An eternal universe and the 'special plead' of God [cosmology]

[Michael]

There is a lot to these topics, very extensive. Astrophysics doesn't say dark matter exists, but rather that something is happening that is as if non radiating matter is present, which we can't figure out yet (in a supported way).

Yet there are alternatives however to exotic matter, and even that concept 'assumes' that current mass estimation techniques are correct, in spite of *tons* of evidence to the contrary.

Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

And then the field comes up with a lot of hypotheses. Many. Over time. Many competing ideas, to be examined and attempt to shoot down.

Re the LCH, it helped us discover the Higgs Boson!

!

Before that only hypothesized to exist.

And this powerfully extended the evidence for the "Standard Model" of elementary particles. (And disproved an elegant version of an important theory with cosmological implications(!), that had been thought likely(!))
Standard Model - Wikipedia
Useful short summary in introductory section.

The "problem" is while the LHC, and other experiments like Xenon-1T can shoot down a "few" DM models, it's impossible to rule out *every* potential mathematical model one might come up with. That tends to make the whole concept unfalsifable at some point.

Again, we also have to "assume" that only gravity plays a major role in large scale galaxy movement patterns, and our current mass estimation techniques are accurate, in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

With the discovery of the Higgs Boson at the LHC, and all the other tests the standard model passed at LHC, IMO it just makes more sense to start over and figure out a way to explain the cosmological data without evoking new forms of matter and energy.

More counter rotation evidence to support Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model.

It doesn't make much sense to me to simply ignore the results of LHC, or to ignore the fact that the mass estimation methods used by the mainstream have been shown to be riddled with numerous flaws.

 

[Halbhh]

More counter rotation evidence to support Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model.

I jumped back to that old discussion and found I'd failed to respond to a key thing.

I just did, so that might help on that one aspect.

 

[sjastro]

More counter rotation evidence to support Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model.

Michael are there no limits to your deception?
In this very link you requested what flaws were found in Scott's model that is provided here.
The fact you have chosen to ignore it because it is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension is no justification for resurrecting this thread under the false pretence that Scott's model is sound.

 

[Michael]

Michael are there no limits to your deception?

I think the better question is: Are any limits to your personal attacks?

In this very link you requested what flaws were found in Scott's model that is provided here.
The fact you have chosen to ignore it because it is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension is no justification for resurrecting this thread under the false pretence that Scott's model is sound.

Perhaps you could start by listing *specific* issues which you believe that I didn't already address in one of the previous threads. You seem quite long on accusation and quite short on specifics, not unlike that whole Thomson redshift issue.

 

[sjastro]

I think the better question is: Are any limits to your personal attacks?



Perhaps you could start by listing *specific* issues which you believe that I didn't already address in one of the previous threads. You seem quite long on accusation and quite short on specifics, not unlike that whole Thomson redshift issue.

\facepalm.
Do we have to go through this nonsense yet again; try reading your own link.
There are 7 points made in the rebuttal, you were given the opportunity of addressing each point.
If the Thomson redshift issue becomes a signature point in every post now not only does it provide a reminder you can't understand simple English in that thread as you are demonstrating here but you also being a troll.

 

[Michael]

\facepalm.
Do we have to go through this nonsense yet again; try reading your own link.
There are 7 points made in the rebuttal, you were given the opportunity of addressing each point.
If the Thomson redshift issue becomes a signature point in every post now not only does it provide a reminder you can't understand simple English in that thread as you are demonstrating here but you also being a troll.

I'm simply noting that you have a bad habit of tossing your own personal opinions into the conversation as "fact", and expecting me to 'disprove' something which you've never substantiated in the first place. I've responded to several of your points and I'm unclear which items you still feel remain uncontested. There are a number of posts underneath of your original list, so you'll have to be specific (preferably quoting from Scott's actual papers, including page number, paragraph and formula) about which items you're still worried about.

 

[sjastro]

I'm simply noting that you have a bad habit of tossing your own personal opinions into the conversation as "fact", and expecting me to 'disprove' something which you've never substantiated in the first place. I've responded to several of your points and I'm unclear which items you still feel remain uncontested. There are a number of posts underneath of your original list, so you'll have to be specific (preferably quoting from Scott's actual papers, including page number, paragraph and formula) about which items you're still worried about.

