L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Was Occam’s razor a Norelco, a Gillette, or a Personna?
What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe
- Status
I
isw49017
Guest
In a biology class I took in college, my professor offered this opinion when discussing the origins of humankind and the earth. The human beings that lived 6000 or so years ago could never understand what we accept today as scientific explanations for the creation story. It would have been like teaching quantum physics to pre-schoolers. So, the writer(s) of the Bible told them a story… a story that they could understand and accept. The bible story which may not be scientifically proveable, but nonetheless expoused the truth of the lesson God wanted us to know. In this way the professor (Catholic by the way) saw no conflict with the biblical story of creation and the “scientific” explanation. 
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
I agree.In a biology class I took in college, my professor offered this opinion when discussing the origins of humankind and the earth. The human beings that lived 6000 or so years ago could never understand what we accept today as scientific explanations for the creation story. It would have been like teaching quantum physics to pre-schoolers. So, the writer(s) of the Bible told them a story… a story that they could understand and accept. The bible story which may not be scientifically proveable, but nonetheless expoused the truth of the lesson God wanted us to know. In this way the professor (Catholic by the way) saw no conflict with the biblical story of creation and the “scientific” explanation.
If you think in archaic terms, then:
earth, air, fire and water are very good descriptors of the four states of matter:
solid, gas, plasma, and liquid.
The basic form of matter, in fundamental paticles, is the same, just different arrangements, which can be changed.
The Sun is a plasma body, so its description as fire is not inaccurate.
If we think further, We accept that G_d is outside of our space and time, and indeed, it is a fair view, that our space and time are inside, or a sub-set of the realm of G_d.
Our Earthly universe is the essentially two dimensional space forming the surface of our planet.
This planet is a tiny speck floating in an infinitely deep ocean of three dimensional space.
The whole of the surface of or planet is in ‘contact’ with this ocean of space, but our planet makes only an insignificant ‘contact’ with that ocean.
This is a very good descriptor of how a sub-space resides in a hyperspace.
Our physicists now postulate a universe of ten nested dimensions. If we take as a basis, our native set of three, plus time, then that leaves seven nested dimensions of hyperspace.
The ancients referred to seven heavens, with the realm of G_d being the highest heave.
Now that again seems to me as if a description of the ultmate form of the universe has been given to the ancients in a language of concepts that they could understand.
Just a thought…
Y
yppop
Guest
JDaniel
I don’t believe the so-called singularity from which the universe emerged was “a spec of energy”. Energy, like time, as you pointed out in post 31 of this thread, is nothing more than motion. Energy is a manifestation of the motion of matter (ponderable) or of space (radiant). At t=0, before there was motion, there was space. Of the four elements of reality: space, matter, time, and energy, I believe space came first. So, I am firmly in favor of the second of the two options that you presented:”a god-ish exigency of some sort that we might be able to call God?” I prefer to think of that which preceded the big bang as infinite nothingness, a spiritual substance, perhaps God, certainly god-ish.
What about the singularity? Surely its nature was spatial. So what we have at the beginning is a spatial entity (the singularity) immersed in the infinite nothingness. Consequently, all of the matter in the universe has a beginning in the “spatial points” crammed into the singularity. What such a structure offers is a plausible way of explaining how the spiritual interacts with the material.
The universe is finite; it must have a border; the border must be spatial; therefore, total reality is constructed from two kinds of space, discrete and continuous. The border of the universe divides total reality into two realms; Possibility and Actuality. The substance of Possibility (God) is continuous space (infinite nothingness); the ground of Actuality (our universe) is discrete space. Discrete space is composed of individual points separated by gaps, much like the rational numbers on the real number line. (Kronecker was probably correct when he said, “God created the integers, man made all the rest”). Now fill the gaps with infinite nothingness to form a structure composed of discrete points immersed in a background of infinite nothingness (the stars in the background of the blackness of deep space provides a convenient analog for one’s imagination).
