The Singularity(physics) is God?

[Noose001]

How is, what we percieve, as sound dependent on the lack of sound?

Because if there is no ‘lack of sound’, we wouldn’t have anything to contrast sound with and these means sound itself would be meaningless. Creation is just giving meaning to potentials- this is where Quantum Physics is heading and this what Biocentrism is trying to explain.

The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself

Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

How is, what we percieve, as sound dependent on the lack of sound?

Because if there is no ‘lack of sound’, we wouldn’t have anything to contrast sound with and these means sound itself would be meaningless.

There is never no sound around us. So none of us have experienced actual silence.We can’t point to any place in the universe where there is no sound, light or heat.

And according to your reasoning, here I make an assumption that you are christian, love would not exist without the lack of love. Which ultimately leads to the necessity for sin.

 

[Noose001]

There is never no sound around us. So none of us have experienced actual silence.We can’t point to any place in the universe where there is no sound, light or heat.

You are going to the finer details of what we can perceive but that’s not what i’m talking about. Sound/light/heat are forms of energy with a material source while their opposite, silence/darkness/coldness have no material source so through our understanding we can tell these are real conditions that were there before the beginning and what was emergent is only made meaningful by our contrasting with these conditions.

So is there absolute silence? yes there is or rather there was before the beginning.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

There is never no sound around us. So none of us have experienced actual silence.We can’t point to any place in the universe where there is no sound, light or heat.

You are going to the finer details of what we can perceive but that’s not what i’m talking about.

If the concept (hypothesis) doesn’t hold on all levels it has been falsified. If the finer details wrecked your concept then it was falsified.

Sound/light/heat are forms of energy with a material source

Nope, nothing is energy. Energy is a property that objects can have, but only in relation to something else. What we perceive as sound and heat are the result of kinetic energy in objects, while light actually is an object in itself. But none of these are energy. This is a vital concept to understand in a discussion like this.

while their opposite, silence/darkness/coldness have no material source

Because they aren’t anything. This is why it is so difficult to have proper heat transfer in space. In our atmosphere energy is transferred therough convection, conduction and radiation. But you can in reality forget about convection and conduction in space because of the low density of matter. So you are left with radiation.

so through our understanding we can tell these are real conditions that were there before the beginning and what was emergent is only made meaningful by our contrasting with these conditions.

We can’t say that there was a beginning of the universe. Sure we can speculate and create various models to describe a before the beginning. But we have no means of verifying if any such model is correct. Still, feel free to speculate.

So is there absolute silence? yes there is or rather there was before the beginning.

Speculation without data to back it up.

 

[Noose001]

If the concept (hypothesis) doesn’t hold on all levels it has been falsified. If the finer details wrecked your concept then it was falsified.

Falsified?! Is absolute silence a condition that exist or do you think sound has existed eternally?

Nope, nothing is energy. Energy is a property that objects can have, but only in relation to something else. What we perceive as sound and heat are the result of kinetic energy in objects, while light actually is an object in itself. But none of these are energy. This is a vital concept to understand in a discussion like this.

I only said they have a material source, do you dispute that?

Because they aren’t anything. This is why it is so difficult to have proper heat transfer in space. In our atmosphere energy is transferred therough convection, conduction and radiation. But you can in reality forget about convection and conduction in space because of the low density of matter. So you are left with radiation.

False. They are indeed something from which all other material things find meaning.

If a blind man said, “it is dark” you will dismiss them - there’s a reason to dismiss them.

We can’t say that there was a beginning of the universe. Sure we can speculate and create various models to describe a before the beginning. But we have no means of verifying if any such model is correct. Still, feel free to speculate.

Does this mean there’s no absolute silence or you are only speculating? From where i stand, there is absolute silence, darkness, coldness.

Speculation without data to back it up.

You don’t need any, just an understanding.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Falsified?! Is absolute silence a condition that exist or do you think sound has existed eternally?

No there is no absolute silence. Not within the universe. And what is outside the universe or what was before the universe are nothing but speculations.

Nope, nothing is energy. Energy is a property that objects can have, but only in relation to something else. What we perceive as sound and heat are the result of kinetic energy in objects, while light actually is an object in itself. But none of these are energy. This is a vital concept to understand in a discussion like this.

I only said they have a material source, do you dispute that?

Define material or matter? Light is not matter per any definition in physics. And for example heat, which is the result of the kinetic energy of particles does not have the particles as the source, but rather the fields the particles exist in. According to the best scientific models we have at the moment at least.

Because they aren’t anything. This is why it is so difficult to have proper heat transfer in space. In our atmosphere energy is transferred therough convection, conduction and radiation. But you can in reality forget about convection and conduction in space because of the low density of matter. So you are left with radiation.

False. They are indeed something from which all other material things find meaning.