\doublefacepalm.
If you actually understood Scott's model, you know the very model you think is correct, you wouldn't making such requests as the rebuttal is self evident in highlighting Scott's flaws.
So I am not going to be holding your hand in what will turn into an exercise in obfuscation.
You are going to have to address the issues as they are.
My opinions are based on a knowledge of maths and physics; Scott's glaring algebraic error in point (4) for example is not a personal opinion, anyone with a basic knowledge of high school algebra would see it as well.

 

[muichimotsu]

I like you said that.

See, to me that's fundamental, and I've used that since probably early teens, just by reflection from things I was reading back then. It is worth thinking on of course, because of how far it reaches.

So, when you keep trying to tell people (in various ways) their ideas about reality aren't reality (don't know if you are able to translate my wording here, but you may be able to), that's an old thing to me I've long assumed now, what I always assume, just to start. It's already what I thought.

Your ideas about reality are not necessarily accurate in terms of predictions or, more particularly, conclusions made about reality that are unfalsifiable in nature (a creator, etc)

But the fact we are attempting to merely model reality doesn't prevent us from being potentially able to make an excellent parallel structure to whatever it is that is real, it turns out. (we can make models that actually are reliably predictive of independent real events; not vague stuff, but independent and real stuff like whether a planet will cease to exist as a distinct object due to predictable spiraling into a star or compact object (via drag or even gravitational radiation, etc.)

To the great surprise of many, in history. That we can model reality, amazingly.

The mere possibility you could be right is not the same as actually demonstrating it and cosmology is such that I still lean towards Buddhist notions that it's really not that important to discuss, because it focuses too much on the external factors that we can't really address. Astrophysics is one thing, cosmology is a scale beyond what we can realistically study, but create hypothetical models at best

We aren't even slightly slowed down by the fact we aren't....as complex as reality, in modeling it. We merely need a model -- and we could never do more than having a mere model! -- that simply works well, in a consistent reliable way, to accurately predict outcomes according to what we are testing.

That fact we cannot perfectly know reality is so long my assumption I rarely think of it anymore, and just tend to assume everyone is assuming that. But people do often not seem to remember that, and get overly attached to their models. In physics though the general attitude is to seek inadequacies or failures in the models -- that's the goal. That's the daily aim.

Working well internally is insufficient when you aren't still trying to improve it. I'm not as attached to the big bang model as you seem to suggest I am, it's arguably the most compelling given my understanding of the evidence, but I'm neither making an appeal to authority or personal incredulity, However, the eternal universe and God claims are both unrealistic or unfalsifiable in nature, shutting down realistic discussion by multiplying entities and violating Occam's razor terribly

 

[muichimotsu]

Eh? I'm not arguing that it's infinite or eternal because the opposite cannot be proven true. Even the mainstream model tends to suggest that the universe is infinite. The age aspect tends to be related to whether one believes that redshift is related to expansion in an expanding universe, or it's related to what Edwin Hubble and Fritz Zwicky called "tired light"/inelastic scattering.

Plasma redshift has actually been *shown in the lab* to cause photons to lose momentum as light passes through a plasma medium. In fact Chen demonstrated a correlation between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift that he observed.

On the other hand, "space expansion", and "dark energy" are *excellent* examples of "arguments from ignorance".

Infinite in a sense, but not infinite in that we can measure that, because infinity is fundamentally hypothetical in nature. You seem to want an ultimate answer and science doesn't seek that in the slightest, your desire for higher certainty is what stifles any consideration that a deeply held belief you posit as scientific might not be true.

You keep referencing particular individuals as if that invalidates any other observations to the contrary, it's little different than pointing to particular people who supposedly undermined evolutionary model foundations, but then it's usually based on poor methodology, etc.

Define "best". The LCDM model has failed more tests than it's ever passed, including two important tests in the last few months with respect to SN1A data and 'dark energy'. It requires *four* metaphysical constructs too, three of which can be replaced with ordinary plasma redshift that works in the lab.

Scientific theories are as much about adjusting, rather than remaining static and I doubt either of us is fully aware of the present state of such things when cosmology becomes utterly speculative after a point anyway due to the scale being impossible to observe

Like what? Plasma redshift is a *natural* process that occurs in labs on Earth.

And gravity exists on earth, but, again, the scale is what can, and arguably does, drastically change how it functions

Except recent technological advances (and more data) have called the whole dark energy claim into question.

Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.

Two recent (last few months) SN1A studies show that a larger data set of SN1A events does *not* support dark energy claims.

2 studies does not a representative sample and thorough investigation make

Gravity is gravity, and it probably plays a central role in some aspects of cosmology, but it's not the *only* force of nature that has a direct effect on plasma.