From the spatial singularity came matter and the manifestations of motion (time and energy). Thus, the material is immersed in the spiritual. This dual structure I believe is the basis for what David Bohm called the implicate order, a deeper view of reality than the explicate order that science describes. An implicate view describes the ground of reality and it is here that we find God. And when science finally discovers God (as they must because the Holy Spirit is a subtly tenacious sort) it will be at the implicate level. There will be another paradigm shift in which the basis for reality will be: discrete instead of continuous space; the models will be algorithmic instead of mathematical; and the impetus will be information instead of energy.
Thank you for you perserverence
Yppop
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
What big band was that Glenn Miller or Tommy Dorsey or Lawrence Welk?
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
The priest at our Catholic parish saw no conflict between the bible story of creation and the “scientific” explanation. I think there’s something in the catechism about that also. Correct me if I’m wrong.In a biology class I took in college, my professor offered this opinion when discussing the origins of humankind and the earth. The human beings that lived 6000 or so years ago could never understand what we accept today as scientific explanations for the creation story. It would have been like teaching quantum physics to pre-schoolers. So, the writer(s) of the Bible told them a story… a story that they could understand and accept. The bible story which may not be scientifically proveable, but nonetheless expoused the truth of the lesson God wanted us to know. In this way the professor (Catholic by the way) saw no conflict with the biblical story of creation and the “scientific” explanation.
P
Patrick_Bestall
Guest
The bible says the heavens were stretched out, and also that they will be rolled up again as a scroll. A Christian astronomer told me he thinks the latter is in play now. It’s an optical illusion that the universe is expanding “at an ever increasing speed”. Rather than invent “dark mass” and “dark energy” to explain that, consider we are rushing towards a giant black hole at an ever increasing speed (no need for unobservable mass or energy, gravity explains it all). When it’s over we will be in a new heavens with a new earth. Satan
and the evil ones will stay in “outer darkness” that burns like fire.
and the evil ones will stay in “outer darkness” that burns like fire.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Might we say that before the “Big Bang” someone lit a mighty big fuse?
M
mawst
Guest
This is not entirely true. Atheist agenda scientist may try to make it this way, but the person that came up with the theory was a Belgian mathematician and Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaître.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Furthermore, the theory was praised by the Pope at the time as proof for creation.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I see no conflict either. It raises interesting discussion points, but the Catholic commitment to the unity of truth urges that there is no intrinsic conflict.
StAnastasia
P
Patrick_Bestall
Guest
To Lego and St. Anastasia: Your priest might not have a problem with any conflict between the bible and science, and I can understand that in view of the misinformation floating around. But ask him if he believes that there really were two people who started the human race, Adam and Eve. The Catechism insists there were. Also ask him if he has a problem with the recent “Pontifical” Conference on evolution (actually sponsored by two liberal Catholic universities who receive money every year from Pontifical funding). They did not follow the teaching of Humani Generis (Pius XII) which insists that both sides of the debate on evolution be presented, because the debate is still not settled, not in the scientific community, nor in the Church. For more on this, you could read The Theory of Evolution Judged By Reason and Faith by the late Cardinal Ruffini.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Ah Patrick,
Here is your problem:
You are confusing faith and Morals with Science.
Mother Church does not make pontifications in the field of Science, though she might express opinions therein.
In the field of Faith and Morals, ‘Adam’ means ‘a man’, any man, and ‘Eve’ means ‘a woman’, any woman.
There was though, about 4000 years before the present era, a new genetic variant sported, and this occurred in the Middle East. It resulted in a step change, though a tiny one, in the intelligence of the bearer, and this step change was sufficient to give rise to writing. Thus history began about 4000 BC.
This was not though a new humanity, those without the super-gene co-existed with those without, often in master/slave relationship, or governor/governed. This situation persists to this day. Still not every human carries the super-gene.