“Something” refers to a “thing”. A thing have defined specific properties. A “nothing” has no such properties because it doesn’t exist. Non-existence is just that - a nothing. You can juggle words all day long to describe these “nothings” but you can not give any of them a single property. They are only word constructs.

If a blind man said, “it is dark” you will dismiss them - there’s a reason to dismiss them.

A bind man’s perception of photons has nothing to do with the existence of photons.

Does this mean there’s no absolute silence or you are only speculating? From where i stand, there is absolute silence, darkness, coldness.

I have no idea where you stand . But in this universe absolute cold does not exist since there is no such thing as zero movement. There is only more or less kinetic energy. Without zero movement (change or momentum) there is no such thing as absolute silence.

You don’t need any, just an understanding.

You don’t have an understanding about these nothings.

 

[Noose001]

No there is no absolute silence. Not within the universe. And what is outside the universe or what was before the universe are nothing but speculations.

What about inside a vacuum within the universe?

Define material or matter? Light is not matter per any definition in physics. And for example heat, which is the result of the kinetic energy of particles does not have the particles as the source, but rather the fields the particles exist in. According to the best scientific models we have at the moment at least.

I said material source. Does light or sound or heat have a source?

“Something” refers to a “thing”. A thing have defined specific properties. A “nothing” has no such properties because it doesn’t exist. Non-existence is just that - a nothing. You can juggle words all day long to describe these “nothings” but you can not give any of them a single property. They are only word constructs.

Then why do you say “it is dark” instead of saying “it is nothing”?

A bind man’s perception of photons has nothing to do with the existence of photons.

I was talking of absence of photons- why would it matter if a blind man says “it is dark” when darkness is nothingness.

 

[Michaelangelo]

What about inside a vacuum within the universe?

Sure. Can you point to where such a vacuum exists within the universe? If not the concept remains a word construct.

I said material source. Does light or sound or heat have a source?

But matter (the material source you refer to) is not the source. It is the fields. Which is not the same as the particles matter (the material) are made from.

Then why do you say “it is dark” instead of saying “it is nothing”?

Because the language was developed before we understood these concepts better. Which is clearly shown in genesis as the authors did not understand or had access to this information.

I was talking of absence of photons- why would it matter if a blind man says “it is dark” when darkness is nothingness.

But there is no such thing as absence of photons.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Regarding the original post, physics is limited in explaining things anyway. For example, physics cannot explain why there is a super massive black hole at the center of every galaxy. God is above physics.

 

[Noose001]

Sure. Can you point to where such a vacuum exists within the universe? If not the concept remains a word construct.

Yes it is impractical but theoretically, there is absolute silence and darkness, otherwise we can easily say the universe is eternal and is not emergent, do you hold this position or do you think this is a possibility?

But matter (the material source you refer to) is not the source. It is the fields. Which is not the same as the particles matter (the material) are made from.

Not sure about this but can you demonstrate how in the absence of matter, fields generate sound for example.

Because the language was developed before we understood these concepts better. Which is clearly shown in genesis as the authors did not understand or had access to this information.

Language is a means of expressing our ‘understanding’ and not misunderstanding.
Bible is a poetic book and you can not pin it down on language technicalities.

We say it is dark because darkness isn’t really nothingness, it is yes but its importance makes it real. It is like the framework we build on to say we now have light, otherwise visible light would mean nothing.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Yes it is impractical but theoretically, there is absolute silence and darkness, otherwise we can easily say the universe is eternal and is not emergent, do you hold this position or do you think this is a possibility?

In theory unicorns exists too. To talk about anything outside the universe is on the same level. I have no idea nor a position if the universe is eternal or emergent because I have not sufficient data to form a opinion from.

Not sure about this but can you demonstrate how in the absence of matter, fields generate sound for example.

The fields are the source of the particles which has the kinetic energy we perceive as sound or heat. So if you want to talk about a source it has to be the fields.

Language is a means of expressing our ‘understanding’ and not misunderstanding.
Bible is a poetic book and you can not pin it down on language technicalities.

We say it is dark because darkness isn’t really nothingness, it is yes but its importance makes it real. It is like the framework we build on to say we now have light, otherwise visible light would mean nothing.

We say dark as the opposition of light. Total darkness is how we describe our perception of the total absence of light. These linguistic models were developed before physics showed us that these concepts aren’t a true representation of reality.

Even if genesis would be a poetic description it still makes certain non-poetic claims about reality which are false. The question about if it is poetic or not can only be answered by the authors. And Augustine and the rest of the commentators had no access to the authors so what they say on the matter is on the level of speculation.

 

[Noose001]

In theory unicorns exists too. To talk about anything outside the universe is on the same level. I have no idea nor a position if the universe is eternal or emergent because I have not sufficient data to form a opinion from.