Don't believe I remotely said that

Admittedly there are limits to how one might try to scale something like gravity or EM fields on Earth, but all the core tenets of some cosmology models can be tested in a lab, which is not the case for the LCDM model.

No, a cosmology model in its completeness cannot be tested in a lab anymore than we can test evolutionary theory in a lab, because, again, the scale is so vast and has already happened, we can't go back in time

Sure, but in the case of the SN1A data, more data didn't *support* dark energy, it actually undermines it entirely.

That doesn't make it invalid except perhaps in how it's formulated, but not in that it could apply in a different formulation relative to the data

That statement works both ways however, and it's easy enough to put blinders on to alternatives to expansion models, in fact it's much more likely to occur.

When you posit eternity and infinity and then call it scientific, I'm more than a bit skeptical it really matters in the long term or even in regards to information that would help in any way, versus evolutionary theory that gives us great amounts of practical applications

In an infinite and eternal universe, how is any form of energy "wasted"? It changes forms over and over again, but energy cannot be created nor destroyed according to the laws of physics. Entropy isn't a simple question when things like gravity tend to pull things like dust and plasma together and organize them into suns and planets.

'
That's already assuming it exists, but it's not even strictly about wasting energy so much as it would just handwave entropy away entirely even when you've already brought it up

I'd argue that the exact opposite is true. The LCDM model is the "status quo", whereas a static universe model *used* to be the status quo. Both models have proposed an "infinite' universe, and even the LCDM models requires the energy of the current physical universe to have come from somewhere, so it doesn't technically preclude an eternal universe. In fact the mainstream uses terms like "eternal inflation' and "multiverse" to describe the universe *prior* to the bang. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill

I don't think the notion of an eternal universe in the sense of the big crunch, etc, or variants thereof, is remotely the same as a static eternal infinite universe that basically just throws out any physics that we've observed when getting to a large enough scale because you just can't observe it "in a lab"
.

 

[Michael]

Infinite in a sense, but not infinite in that we can measure that, because infinity is fundamentally hypothetical in nature.

I agree, but my point is that the concept of an infinite universe is entertained in pretty much all cosmology models.

You seem to want an ultimate answer and science doesn't seek that in the slightest, your desire for higher certainty is what stifles any consideration that a deeply held belief you posit as scientific might not be true.

Actually, it don't personally care if it's finite or infinite. I fail to see how it cold be "time limited" however since energy cannot be created nor destroyed according to the laws of physics, so something has necessarily *always* existed, and some arrangement of energy will always exist.

You keep referencing particular individuals as if that invalidates any other observations to the contrary, it's little different than pointing to particular people who supposedly undermined evolutionary model foundations, but then it's usually based on poor methodology, etc.

I'm just pointing out that redshift is the only thing that we actually we "observe". The cause of that redshift is debatable. Edwin Hubble is usually credited with discovering that we live in a universe full of galaxies and not just in one island galaxy universe. He's also usually credited with the expansion model, but by the end of his career he was pretty sure that redshift was related to tired light rather than expansion, and Zwicky is credited with the tired light concept.

Scientific theories are as much about adjusting, rather than remaining static

Sure. The fact that we no longer assume that the Earth is the center of the universe today would suggest that change is inevitable. I don't object to change, but I do tend to object to simply adding supernatural elements, one after another after another.

and I doubt either of us is fully aware of the present state of such things when cosmology becomes utterly speculative after a point anyway due to the scale being impossible to observe

I tend to agree with that as well, but I prefer to try to explain what I can explain with empirical laboratory physics when possible, but of course scaling will always be required in cosmology.

And gravity exists on earth, but, again, the scale is what can, and arguably does, drastically change how it functions

That's possible of course, but I don't really have any empirical evidence that gravity really changes all that much simply based on scaling. About the only thing that does seem to change is the *amount* of gravity and the amount of mass.

2 studies does not a representative sample and thorough investigation make

Maybe not, but the whole dark energy proposition was mostly based on a very limited SN1a data set, and a small number of studies. The papers I cited are much more recent and they involve many times the number of SN1A events.

Don't believe I remotely said that

No you didn't, but most astronomers assume that is the case, particularly at larger scales. That's why and how we ended up with exotic matter theories and exotic energy theories. If one presumes that EM fields are involved the movement patterns of the universe at larger scales too, exotic matter and energy are no longer necessary to explain what we observe in space.

