you’ll be able to find it by searching for Greylorn Ell or Digital Universe-- Analog Soul. I’ll PM you in case your browser misses it.

By all means, please do.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Greylorn:

Your thoughts on this: Dark Matter

God bless,
jd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Alberti–
Thank you for replying to this. To begin, while I respect your position (and once held it myself) I am convinced that a universally credible theology will require its integration with physics.

This is a point I do not understand. Why must physics (and physics alone, not chemistry, biology, etc combined with physics) require integration with theology? More importantly, to me at least, this indirectly implies that (a) physics is incompatible with Catholicism and (b) Catholicism has an incredible theology.

Of course, how much of any result can be proven or not is open to question. Proof seems to operate on a sliding scale, even in physics, ranging from unquestionable certainty to, “Joe’s theory is looking better and better.”

This is because in physics, as it is the case with all sciences, theories are not provable, only disprovable.

Then there is the matter of proof of theory vs. proof of data. The evidence behind QM is out there, but the Copenhagen interpretation of QM was decided upon by a stinking vote in a packed council, much like the Council of Trent. The American scientists who opposed the Danes could not afford to attend an overseas meeting in Europe, because back in 1929 our universities did not have that kind of money to spend.

Correct. This is why a lot of realists like the de Broglie-Bohm wave mechanics formulation.

Nonetheless, some measure of proof, which will likely be as inferential as most, is essential.

Exactly.

Yes, yes— I know the story. I was working in astronomy while it was being kicked around. IMO the same expansion effect can be accounted for by dark energy, operating from the very beginning of things, from the creation of the first quarks and leptons.

Except the mathematics of that theory does not at all work. Standard Lambda-CDM model shows a short decelerated expansion before the current accelerated expansion. Then there is Fulvio Melia’s recent model (R[sub]h[/sub]=ct universe) that says there is no accelerated or decelerated expansion, but a constant one. But all models suggest an expansion because the data suggests an expansion.

And even if you assume some sort of eternal static universe, as opposed to the big bang expanding universe, there is no reason that the dark energy would just happen to cause an expansion for no reason.

Hark back to an old and vaunted principle of science. A good theory predicts things. This is how Einstein’s theories became accepted despite their counter-intuitive properties.

So what does your theory predict?

With that memory fixed in mind, ask yourself about the predictive value of Big Bang theory. I seem to recall that it predicted the deceleration of the universe’s rate of expansion. As you know, experiment showed the exact opposite— the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Right, the initial prediction of the big bang was that it would decelerate because (a) it was expanding into something and (b) there was no energy to keep it accelerating. The data showed otherwise and dark energy was invented (I am still skeptical about both dark energy and dark matter). This, as you should be well aware, is how science works: a theory is made, data is collected and analysed, the theory is revamped.

Why hang onto a theory which predicted the exact opposite and is therefore apparently, if not obviously incorrect?

Perhaps you have forgotten about Einstein’s own ‘biggest blunder’ of inserting the cosmological constant to keep a static universe? Then Hubble stole Lemaitre’s work on the SNe data and GR was amended to remove that constant (of course, now the constant has been re-inserted to fit the accelerated expansion)

I recall an article from Scientific American several months back which got a front page lead which went like, 'Why Big Bang theory must be fixed or replaced! I am clearly not the only one who sees problems with it.

I have not subscribed to that hunk of junk for many years. It is as worthless as the Washington Post. In any event, I could not find that article on their internet archives. Perhaps you could find the article and direct me to it?

The more simplistic style in which I put it— if a student’s solution to a physics problem results in a singularity, the student gets an F— is less elegant than your expanded (and correct) description but valid nonetheless.

In your terms, it means that the theory which produced the singularity gets an F, which you state in slicker terms. My statement holds: There is no such thing as a physical singularity. Singularities are mathematical by definition, and only appear in our theoretical models of physical reality.