Darkness, silence, Coldness are not found outside the universe, these are real conditions within the universe.

Q. Do you believe the universe is eternal and not emergent?

The fields are the source of the particles which has the kinetic energy we perceive as sound or heat. So if you want to talk about a source it has to be the fields.

Round and round and back; sound/light/heat have a material source.

Q. Can this field produce heat without there being material or must material be there for heat to be produced?

We say dark as the opposition of light. Total darkness is how we describe our perception of the total absence of light. These linguistic models were developed before physics showed us that these concepts aren’t a true representation of reality.

Even if genesis would be a poetic description it still makes certain non-poetic claims about reality which are false. The question about if it is poetic or not can only be answered by the authors. And Augustine and the rest of the commentators had no access to the authors so what they say on the matter is on the level of speculation.

You said darkness is nothing and linguistically, there’s nothing stopping from saying ‘the condition in the room is nothing’, then it will sound as ridiculous as your hypothesis.
Darkness has a meaning, a definition and its importance like i said, it is the framework from which your perception of light is built.

The bible is poetic, the idea that it makes non poetic claims about reality already shows you are already lost in the poetic interpretation. In summary, God created the spiritual, the physical world (which you derive this so called reality from) is a result of sin and sin is nothing more than deception.

Asking the authors of the bible won’t solve anything, they’ll just refer you back to what is said in the bible.

 

[Michaelangelo]

[
Darkness, silence, Coldness are not found outside the universe, these are real conditions within the universe.

Q. Do you believe the universe is eternal and not emergent?

I still don’t have the data necessary to have an opinion about anything outside the universe. Nothing has changed since the last time I wrote this.
And what is in our language described as “darkness, silence and coldness” is nothing but lesser degrees of light, sound and heat. Because absolute dark, silence or cold does NOT exist within our universe. If you are in a closed room and turn off the light you think you experience total darkenss because your senses can not detect any light. But this is not a true representation of the reality in this room because your senses does not allow you to gather all the data that is available. The majority of the photons present in that room are outside the detection capability of your senses so your brain creates a reprsentation of what is has to work with. This is however not a true representation of the reality in that room.

Round and round and back; sound/light/heat have a material source.

Q. Can this field produce heat without there being material or must material be there for heat to be produced?

The field is the source. Everything else is derived from this source. The particles emerge in the field and those particles have energy which we perceive as heat or sound. But light is still not material.

You said darkness is nothing and linguistically, there’s nothing stopping from saying ‘the condition in the room is nothing’, then it will sound as ridiculous as your hypothesis.
Darkness has a meaning, a definition and its importance like i said, it is the framework from which your perception of light is built.

Darkness has a conceptual meaning for us yes. Which is the result of our intuitive understanding of the world around us from the data gathered through our senses. Modern science has shown us that the concepts we have created by this intuitive understanding of our reality is not correct. Yet the linguistic concepts remain because most people do not know this.

The bible is poetic, the idea that it makes non poetic claims about reality already shows you are already lost in the poetic interpretation.

Unvalidated claims. The errors in geneses are there no matter how you twist the text.

In summary, God created the spiritual, the physical world (which you derive this so called reality from) is a result of sin and sin is nothing more than deception.

An unverified claim. Like the existence of unicorns.

Asking the authors of the bible won’t solve anything, they’ll just refer you back to what is said in the bible.

The author would be able to explain exactly what is meant with the text. A reader whom have no access to the author can only specualte about what the author meant with the text. None of the church fathers have been able to ask any of the many authors of the books about this. Ergo, they all speculate.

 

[TheAntitheist]

Greetings,

Before this claim, people believed that the sun was God… and that the moon was God… and that lightning was God… etc. Just because there is something mysterious and powerful, doesn’t mean it is God.

Peace,

The Antitheist

 

[Noose001]

I still don’t have the data necessary to have an opinion about anything outside the universe. Nothing has changed since the last time I wrote this.
And what is in our language described as “darkness, silence and coldness” is nothing but lesser degrees of light, sound and heat. Because absolute dark, silence or cold does NOT exist within our universe. If you are in a closed room and turn off the light you think you experience total darkenss because your senses can not detect any light. But this is not a true representation of the reality in this room because your senses does not allow you to gather all the data that is available. The majority of the photons present in that room are outside the detection capability of your senses so your brain creates a reprsentation of what is has to work with. This is however not a true representation of the reality in that room.

Absolute darkness and silence and coldness need no data and those are the theoretical conditions outside the universe. If there is no outside of this universe then you believe the universe has always existed being represented in this case by eternal light/ heat/sound in whatever form, let’s say, fields that you keep saying.

Let me ask again:
Q. Do you believe the universe is eternal?

The field is the source. Everything else is derived from this source. The particles emerge in the field and those particles have energy which we perceive as heat or sound. But light is still not material.

