The eternal, finite universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sair
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Texas Roofer: The Heisenberg principle just means that the motion and position of an electron cannot be measured simultaneously. It doesn’t mean, as far as I know, that the motion must therefore be random; it is simply indeterminate if the position of the electron is measured.

But let’s say that motion is random. This still does not mean it is without cause. A good example would be—let’s say----we go through all the posts on this thread and look at the fifth letter of each one. There would be no pattern; it would be completely random. Furthermore, there would be no way to predict what the next fifth letter would be, no matter how long we checked each post.

So the individual letters would be random. However, the posts themselves are not. Neither is the thread considered as a whole. Furthermore, the thread, the posts, AND THE RANDOM LETTERS, would all still require causes.

So a system could contain many elements of randomness and still require a cause. Even the random elements would also require a cause.

I’m not sure if I’m directly addressing your objections, but I hope this helps.
 
No, it’s indeterminate.

Causality is not contingent on knowledge.

😦
Dear Texas Roofer: The Heisenberg principle just means that the motion and position of an electron cannot be measured simultaneously. It doesn’t mean, as far as I know, that the motion must therefore be random; it is simply indeterminate if the position of the electron is measured.

But let’s say that motion is random. This still does not mean it is without cause. A good example would be—let’s say----we go through all the posts on this thread and look at the fifth letter of each one. There would be no pattern; it would be completely random. Furthermore, there would be no way to predict what the next fifth letter would be, no matter how long we checked each post.

So the individual letters would be random. However, the posts themselves are not. Neither is the thread considered as a whole. Furthermore, the thread, the posts, AND THE RANDOM LETTERS, would all still require causes.

So a system could contain many elements of randomness and still require a cause. Even the random elements would also require a cause.

I’m not sure if I’m directly addressing your objections, but I hope this helps.
Thank you both, however I completely disagree
 
The Universe is in fact not fundamentally sequential in the way our limited senses and ideations percieve it.
Einstein among others would certainly disagree with you. Thermodynamics gives us “the arrow of time” that indeed shows time has a direction. While sequentiality can be violated in different reference frames, it is fundamental to modern physics. Science, itself, is based on the fundamental concept of causality, which requires sequentiality.

When one gets down to quantum physics, things get, as scientists say, weird. However, the aggregate of quantum effects integrates out to normal, consensus reality and causal physics. One can play lots of metaphysical games with the fundamental randomness of quantum processes, and this has resulted in lots of popular books by physicists and others. It does not, however, reveal much about human reality.
Things do not of themselves have a discreet existance. It is all or nothing in all eleven (12, really I’m guessing, due to a suspected proceedural ommision) dimensions, of which we can only percieve and move in four or five, as far as most of us are concerned…
Where does this number come from? String theory posits various numbers of dimensions, but so far cannot provide testability, and hence is mathematical but not scientific.
This means that our thinking from the start, due to the nature of the lens of our language and grammar, is limited and inaccurate. How much moreso might it be inaccurate in matters pertaining to our experience of God? I know at least one other interpretation of the identity statements in the Bible that is comensurate with experience and a larger philosophical inclusivity than Catholicism. You don’t have to change he words one iota and the can have an entirely different experiential referent than is commonly understood. Heck, even on the verbal level there are over three hundred denominationally different interpretations as real to the proponents of those as the proponents of Catholicism, whatever the claims of originality the Church might put forth. That is not a slam, it is just something that needs to be accounted for in the scheme of thing by other than self referential tradition and teaching.
That misinterpretations are possible does not itself mean that there is no true interpretatoin. Your arguement is for a vague relativism.

Furthermore, Catholic theology is not based on mere playing with words in the Bible, but rather a long and profound set of formal philosophical reasoning.
 
The ever expanding universe just sems to fit as partner of a singularity. If the universe has eneogh mass it can slow down and stop expanding and begin condensing againHoyle worked out the steady state theory for the atheists which has a universe with just eneogfh mass to contract again then expeand again nad so on just beneath perception. Hoyles theory didn’t wash because it seemed less likely than a forever expanding one. If it has alot more mass it will continue to contract into another singularity. This universe would not demonstrate a first cause that repeats it’self but a first effect that repeats it’self. Everything we observe would still have a beginning a middle and an end.
 
This universe would not demonstrate a first cause that repeats it’self but a first effect that repeats it’self.
Nice way of putting it. :tiphat:

The cause does not repeat itself because it (He) is the the continuous Cause of the continuing effect of the universe–no matter what cycles the universe may go through or may have already gone through.
 
mesocyclone: interesting handle…

Perhaps Einstein would disagree with the notion, but he had doubts about some of his own work, as you no doubt know, and there have been some doubts as to even the invariability of the speed of light.

As for sequentiality, it is a tool for analysis, not an end in itself. We use it as it is part of the perceptual frame in which we sense we exist. Also, the subject-verb-object structure of English is not suited to describing actuality, some other grammars relying more on verbs being more so. Sequentiality is not necessarily the overview final reality, that Reality being God, God being Eternal and Changeless. For a very interesting treasties on the subject, you might read, several times, David Bohm’s* Wholeness and the Implicate Order* and Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object as well.