No, a cosmology model in its completeness cannot be tested in a lab anymore than we can test evolutionary theory in a lab, because, again, the scale is so vast and has already happened, we can't go back in time

Actually, we can look back in time in astronomy as we look at distant objects. We can also build computer models to simulate the passage of time and to scale things appropriately. We can also test the core "cause/effect" claims in the lab in some models. Those kinds of models tend to be more "likely" to be correct IMO. Models based on many assumed causes tend to turn me off.

That doesn't make it invalid except perhaps in how it's formulated, but not in that it could apply in a different formulation relative to the data

Actually, I'd say that a large SN1A study that arrives at a different conclusion tends to undermines the whole concept since SN1A events were the entire basis of the original claim. If one simply moves the goalposts when the data doesn't support the idea anymore, it becomes "dogma", not science.

When you posit eternity and infinity and then call it scientific, I'm more than a bit skeptical it really matters in the long term or even in regards to information that would help in any way, versus evolutionary theory that gives us great amounts of practical applications

It's that "practical application' part that causes me to embrace evolutionary theory as well as EU/PC theory. Exotic energy and exotic matter concepts don't seem to have any "practical value", they're primarily used simply to prop up one otherwise falsified cosmology model.

That's already assuming it exists, but it's not even strictly about wasting energy so much as it would just handwave entropy away entirely even when you've already brought it up

I think the entropy concept seems to be misused more than it's used correctly. Systems, including solar systems can become more 'organized' over time due to gravity, and become less organized too due to fusion.

I don't think the notion of an eternal universe in the sense of the big crunch, etc, or variants thereof, is remotely the same as a static eternal infinite universe that basically just throws out any physics that we've observed when getting to a large enough scale because you just can't observe it "in a lab"
.

So what prevents someone from inventing any number of supernatural elements on a whim?

Up until the Big Bang theory, and Hubble, it was assumed we lived in a single island universe that was relatively static. I simply prefer to explain what I can in the universe with ordinary empirical physics and just admit that I can't explain it if I can't explain it with basic physics. I don't see any great value in simply 'making stuff up" and pretending that I've offered an "explanation' when I really haven't. Dark energy and matter aren't actually "explanations", they're simply placeholder terms for human ignorance. I'd rather just admit that I simply can't explain some types of observations via empirical physics and leave it at that. Fortunately it's possible to explain virtually everything in space with empirical physics.

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree, but my point is that the concept of an infinite universe is entertained in pretty much all cosmology models.

Infinite in the hypothetical sense, not something we could remotely observe scientifically, because it would, by definition, never end

Actually, it don't personally care if it's finite or infinite. I fail to see how it cold be "time limited" however since energy cannot be created nor destroyed according to the laws of physics, so something has necessarily *always* existed, and some arrangement of energy will always exist.

Time and space can be said to be linked, but at the same time, we have the notion that time slows down the closer to the speed of light one gets, with general relativity

I'm just pointing out that redshift is the only thing that we actually we "observe". The cause of that redshift is debatable. Edwin Hubble is usually credited with discovering that we live in a universe full of galaxies and not just in one island galaxy universe. He's also usually credited with the expansion model, but by the end of his career he was pretty sure that redshift was related to tired light rather than expansion, and Zwicky is credited with the tired light concept.

Explaining in simpler factors rather than considering that the universe's scale is not something the works on the same principles as a smaller system is the problem. We can't observe the universe in itself, only as we have context within it.

Sure. The fact that we no longer assume that the Earth is the center of the universe today would suggest that change is inevitable. I don't object to change, but I do tend to object to simply adding supernatural elements, one after another after another.

The idea of the eternal universe seems a means to just have "God" as an "explanation" in regards to the stuff outside of scientific limits, but be satisfied with a universe that violates principles already established to satisfy some notion of energy and matter being conserved by recycling (as if recycling is completely energy free in its process as we understand it in terms of materials)

I tend to agree with that as well, but I prefer to try to explain what I can explain with empirical laboratory physics when possible, but of course scaling will always be required in cosmology.

Laboratory physics are necessarily impossible to apply entirely with cosmological scales, because it still exists within the universe anyway, rather than seeing the universe at a distance for the lab studies

That's possible of course, but I don't really have any empirical evidence that gravity really changes all that much simply based on scaling. About the only thing that does seem to change is the *amount* of gravity and the amount of mass.