What if the student is supposed to derive the singularity? Then would they get an A? I have never been given or have given a test in which a student could possibly get a singularity when none was expected.
And basically what you are saying here is that GR, SR, QED, E&M, Newton, and several other major theories in physics all get F’s because they can produce singularities. I am going to have to completely disagree with you on this one. Just because we get a singularity in the mathematical description of the physical, does not mean that we must reject the theory. If that were indeed the case, we would have no mathematical theories of reality left.

…continued…

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

…continued…

If you’ve not watched the documentary channel cosmology pieces, you might want to do so. There you can see how your understanding of a singularity has morphed into a magical micropea that suddenly appeared out of nothing and exploded to make the Big Bang. These fools are treating a mathematical model as an absurd representation of what really happened. Do you really want to stand behind that nonsense?

I do not have cable television. It is a waste of my time that can be better spent with my kids, my wife, or my research. That said, I stand by the theory that represents reality best, and the big bang is that theory. There are zero alternatives that are credible.

Then, ask yourself how does such a singularity, the great-grandmother of all black holes, actually do something? Seems to me that a little lump containing all the mass-energy in the universe would have all the space-time in the universe wrapped around it so tightly that it cannot possibly expand.

I do not know how a singularity could do something. But the alternative to the big bang is a static, eternal universe that has even larger problems that ‘what started it’ that the BBT has (though the eternal universe also has that same problem)

I address your first question from principle, in that God would not kludge the universe into existence. The notion of gathering up all the available raw energy into a tiny lump, then standing back and hoping that when it explodes this time, it will create a nice universe with all the necessary physical laws and perfectly balanced operating parameters, is the silliest imaginable way to fire up a universe. Way too haphazard for my taste.

I absolutely agree with this, assuming the watch-maker version of God. However, since I reject that notion of our Creator and accept the one who guided the shape an workings of our Universe, I disagree with the above.

Besides, the Big Bang is functionally equivalent to creation by an almighty God. Nothing can be known about either, Why pile one unknowable possibility atop another? Remember phlogiston theory?

Except phlogiston theory did not hold up to any theories and BBT has. So, yes, they are exactly alike.

Your second question, the “what was it?” part, is also the part that I would like to answer. I have some notions about it which I kick around in a recent book, but these are just handwaving ideas based upon my limited knowledge of physics. A mathematician friend has been trying to bump my theoretical math skills up a few ticks, but we both agree that some innovative math/physics guy is more likely to work out the details. We both agree that they can be worked out. He’s trying to interest some physicist friends in the problem, and I’m doing my part by initiating this thread.

So instead of actually answering, you are pleading to have me purchase your book? PM me the theory, I can take a look at the mathematics of it and see if it is worth my while to tinker with it.

I appreciate your interest.

Not a problem. Physics and God are two of my favorite things.

 

[greylorn]

I disagree. You, of course, are free to follow a madman or someone’s psychedelic hallucinations in search for truth. I am not. It matters to me because hallucinations are caused by a malfunction of the mind. I consider it illogical to do so.

1. Now, if we disregard as the origin of the experience the experiences of a madman or as having been caused by drugs and we say that we are considering the experience of a healthy person, then I would first of consider the spiritual origin of the experience and not necessarily the type of experience (OOB, etc…).

You will, of course, not take the following route but I would. I would try to discern the spiritual origin of the spiritual experience. The principal source could be from God or Satan. I think it is important to make the distinction because the spiritual source of Satan is of creature but that of God is divine. They are very distinct in the spiritual realm and you do not want to start with a wrong source (Satan) to draw conclusions about non-Satan and put the data and deductions and findings with the label “God”. Now, if you wanted to prove the existence of Satan you want to make sure that it is Satan that you are dealing with but if God make sure that it is divine.

1. Now, as far as finding a particle or a theological system that will harmonized physics and theology, well, I don’t like that ether theory nor the possibility of weighing the soul. It just does not seem very plausible to me for many reasons mostly theological ones (e.g. matter is subject to change and God does not change as God is perfect) you will recall this old article of Duncan MacDougall, M.D.: Hypothesis Concerning Soul Substance Together with Experimental Evidence of The Existence of Such Substance]. ghostweb.com/soul.html

Greylorn, I read this article by Sean Carroll a grad of Harvard who is now teaching at the California Institute of Technology. He is saying nothing new and his Darwinian perception does not even allow him to be open to exploring the possibility. I would be more respectful to a theologian for having such a disposition than to a scientist. Science does not know everything so it cannot state what there is not. Carrol seems to consider it a big waste of time and an idea that should just be let go and people should just get back to scientific work: Physics and the Immortality of the Soul blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/ There is nothing original there, just a lot of regurgitation.