All time existing at once would be consistent with the atemporal block universe idea as well as being a fulfillment of many of the “Omni-” atributes of Diety. It would also fit well with some non-faith based philosophical systems. As for time, here are some interesting quotes from Discovery magazine relative to time:

~
*
" “Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so,” joked Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Scientists aren’t laughing, though. Some speculative new physics theories suggest that time emerges from a more fundamental—and timeless—reality."

“Time has not been around forever. Most scientists believe it was created along with the rest of the universe in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.”

“There may be an end of time. Three Spanish scientists posit that the observed acceleration of the expanding cosmos is an illusion caused by the slowing of time. According to their math, time may eventually stop, at which point everything will come to a standstill.”

“If the varying speed of light theory turns out to be right, light comes to a full stop at the very edge of the black hole; it freezes and never enters the hole. Moreover, since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light—even in Magueijo’s theory—all other motion halts at the black hole’s surface too. Nothing falls in. So black holes aren’t really holes after all.”

“Astronomers have recently discovered that the expansion rate of the universe seems to be accelerating, driven perhaps by the same vacuum energy that shaped the universe some 15 billion years ago. According to Magueijo’s calculations, this surge in the expansion rate is but a prelude to another stupendous infusion of energy from the vacuum in the far distant future. When that happens, the universe will essentially undergo another Big Bang. This sequence of Big Bang, expansion, Big Bang, would never end. If the varying speed of light theory is right, the universe is eternal.” *~~ Now isn’t that more consistent with the Eternality of God? God being Eternal, why would God’s Creation not be Eternal? Aren’t we being anthropocentric with our creation story in the same way the we were with the geocentric theory? And who was opposed to that?

~

“Modern” physics is referential to how we understand things at this infinitesimal moment in this, the galactic epoch of the universe. But even “modern” physics is entertaining such possibilities as a variable speed of light, as put forth by João Magueijo. His idea is gaining greater credibility, especially with the discovery of changes in the fine structure constant. It’s just to say that we don’t yet know everything, not being personally Gods.

You are right, metaphysical manipulations of quantum theory do not “reveal much about human nature,” but then ultimately neither do faith based religions. There is a good handbook on religious sanity that might be useful in thinking about this, as it covers all such as translation, meaning, abstracting, etc, etc, and introduces Korzybski’s “structural differential” into the consideration as a perceptual tool for examining the matter.

For a simple explanation of the derivation of 11, see bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml But use any number you wish, (as I said-I *know *it is a guess) There is still the inseparability of anything from anything else as a concurrent phenomenon, which was my point, not the number of dimensions.

In May of 1969 at the All Nations Barber Shop in Fresno, CA, a barber and another man shot each other to death over “the true meaning of certain passages in the Bible” (San Jose News, May 5, 1969) That is largely what religious interpretations are good for, as is evident even more strongly today. If we look at our lives, it is evident that misinterpretaion is our way of life. If we didn’t misinterpret, there would be far more agreement, as there is in that we can make cars and use electricity. However, we need the sense of security we derived originally from our parochial (in the secular sense) understandings of Nature and God. But we can’t afford to do that any more. Our world is at stake, and it is not our Catholic world, despite our strongest protestations. Odds are, looking at human nature, that however profound the formal philosophy of the Church is, it has some truth and some errror. Look at its “profound” history.

And what about “error in premise is error in conclusion.” That fits faith and your “profound set of formal philosophical reasoning” in the same sense that your “mathematical but not scientific” labeling does to theories. But all this is a teleological activity, as should be our inquiry into the actuality of our religous faith. I mean there is even evidence to suppose that Jesus studied in India, including an alleged 63 documents held by the Vatican that support this. For sure, if one accepts certain premisies of philosophies used in that land where there are miracles even unto resurrections, Jesus’ Identity statements are exactly congruent with theirs.

What if you drop, even for a moment, your Catholic prejudice, look at the situation, and whatever is true about the Church and the world will survive because it is true, not because it is Catholic. In the mean time, be as completely wonderful a Catholic as you can. I do not see in conscience how you can do otherwise. I am only urging that we think in a larger framework than a particular belief system. Or is this posting only going to fit my theory that this section of the forum exists only to incite the “faithful,” by inquiry, into a deeper entrenchment in their habitual and only superficial, self-referentialy examined belief system?
 
What if you drop, even for a moment, your Catholic prejudice, look at the situation, and whatever is true about the Church and the world will survive because it is true, not because it is Catholic. In the mean time, be as completely wonderful a Catholic as you can. I do not see in conscience how you can do otherwise. I am only urging that we think in a larger framework than a particular belief system. Or is this posting only going to fit my theory that this section of the forum exists only to incite the “faithful,” by inquiry, into a deeper entrenchment in their habitual and only superficial, self-referentialy examined belief system?
I’ll stick with prejudiced and superficial. But thank you for the option. :rolleyes:

Actually, your position does not take seriously enough the embedding of humanity into history. As Anton Pegis puts it (he’s another Catholic, so this is going to be self-referential: sorry), humans are the only historical creatures. If the ultimate end of all things, as it is wrapped up in the Lord, takes no account of time, history, sequentiality, and so on, it would be difficult to think of our current existence as meaningful, important in any way, or really as anything other than a cosmic prank. If I were a Hindu, I’d look forward to the dissolution of cpayne into Brahman-Atman. I am thankful that I am not, and that I do not.