I'm talking about the black holes and such, something that creates questions in regards to gravity's effects on a galactic scale, such that supposedly, at least from some observations or such, our galaxy may be gravitating to another galaxy in a few billion years.

Maybe not, but the whole dark energy proposition was mostly based on a very limited SN1a data set, and a small number of studies. The papers I cited are much more recent and they involve many times the number of SN1A events.

Multiple experiments based on flawed methodology or limited scales does not make one premise more compelling, we're still talking about your incredulity for one explanation as a cause when yours brings up more questions than it supposedly answers (recycling of matter as some notion of "conservation" and the notion of a static universe that nonetheless changes, contradictory in nature)

No you didn't, but most astronomers assume that is the case, particularly at larger scales. That's why and how we ended up with exotic matter theories and exotic energy theories. If one presumes that EM fields are involved the movement patterns of the universe at larger scales too, exotic matter and energy are no longer necessary to explain what we observe in space.

The EM fields may not be sufficient in terms of the scale if we're talking about a universe we don't know about the beginning of beyond particular observations that have a limit (a singularity, event horizon, etc)

Actually, we can look back in time in astronomy as we look at distant objects. We can also build computer models to simulate the passage of time and to scale things appropriately. We can also test the core "cause/effect" claims in the lab in some models. Those kinds of models tend to be more "likely" to be correct IMO. Models based on many assumed causes tend to turn me off.

We can observe based on particular measurements, but that's not the same as literally going back in time and space, at best you're referring to forensic observations by measuring cosmic radiation, etc (like how some stars may very well be dying)

We necessarily have to assume certain things when the evidence doesn't lend itself to a simple explanation due to problems of scale, etc. Assuming things always function the same regardless of space or time is faulty reasoning in science, because our notions of consistency are limited in application the further removed we are from the object of observation

Actually, I'd say that a large SN1A study that arrives at a different conclusion tends to undermines the whole concept since SN1A events were the entire basis of the original claim. If one simply moves the goalposts when the data doesn't support the idea anymore, it becomes "dogma", not science.

And if one just shifts the goalposts to needlessly narrow, that's no better, science is not about such precision that it stifles innovation anymore than being open to just anything, it's a moderation between them

It's that "practical application' part that causes me to embrace evolutionary theory as well as EU/PC theory. Exotic energy and exotic matter concepts don't seem to have any "practical value", they're primarily used simply to prop up one otherwise falsified cosmology model.

When one literally can't go beyond a certain point in observation, the exotic energy is a placeholder, it's not meant to be anything absolutely conclusive, it's more that the static universe is ignoring other aspects by trying to needlessly constrain what constitutes science when the scale is galactic

I think the entropy concept seems to be misused more than it's used correctly. Systems, including solar systems can become more 'organized' over time due to gravity, and become less organized too due to fusion.

Organized in a loose sense, but when you're talking a closed system on the universe's scale, it's not likely it will always lend itself to such scenarios: plus the "fusion" you reference is a particular form, it's not as if one is claiming gravity always leads to entropy and fusion always leads to order, science acknowledges contextual variation of terms and applications of forces based on those contexts.

Black holes, an observed phenomenon, suggest one aspect of gravity, but fusion also creates a similar destructive aspect that then supposedly leads to the black hole, so it's more a matter of immense mass and gravity potentially collapsing the object onto itself or the like

So what prevents someone from inventing any number of supernatural elements on a whim?

Up until the Big Bang theory, and Hubble, it was assumed we lived in a single island universe that was relatively static. I simply prefer to explain what I can in the universe with ordinary empirical physics and just admit that I can't explain it if I can't explain it with basic physics. I don't see any great value in simply 'making stuff up" and pretending that I've offered an "explanation' when I really haven't. Dark energy and matter aren't actually "explanations", they're simply placeholder terms for human ignorance. I'd rather just admit that I simply can't explain some types of observations via empirical physics and leave it at that. Fortunately it's possible to explain virtually everything in space with empirical physics

An explanation based on a naturalistic methodology is being far more honest that saying you don't know when you're more likely substituting an unfalsifiable agency in terms of matter and energy's origin that then leads to an eternal universe

Funny you say "virtually" because that's necessarily the case when you admit there are constraints. Ignorance is not an excuse to stop thinking or go with what "makes sense", neither of those are scientific virtues in the slightest

 

[SkyWriting]

No it points to the universe being a closed system, but not that the beginning that we observe is the absolute beginning, because that would require a scale we can't investigate

That's convenient that entropy points to a beginning,
but any evidence to the contrary is impossible.