For entertainment sake and keeping an open mind and following through the thought; I would eliminate the possibility of an actual physical substance for spirit and go as far as to consider ‘energy’ as possibly being a composition of spirit or an effect of spirit or an accident. These immediately would eliminate the divine but, you never know - the energy of Satan (experienced through a curse or possession) is very different from that experienced by the Holy Spirit. Given that Satan is a creature his energy may be detectable, who knows, although he is still spirit and spirit is non-material , if you prove Satan you may convert some people any way. I like the movie the Rite, it is not a great movie but it was okay and based on a true story. The priests finally became convinced of the existence of God because he came to know that Satan exist. Here is a nice article, I am going to have to read it again, I do not know if you have already: Substance newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm It appears as though that even if you are able to detect the energy effects of spirit it is just that an effect that the spirit not the substance.

1. The other thing that you would want to consider is the inability of human beings to believe in the existence of God. Not all non-believers do not believe due to lack of scientific proof.
2. Finally, in my estimation, what would harmonize theology and science in a more scientific way, I would say is mathematics. I think a mathematical theory that proves time travel or at least a statistical or probabilities system that demonstrates the future can be known will help many to come to believe in the existence of God. My suggestion to the modern day geniuses of Augustine and Thomas that you propose (which by the way a lot of their knowledge was given to them by the Holy Spirit) would be a mathematical theory concerning time.

Better get back to work. It’s been fun. Although, I must say, it can get kind of freaky to consider and contemplate time and how the past and the future are now and time is the only thing keeping them apart etc…and the stillness of an object - frozen in time.

Abba,
Like most religionists you tend to think is spiritual terms when looking for a solution. I don’t use that approach because anyone can make up pretty much whatever they need to about what happens in the spiritual world. It is impossible to predict what an unlimited God will or won’t do; likewise a “Satan” which I regard as a concept invented to sell religion. I think and seek solutions in terms of physics and common sense logic. Therefore it is not likely that any of my solutions will interest you.

Here are a few thoughts that won’t interest you either.

I gave the McDougall stuff very little interest. He does not define the soul. How then can he measure it? If the soul is a “spirit,” it should weigh nothing. His experiments seem a waste of time, and the little data he claims to have obtained is only fit for low grade documentary channel pap.

About 45 years ago when discussing my fledgling ideas about the properties of soul over a few beers with my boss, who had a Ph.D in astronomy and EE and was pretty smart, he told me that my soul had to be made of energy— just as you proposed. Like a pinhead I bought into that idea, which set my thinking back about 40 years. (BTW that is also a common New Age metaphysical belief.) In order for beon (my word for “soul” which I use to differentiate my concepts from religious beliefs) to be a functional entity within an energy-based universe, it must be something other than energy, with properties that counter those of energy.

Re: your point 3 which is ostensibly correct. However, most nonbelievers are the same as believers in that they are crowd followers. Like in high school, blah kids want to follow the in crowd, the cool crowd, or whatever. Adults are the same. 97% followers. Religious leaders are no longer powerful, and thus not cool. Science is “where it’s at” for most mindless shmoos who don’t know an electron from a nucleotide, and since most scientists are atheists, so are most camp followers.

(I’ve trying to make a physics-based concept of soul that’s cool.)

1. I agree that math is important. I regard it as the language of gods. And, curiously, one of the topics my book addresses is an alternative notion of time. However, putting it into mathematical form will require someone smarter than me.

 

[inocente]

With that memory fixed in mind, ask yourself about the predictive value of Big Bang theory. I seem to recall that it predicted the deceleration of the universe’s rate of expansion. As you know, experiment showed the exact opposite— the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Why hang onto a theory which predicted the exact opposite and is therefore apparently, if not obviously incorrect?

