God the middleman

[Matt5]

Couldn't gravity cause the universe to collapse back on itself? We project that the universe will expand forever due to dark energy, but we don't understand dark energy or know what it is.

How do you know so much about the creation of a universe?

Anything is possible, but right now collapse is not looking good.

Why is the Universe Accelerating? | IFLScience
Why is the Universe Accelerating?

"In the 1990s, astronomers studying exploding stars – supernovae – in galaxies far away discovered that the universe’s expansion was accelerating. This came as surprise, as scientists at the time thought it was slowing down. With no obvious solution at hand, scientists argued that there must be some sort of mysterious force – dark energy – pulling the universe apart."

Dark energy is some kind of fudge factor.

Note how the scientists were wrong the acceleration of the universe. That's why science is never settled.

Either the universe has been here forever, or something outside of the universe is creating new ones from time to time. And that something must have been doing it forever. Otherwise the last universe would have burned out long ago.

Given what we know right now, the universe could not have been here forever. That's leaves us with one option: something outside of the known universe created the universe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Anything is possible, but right now collapse is not looking good.

Why is the Universe Accelerating? | IFLScience
Why is the Universe Accelerating?

"In the 1990s, astronomers studying exploding stars – supernovae – in galaxies far away discovered that the universe’s expansion was accelerating. This came as surprise, as scientists at the time thought it was slowing down. With no obvious solution at hand, scientists argued that there must be some sort of mysterious force – dark energy – pulling the universe apart."

Dark energy is some kind of fudge factor.

Note how the scientists were wrong the acceleration of the universe. That's why science is never settled.

Either the universe has been here forever, or something outside of the universe is creating new ones from time to time. And that something must have been doing it forever. Otherwise the last universe would have burned out long ago.

Given what we know right now, the universe could not have been here forever. That's leaves us with one option: something outside of the known universe created the universe.

Are you explaining dark energy to me as though I don't know what it is? Did you read what I had to say?

 

[cloudyday2]

- This doesn't follow. Why is God ever obligated to respond to our behavior?
- An omnipotent being is never contingent to anything.

According some versions of Christian theology, we are presented with a choice to accept or reject Jesus as our savior, and God responds by either forgiving or punishing us for our sin. I suppose somebody might argue that God merely created a set of rules, and the rules define what is contingent on what. This seems more like a deist God.

Law of cause & effect is not dependent on spacetime. According to Leibniz's concept of time, it doesn't exist as an actual thing. To Leibniz, time is merely how we measure the relationship between two or more objects in motion relative to one another.

I might define time and space in terms of cause-and-effect.

For example if event A causes event B then event A "happens before" event B. So the biography of the universe might be a graph of events connected by arrows of time. The events can sometimes be sequenced relative to each other but there is merely a "before" and "after" and no real measure of time between "before" and "after".

A similar thing might be done with space. If an event A causes an event B then event A is "near" event B. We might say event A is closer to event B than it is to event C, but we can't measure distances between the events and there is no actual dimensionality.

I know this idea is kind of half-baked, but I like that it makes time and space unreal. This seems like a good goal to me. (Just random brainstorming again.)

 

[cloudyday2]

Very good question I don't think there are simple answers.

If God exists outside of time—not in time, but timeless and eternal—what would that mean about God's nature? God would never 'lose' the past or anticipate the future. God would not need to know the future, because to a timeless God, there would be no future. Everything would be ever-present in one timeless moment. But how could a timeless God relate to human beings?

Is God Outside of Time? | Closer to Truth

Thanks, I will watch some of those videos in the link. It seems that panentheism might allow time to be inherent to the part of the God which is the universe but it would not be inherent to the transcendent part of God. The transcendent might effect the non-transcendent through intuition?

 

[Paulomycin]

According some versions of Christian theology, we are presented with a choice to accept or reject Jesus as our savior, and God responds by either forgiving or punishing us for our sin.

- Which Reformed theologians argue as spurious, since only the regeneration of the Holy Spirit ("born from above" - John 3:6-8) can make one capable of making that choice.

- Of course God has to respond to a works-based soteriology. It makes it something He owes us, instead of grace (Romans 4:4). That's why we reject it as such.

I might define time and space in terms of cause-and-effect.

No problem with that. It would view the universe as a construct of pure logic.

I know this idea is kind of half-baked, but I like that it makes time and space unreal. This seems like a good goal to me. (Just random brainstorming again.)