 

[Amittai]

God exists outside of time. The created Cosmos seem to have been created by Him. The fact that entropy is increasing, or energy becoming less usable, points to a beginning.

I haven't indexed my notes yet but it may have been Michio Kaku (whose futurology I reject incidentally) that remarked about the appearance of light having played the most crucial role within the first few initial split seconds of the "beginning of the universe".

God is both in all times AND outside all times. And thank you SW for definition of entropy because disorder is never the right word for it. I had a pal at secondary school would hold me spellbound about it - in between "Lost In Space" impressions

 

[Amittai]

Your ideas about reality are not necessarily accurate in terms of predictions or, more particularly, conclusions made about reality that are unfalsifiable in nature (a creator, etc)

The mere possibility you could be right is not the same as actually demonstrating it and cosmology is such that I still lean towards Buddhist notions that it's really not that important to discuss, because it focuses too much on the external factors that we can't really address. Astrophysics is one thing, cosmology is a scale beyond what we can realistically study, but create hypothetical models at best

Working well internally is insufficient when you aren't still trying to improve it. I'm not as attached to the big bang model as you seem to suggest I am, it's arguably the most compelling given my understanding of the evidence, but I'm neither making an appeal to authority or personal incredulity, However, the eternal universe and God claims are both unrealistic or unfalsifiable in nature, shutting down realistic discussion by multiplying entities and violating Occam's razor terribly

I like what you say here a great deal. I'm a great believer in multiple hypotheses alongside each other for inspiration.

A statement of the razor that I prefer is "no plurality without necessity" the latter as contrast with both contingency, and sufficient condition, and the former that can be discerned in myriad levels or facets or angles or aspects, not only and not "necessarily" at entity level (hence some sense of plurality "multiplies" but not always entities - merely a way I like to explain it to myself). Eternal universe and God claims are both unfalsifiable and can be deemed neither realistic nor unrealistic (as per Gilson's method).

I discovered to my delight an inverse continuum between the falsification in Popper's falsifiability and the inference in Newman's "assent to degrees of inference". As evidence builds up, hypotheses grow closer to each other. Evidence of God is mainly in individual humans' lives. Sciences can be individuating and non-indivduating or a mixture.

Much speculative theoretical "science" is notions and abduction. Out of this soup emerge the testable hypotheses which is Popper's scene.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's convenient that entropy points to a beginning,
but any evidence to the contrary is impossible.

When it comes to the Universe, how do you know what is or is not impossible? Our best scientist who study in the field don't even say it is impossible, what makes you qualified to say so?

 

[Ken-1122]

God is both in all times AND outside all times.

What does it mean to be inside and outside of all times, and how is that different than something that does not exist?

 

[Amittai]

What does it mean to be inside and outside of all times, and how is that different than something that does not exist?

For those who think the concept god meaningful, that's where I'm pointing out how the position of the concept god often is, in order to explain its commonly held interrelationships - the concept god embodying aspects / qualities. If you don't have a concept god, I'm simply not excluding the (tentative) hypothesis that some "thing" or aspect or quality of existence is outside time and we know some that are inside it, and merely hinting it might not be impossible for the two to overlap somehow.

As we have a wide audience and a wide subject, my language is chosen to not paint anyone into a corner

A quality or aspect isn't an entity. No plurality without necessary. It's inevitable that everything has many aspects and qualities.

Dimension = measure, whether absolutely or relatively.

Values and qualities can also have a metaphorical measure.

I'm not one of those that claim this proves God. My deepest desire is to help everyone love the world & the universe. The early "Dr Who" on the telly and a classmate who was into relativity helped me. I think this is the sort of critique the poster of post no. 2 was alluding to.

A sentence I read somewhere: "Time is not a renewable resource."

See also my 214 on eternal universe claims and god claims within the wider sphere of logic.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

When it comes to the Universe, how do you know what is or is not impossible? Our best scientist who study in the field don't even say it is impossible, what makes you qualified to say so?

If you're referring to who and what I think you're referring to, that model has already been criticized by other scientists of more or less equal standing.

What does it mean to be inside and outside of all times, and how is that different than something that does not exist?

Something that does not exist....does not exist, and therefore has no need to exist anywhere in time. I think of God, in this equation, as an object; time being a container. God would hypothetically exist with one foot 'in' and one foot 'out' of said container; if he did not exist, well...like I said, there would be nothing.

 

[Amittai]

[]