P
Patrick_Bestall
Guest
Dave, I appreciate where you are coming from. I’ve been there, but left that place after reading “The Problem With Logic”. (It’s fallible according to science, philosophy and the bible which says “Trust not in your own understanding”). Thus the church dares to talk about all things in this world, including science, by insisting that both sides of a story be told. And when it comes to origins there definitely are two sides to be told. There are hundreds of scientists who refute evolution. On top of this we have the Catechism telling us the human race came from two people. The authors didn’t say this just because it’s in the bible.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
No Patrick, there are no scientists refuting evolution, only pseudoscientists.
What scientist argue about are the details and precise causes of evolution.
Evolution happens, you can watch it. Your pet pomeranian looks nothing like a wolf, yet, is so closely related that he can successfully interbreed with a wolf, and produce viable, and fertile issue.
Mother Church accepts that creation, as we today understand it, was not an instantaneous happening, but is a process which continues as long as the universe exists.
Where scientists agree with fundamentalist religious is in the instantaneous part of the creation, that is, when the evolving universe came into being, from nothingness, but the will of G_d, though they might doubt G_d, they have no other explanation, except that, somehow, the uncaused cause, caused.
P
Patrick_Bestall
Guest
Sorry Dave, but there are hundreds of legitimate scientists: geneticsts, biologists, astronomers etc. who refute evolution. I recommend you look into it. For those of us who don’t have the time or inclination to science, trust in the Church, and the Catechism (yes there really was an Adam and an Eve). One thing is assuring, there is no conflict between our faith and science other than that evolutionists keep rewriting their theories while the Bible never changes.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
I guess that this is a pointless meeting.
Your view of reality and mine are irrecconcileable.
Your views are not in accord with what Mother Church teaches as I understand.
They do not accord with the science I understand.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but to teach them as science is a mockery of science.
Such teaching is not science, but pseudoscience.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The priests in my parish were quite enthusiastic about my participation in the Gregorian conference, about which I will be reporting back to the RCIA group in a few weeks. It was a great conference, from which I learned a good deal. One of our priests even teaches a course on science and religion in the seminary.
It is not possible genetically that all humans descended from a single pair, known symbolically in Genesis as “Adam” and “Eve.” The minimum breeding population of hominids was several thousand to perhaps 10,000 individuals, to avoid a genetic bottleneck that would have been fatal to the species. Sorry, but that’s the way it was.
StAnastasia
PS – we await your examples professional biologists currently publishing papers in juried publications who, oppose evolution.
J
JDaniel
Guest
What do you make of what seems to be the commonest held, possibly-scientific, belief that all four of the initial qualities came about simultaneously? Is it possible that your theory could adapt to that idea? Especially since the quantum theory is that that which existed in the singularity was pure energy with the capability of forming matter because of quantum particles?
In other words, could space “pour” out slightly in advance, perhaps, of energy?
Your idea is fascinating to me.
jd
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
frankly, i find that evolution is somewhat of a tempest in a teacup.
after all it is much more interesting that there is a universe at all, evolution tells me the recipe for the tea, yet it says jack, nothing about anything important. like the teacup.
there are parts of the entirety of evolution i find just a little credulous, or the answers a little too pat, abiogenesis, the refutations of irreducible complexity, etc. i cant say they are wrong, as i dont know the issue well enough, but they don’t smell right either. plenty of room for discord there.
but leave that to the protestants, their sola scriptura, foundation requires a fairly literal interpretation. its their theological liferaft, so to speak.
for us, it matters not one wit as to the veracity of evolution.
there is real game afoot.
the tea cup
after all it is much more interesting that there is a universe at all, evolution tells me the recipe for the tea, yet it says jack, nothing about anything important. like the teacup.
there are parts of the entirety of evolution i find just a little credulous, or the answers a little too pat, abiogenesis, the refutations of irreducible complexity, etc. i cant say they are wrong, as i dont know the issue well enough, but they don’t smell right either. plenty of room for discord there.
but leave that to the protestants, their sola scriptura, foundation requires a fairly literal interpretation. its their theological liferaft, so to speak.
for us, it matters not one wit as to the veracity of evolution.
there is real game afoot.
the tea cup
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
what singularity? there is no evidence that there was ever a singularity at all, its essentially a physicists way of saying first cause.
- Status