My understanding (I’m no cosmologist) is that Lemaitre’s “primeval atom”, which became known as big bang, predicts expansion but not the rate of change of expansion. Lemaitre shows, as a theoretical consequence of relativity, that a static universe would be unstable, and predicts that our universe must be expanding, which was confirmed by observations of red shift.

I recall an article from Scientific American several months back which got a front page lead which went like, 'Why Big Bang theory must be fixed or replaced! I am clearly not the only one who sees problems with it.

…] If you’ve not watched the documentary channel cosmology pieces, you might want to do so.

Hmmm. Cosmology from pop magazines and tv shows?

(Alberti - I think this is the SciAm article - it’s about inflation, not big bang.)

Besides, the Big Bang is functionally equivalent to creation by an almighty God. Nothing can be known about either, Why pile one unknowable possibility atop another?

Au contraire monsieur pussycat. Lemaitre, as a priest, said his theory makes an interesting theological prediction about God - we see no evidence of God even at the big bang, so God cannot be the interventionist god of popular folklore:

For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Finally, suppose that they invited you to contribute ideas. What would you propose? What new and different ideas would *you *invite them to consider?

Get your two brilliant dudes to figure out a way to let atheists share in religion. Seriously, something for everyone.

 

[greylorn]

…continued…
So instead of actually answering, you are pleading to have me purchase your book? PM me the theory, I can take a look at the mathematics of it and see if it is worth my while to tinker with it.

Pleading?

IMO it would be best for you to remain comfortable with your current beliefs in both the physical and theological spectrums, and change them only in lockstep with the systems from whom you learned them.

IMO you should not read any book that might challenge your beliefs unless it is peer reviewed and widely accepted. Mine will never fall into that category. You should never read it.

 

[greylorn]

My understanding (I’m no cosmologist) is that Lemaitre’s “primeval atom”, which became known as big bang, predicts expansion but not the rate of change of expansion. Lemaitre shows, as a theoretical consequence of relativity, that a static universe would be unstable, and predicts that our universe must be expanding, which was confirmed by observations of red shift.

The primeval atom, or as I call it, the cosmic micropea, is not the Big Bang, any more than a stick of dynamite is the explosion. It is only the precursor.

The micropea cannot explode of itself. The concept fails without the equivalent of a blasting cap.

Hmmm. Cosmology from pop magazines and tv shows?

Some CAF readers might read those magazines. Phycics Today, Science, and Communications in Partial Differential Equations, not so likely.

Pop science provides a good distillation of the main ideas and trends, although it is heavy into speculation.

(Alberti - I think this is the SciAm article - it’s about inflation, not big bang.)

The two are connected. “Inflation,” a horrid kludge of a theory, is the mathematical garbage necessary to make BBT appear to work.

Au contraire monsieur pussycat. Lemaitre, as a priest, said his theory makes an interesting theological prediction about God - we see no evidence of God even at the big bang, so God cannot be the interventionist god of popular folklore:

And I wrote a contrary opinion where?

For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Hidden only from those incapable of giving his works an honest study.;

Get your two brilliant dudes to figure out a way to let atheists share in religion. Seriously, something for everyone.

That’s half my goal. The other half is the same as Galileo’s— getting religionists to recognize the importance of integrating science into their beliefs, and changing them if that is needed to make sense of the universe.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Pleading?

IMO it would be best for you to remain comfortable with your current beliefs in both the physical and theological spectrums, and change them only in lockstep with the systems from whom you learned them.

IMO you should not read any book that might challenge your beliefs unless it is peer reviewed and widely accepted. Mine will never fall into that category. You should never read it.

So instead of rebutting against 2 posts worth of information that more or less destroy your arguments against BBT, you resort to an ad hominem. Good job TM.

 

[inocente]

The primeval atom, or as I call it, the cosmic micropea, is not the Big Bang, any more than a stick of dynamite is the explosion. It is only the precursor.