We are talking past each other. Which one represents you ideas correctly:

A. Field- Matter- Sound
B. Matter- Field - Sound
C. Field - sound

Darkness has a conceptual meaning for us yes. Which is the result of our intuitive understanding of the world around us from the data gathered through our senses. Modern science has shown us that the concepts we have created by this intuitive understanding of our reality is not correct. Yet the linguistic concepts remain because most people do not know this.

Modern science is short of claiming that reality is a creation of the observer. I mean, if matter comes about when the observer collapses those fields, what does that tell you about reality?

The errors in geneses are there no matter how you twist the text.

Bible talks of the spiritual dimension, so what you might consider as errors are your opinions based on another dimension. And the bible says “do not go by sight…”, what you are ready to point out as errors are mostly as a result of comparing with observable or measurable phenomenon.

The author would be able to explain exactly what is meant with the text.

The author has nothing else to explain as what is written is already an explanation. They were inspired and not witnesses, so they were writing from what was put in their hearts (minds) not that they understood. From the scripture itself, we can tell that they did not understand.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Absolute darkness and silence and coldness need no data and those are the theoretical conditions outside the universe. If there is no outside of this universe then you believe the universe has always existed being represented in this case by eternal light/ heat/sound in whatever form, let’s say, fields that you keep saying.

Your speculation about a outside of the universe is pointless in my opinion. But speculate away if it pleases you.

Let me ask again:
Q. Do you believe the universe is eternal?

Nothing has changed since my last reply to that question.

We are talking past each other. Which one represents you ideas correctly:

A. Field- Matter- Sound
B. Matter- Field - Sound
C. Field - sound

D. Field - particles - sound, heat.
You once again omitted the fact that light is not matter.

Darkness has a conceptual meaning for us yes. Which is the result of our intuitive understanding of the world around us from the data gathered through our senses. Modern science has shown us that the concepts we have created by this intuitive understanding of our reality is not correct. Yet the linguistic concepts remain because most people do not know this.

Modern science is short of claiming that reality is a creation of the observer. I mean, if matter comes about when the observer collapses those fields, what does that tell you about reality?

It has nothing to do with an “observer”, as far as is understood at the present, it has to do with interaction.

Bible talks of the spiritual dimension, so what you might consider as errors are your opinions based on another dimension.

Yet the authors makes very physical claims.

The author has nothing else to explain as what is written is already an explanation.

If that is the case then why do I have to explain over and over what I wrote several comments back? What is written is apparently an explanation, according to you.

 

[John_Martin]

No because the singularity has characteristics (one dimensional point, infinite mass, etc) and God transcends space and time.

In addition, the singularity is no more, meaning God would be no more, but he is, and does not change as quasi or pseudo philosophers dream.

 

[Noose001]

Nothing has changed since my last reply to that question.

And your answer was:

I still don’t have the data necessary to have an opinion about anything outside the universe. Nothing has changed since the last time I wrote this.

This is no answer to the question i asked and like i said, you don’t need any data to postulate darkness and silence.

D. Field - particles - sound, heat.
You once again omitted the fact that light is not matter.

Ok then, will i be correct in saying that sound/light/heat have a particulate source?
I never said light was matter.

It has nothing to do with an “observer”, as far as is understood at the present, it has to do with interaction.

Interaction of what?

Yet the authors makes very physical claims.

Of course they do but the understanding is, the physical world is a fallen world.

 

[Michaelangelo]

This is no answer to the question i asked and like i said, you don’t need any data to postulate darkness and silence.

Well apparently I think I need more data.

Ok then, will i be correct in saying that sound/light/heat have a particulate source?
I never said light was matter.

Yes a particular source would be corect. You said earlier that light had a material source. Material means being matter.

Interaction of what?

Fields through energy being carried by particles.

Of course they do but the understanding is, the physical world is a fallen world.

Some of those physical claims have been shown to be incorrect.

 

[Noose001]

Well apparently I think I need more data.

What kind of data do you need to postulate ‘nothingness’?

Yes a particular source would be corect. You said earlier that light had a material source. Material means being matter.

Yes, i said and i still say, light has a material source and you are now saying that light has a particulate source. I don’t get the difference.

Fields through energy being carried by particles.

Well, you need to update yourself.

Some of those physical claims have been shown to be incorrect.

Like what?
Early on in Genesis, it is said God created a perfect universe. It was a spiritual universe and not a physical one; i can tell this because as soon as Adam sinned, it is said that their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. It shows that from the mode they were created, they were not able to see the physical which includes their bodies, the physical was brought about by sin.

So, does the bible make claims about this fallen world? Yes, but only with respect that the physical world is fallen and the spiritual world is being restored. It really doesn’t matter what you call reality claims because your reference to reality is not the spiritual reality but what you observe.