Some belief systems may find this ultimate dissolution stimulating or interesting. Christianity does not.
 
mesocyclone: interesting handle…
yes, it is
Perhaps Einstein would disagree with the notion, but he had doubts about some of his own work, as you no doubt know, and there have been some doubts as to even the invariability of the speed of light.
There are always doubts in physics. So what?
As for sequentiality, it is a tool for analysis, not an end in itself.
The ideas of cause and effect are fundamental, not only to human reasoning, but to philosophy, morality, and science. Without sequentiality, caues and effect go away.
We use it as it is part of the perceptual frame in which we sense we exist…
We can only be informed by our perceptions (and instrumentation to extend that), our logical processes, and religion. Things outside of that frame are irrelevant. One can theorize about them for fun and profit, but not for meaning.
All time existing at once would be consistent with the atemporal block universe idea as well as being a fulfillment of many of the “Omni-” atributes of Diety. It would also fit well with some non-faith based philosophical systems.
If it produces no different perceptions, it is merely a description, not a reality.
“Modern” physics is referential to how we understand things at this infinitesimal moment in this, the galactic epoch of the universe.
The universality of modern physics is demonstrated by its predictive ability of observable phenomenon. It predicts our measurements of the distant past, as is shown by astronomical observations. It predicts the behavior of quantum-scale matter at time/distances of billions of light years. So while our time of existence is short, the physics shows signs of being universal across time and space. Not in every aspect - we don’t know everything, but certainly in an important way.
You are right, metaphysical manipulations of quantum theory do not “reveal much about human nature,” but then ultimately neither do faith based religions.
More importantly, they don’t reveal anything related to measurable reality. Until they do, they are intellectual toys - fascinating ones, but not of import.

On the other hand, faith based religions describe much about physical reality and human nature. The invention of modern science by the Catholic universities during the “dark ages” was motivated by a desire to better honor God by better understanding his creation.
For a simple explanation of the derivation of 11, see bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml But use any number you wish, (as I said-I *know *it is a guess) There is still the inseparability of anything from anything else as a concurrent phenomenon, which was my point, not the number of dimensions.
The point is that this is irrelevant. Multi-verse interpretations or string theory, they are again intellectual curiosities if they provide no observable phenomena. They are great fodder for some truly wonderful science fiction, but not of theological or physical significance.
Our world is at stake, and it is not our Catholic world, despite our strongest protestations. Odds are, looking at human nature, that however profound the formal philosophy of the Church is, it has some truth and some errror. Look at its “profound” history.
Faith aside, Catholicism has probably the best claim on truth of any religion. It’s combination of a long religious history (extending back through the Judaic history) and its methods of religious inquiry and reasoning are profound and unique.

Oh, BTW… what is this “Our world is at stake” stuff? I have no idea what you are referring to.
But all this is a teleological activity, as should be our inquiry into the actuality of our religous faith
Faith derives from, well, faith. It is informed by reason but cannot but based on axiomatic materialism. Its actuality simply exists - it does not derive from our analysis.

The decorations of the faith - the details, some minutiae of the Catechism, are the result of human reason and may change with reasoning, but the core of the faith is not subject to such analysis. Otherwise it would not be called “faith.”
I mean there is even evidence to suppose that Jesus studied in India, including an alleged 63 documents held by the Vatican that support this. For sure, if one accepts certain premisies of philosophies used in that land where there are miracles even unto resurrections, Jesus’ Identity statements are exactly congruent with theirs.
The assumption of such isomorphisms is a mere assertion, not to mention extremely unlikely as a matter of mere statistics and human nature, without having to invoke theology.
I am only urging that we think in a larger framework than a particular belief system. Or is this posting only going to fit my theory that this section of the forum exists only to incite the “faithful,” by inquiry, into a deeper entrenchment in their habitual and only superficial, self-referentialy examined belief system?
Theological belief systems like Catholicism are the larger framework. All the rest is details and intellectual entertainment.
 
cpayne,

“Some belief systems may find this ultimate dissolution stimulating or interesting. Christianity does not.”

I’d say your use of “ultimate dissolution” is very ill advised. I would also remind you of the Beatific Vision: the beatific vision is the eternal and direct perception of God enjoyed by those who are in Heaven, imparting supreme happiness or blessedness. That carries with it certain subtleties not usually contemplated in daily considerations. But having been where you are, and vehemently so, I can understand why this is the case.

A very happy and blessed Easter to you and yours!
 
Well, meso, we are clearly so not on the same page, so the best I can do here is call upon my excellent command of the English language and say nothing. I will only wish you and yours a happy and a blessed Easter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top