The micropea cannot explode of itself. The concept fails without the equivalent of a blasting cap.

In big bang no blasting cap and explosion are needed, space just expands over time all by itself.

*The two are connected. “Inflation,” a horrid kludge of a theory, is the mathematical garbage necessary to make BBT appear to work. *

This hints at the major problem with connecting religion to physics - already there’s a schism with the Guth-ites. The cosmological model is a work in progress which can still change with each new observation.

*And I wrote a contrary opinion where? *

You wrote “Besides, the Big Bang is functionally equivalent to creation by an almighty God. Nothing can be known about either”. But Lemaitre’s theory does tell us something, that God is hidden, which rules out all the interventionist, miracle-welding versions of God.

*Hidden only from those incapable of giving his works an honest study.; *

Another schism appeareth.

That’s half my goal. The other half is the same as Galileo’s— getting religionists to recognize the importance of integrating science into their beliefs, and changing them if that is needed to make sense of the universe.

I wish you well with both goals, but on the second think belief-in-belief is so obstinate it can only be removed by medical intervention.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The two are connected. “Inflation,” a horrid kludge of a theory, is the mathematical garbage necessary to make BBT appear to work.

Actually, no; inflation was invented to make the Lambda CDM work to fit the data.

 

[greylorn]

That supposed conundrum (Can God make a rock so big that He cannot move it?) has never been a problem to me. I have always viewed it as an anti-logic. It presumes two contrary, conflicting, and diametrically opposed premises attempting to occupy the same Truth at precisely the same time, in precisely the same place, and in precisely the same way.

That is a good description of how the Church deals with the problem. However, when some great bird of authority builds a fine nest, whether the bird be a worshiper of God or science, she will soon lay eggs in it.

My take on this and similar issues is that if a premise can give rise to logical contradictions, it is a faulty premise.

I learned that from my 4th grade argument with a priest, and have relearned the exact same thing in arguments with Ph.D scientists since.

Having never studied formal logic, I do not know if this is a theorem. IMO it should be. Whatever, the principle has held true throughout my applications of it, and is remarkably effective when applied to the behavior of human beings.

I think of it as what might happen when two strongly opposed charged entities are packed together so tightly that there is no separation between them. Contraries exist, this we know. In my opinion, they are God-created exigencies that are extraordinarily purposive for maintaining fine balances. But, there is no convincing purpose, or usefulness for anti-logic. Except as bad conclusions from equally bad propositions. (Well, you were only in fourth grade - and I will admit that it was not bad for a fourth grader!)

I’m not ready to regard this as an exact analogy to the big-rock question, but if not, it is close. And, my principle still holds. In atomic physics I wonder if it does not tell us that the concept of particles is flawed? At least, it suggests that there is a physics principle lurking somewhere within the morass of QM which says that particles cannot come closer than a Planck length of one another— but why should that be?

Don’t apply “infinite” force. Problem solved. If God manifests as Infinite (continuous) Space, and there is a finite number of points, latticed into a universe, in his mind, infinite force is not necessary. God builds in only what is needed for the algorithm to produce the effect he intends. Omniscience is required where God intends to bring into existence that which has never existed, and that which does not displace any part of him.

Your “don’t apply” solution is pretty much my point. If the omnipotence property cannot be applied, what good is it? Moreover, it can never be verified.

I don’t buy the need for omniscience in anything. God needs to be smart enough to manage creation, but I honestly do not see how a case can be made for omniscience, another concept which leads to contradictions.

I think that you appreciate science and know the value of evidence. Consider the history of the evolution of life over billions of years, punctuated with fits and starts. Is that the evidence for an Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator who could have brought about all life in a day or so? Or is it evidence for an extremely intelligent engineer who took a few billion years because he had to figure things out along the way?

This opens up a plethora of new questions that perhaps your book will answer.

It does indeed, and I try my best. While I cannot guarantee that you will exactly treasure the ideas, you will find them to be logically consistent with one another and the available data.

Where is he hiding? And, why reveal himself only as he has?

Good questions! And where indeed? This may not be the place to discuss space-time manifolds and the things that might be contained in whatever other dimensions ours might brush up against.

“Why?” involves guessing at the motivations of an extraordinary intelligence. Our perspective is that of anthropomorphic mice in Einstein’s apartment, wondering why he is scribbling on a blackboard instead of eating cheese and dropping a few crumbs.

Nonetheless, I feel that coming up with a credible story about God’s motivations is so important that I provide three or four of them. My favorite addresses your specific question.

It seems theoretically possible, but I doubt one exists.

Agreed. And,this is a subject that might be worth pursuing in a few months from a different perspective.

Well, that’s simple: We have to open up the container as fast as we can and test what’s inside.

Of course! Now where did you put the can opener?

greylorn:

Would you consider dark energy as a candidate?

Yes. “Dark matter” is still very nebulous stuff to me. But, I could liken it to Yppop’s continuous space. If it is, then it must permeate all of what confronts our senses, in some manner.

I never thought that I’d be looking forward to an extended conversation with you.

Is it “defined” in your book?

No. I am not qualified to define “the spiritual,” although I recognize its existence, and have engaged it in an occasional healing work. It is clear to me that some people have an intimate connection with this side of reality, and it is for them to define it.

My editor not only cleaned up a lot of my material, but offered some of her own on this very subject, which is included.

My job is not to define a thing which I am ill-equipped to understand, but to provide a framework for its acceptance as an absolutely real component of the universe.

That may sound like a cop out, but consider. What Newton did with his invention and application of calculus, and his three simple laws of motion, was to provide a framework for investigation. And look where that investigation has taken us!

The concept of energy was unknown at Newton’s time, but now runs the world. Telescopes modeled upon Newton’s invention have allowed astronomers to find even more mysterious forms of it, and when those forms are understood, the universe may well disclose other secrets. I expect “the spiritual” to be among them.

You mean stuff like “dark matter?”

Nope. We have detected dark matter. We just do not know its properties, other than mass. We have no mathematical models for it.

greylorn:

It is, IMO, ill-defined notions like “the spiritual” which keep science and religion separated, because any religionist can pull out whatever rabbits he wants from a spiritual hat, to answer any argument.

You mean like evolutionists do?

Yes! That is a perfect analogy.

I’d prefer not to remove the “not,” though. I think we often do things that are not intricately bound to survival. For instance, what we’re doing right now. Of course, one can attribute anything to anything, but, how does the enjoyment of the sweet scent from a field of flowers directly aid survival? How do multiple re-enjoyments of re-stimulating a future perfect event directly aid survival? I know that I can look forward to a time when I will be able to re-enact our present conversation with a pleasantness practically equal to today’s. How is it related to survival?

Clearly what you and I are doing is unrelated to, perhaps even detrimental to survival. (I should be exercising.)

I do not discount ideas and insights such as yours. They were one of the reasons why I did not flirt long with atheism. But they do not apply to all humans. Too often the scent of flowers is coming from a poppy farm.

Do you think matter has these properties by virtue of their mere existence? jd

No. These properties are engineered into the intricate design of matter.

 

[Abba]

Pleading?

IMO it would be best for you to remain comfortable with your current beliefs in both the physical and theological spectrums, and change them only in lockstep with the systems from whom you learned them.

IMO you should not read any book that might challenge your beliefs unless it is peer reviewed and widely accepted. Mine will never fall into that category. You should never read it.

Greylorn,

You can criticize and degrade others but let it not occur to anyone whomsoever to do the same with you, is that how it works? Why don’t you put aside that concoction of parsnip wine for a while, take a nice cold shower, go for a nice walk and say a nice little prayer. I suggest one to the Holy Spirit:

Come Holy Spirit
Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. And You shall renew the face of the earth.

then, email your draft to Alberti_Devoveo. It’s a great opportunity to have him ‘tinker’ with the math. Let him take a look at it, Greylorn, he may make some helpful suggestions. Put your armor of pride on the side for a while and relax and stop building that wall. It looks as though it is already 10 feet thick - you may suffocate. You are not going to live forever and Devoveo may help you save some time.