I think it's quite accurate. I wouldn't call it "unreal" as much as I would a dependent relationship between the empirical vs. what its measured with. Everything we know to be real is ultimately math-dependent.

 

[cloudyday2]

In physics time is actually a thing which is quantified in various ways, and appears in equations, and then becomes possibly just a type of thing, where other types can exist possibly. So, 'real time' -- meaning the thing most people call 'time', the kind we all know first hand -- that thing, 'real time', began with this Universe, at the same moment this Universe began.

"Time" began with this Universe, and is an aspect of it also, exists from it and of it and because of it.

But other things that are time-like can exist theoretically. Other types of 'time' -- that is, another time-like dimension.

i.e. here's another type of time, not so constrained the same way as the above "time" -- Imaginary time - Wikipedia

This isn't just a wild theory without good causes to think could exist. It has a lot of seeming sense to it (though that doesn't make it necessarily likely!)

Some theories turn out later in time ( ;-) ) to be realistic (supported by observational evidence).

I guess maybe it is like a spectrum of realistic. If the imaginary time makes some equations work better then I suppose it is at least realistic in that sense. What does "real" mean? It seems to me that "real" means "a concept that in the past has had a good track record of helping us predict the future"? So something that helps with the math is real by that definition.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I guess maybe it is like a spectrum of realistic. If the imaginary time makes some equations work better then I suppose it is at least realistic in that sense. What does "real" mean? It seems to me that "real" means "a concept that in the past has had a good track record of helping us predict the future"? So something that helps with the math is real by that definition.

The problem with using imaginary numbers to denote a system of time is that the ordering relation is lost. i<-i is false, as is i≥-i.

 

[Eloy Craft]

The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.

God created to extend His love. The purpose of creation is to be loved by God and to love God back .

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God created to extend His love. The purpose of creation is to be loved by God and to love God back .

And the purpose of hell? Also, why are you so off topic?

 

[disciple Clint]

The issues you’re raising are separate to the question of the OP or my question in post 21. To address what you added:

Can you know that the universe itself is caused, or that its cause wasn’t some nontheistic phenomenon, itself uncaused?

you could attempt that but you still need to account for the source of the material that started the universe and the first actor that started it. So if you have some suggestions go ahead a post them. we do know that the universe has a beginning.

 

[Eloy Craft]

And the purpose of hell? Also, why are you so off topic?

Some folks want to make up their own purpose and be their own cause. You brought up the purpose and cause of everything .

 

[cloudyday2]

The problem with using imaginary numbers to denote a system of time is that the ordering relation is lost. i<-i is false, as is i≥-i.

Interesting... I will need to refresh my memory on imaginary numbers. I never felt comfortable with imaginary numbers, because I didn't have enough time to understand their purpose and properties fully. It was introduced like: "here let's use some imaginary numbers and do some complex contour integration and it will make these differential equations simpler" LOL. I can't recall ever learning what you stated above about ordering of imaginary numbers, and it seems pretty basic and important.

 

[Halbhh]

I guess maybe it is like a spectrum of realistic. If the imaginary time makes some equations work better then I suppose it is at least realistic in that sense. What does "real" mean? It seems to me that "real" means "a concept that in the past has had a good track record of helping us predict the future"? So something that helps with the math is real by that definition.

Here the label 'real' is just is a way to name/label our primary type of time we know well (so as to allow including another time-like dimension in a theory such as imaginary time without losing track which is which.)

 

[Halbhh]

The problem with using imaginary numbers to denote a system of time is that the ordering relation is lost. i<-i is false, as is i≥-i.

Not necessarily a problem I think. The wiki linked above re 'imaginary time' is a readable summary regarding the theory, imo, with some explanation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not necessarily a problem I think. The wiki linked above re 'imaginary time' is a readable summary regarding the theory, imo, with some explanation.

How do you define chronology then?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Interesting... I will need to refresh my memory on imaginary numbers. I never felt comfortable with imaginary numbers, because I didn't have enough time to understand their purpose and properties fully. It was introduced like: "here let's use some imaginary numbers and do some complex contour integration and it will make these differential equations simpler" LOL. I can't recall ever learning what you stated above about ordering of imaginary numbers, and it seems pretty basic and important.

i is modularly idempotent. i²=-1, i³=-i, and iⁿ generates {±1, ±i}. Unlike 0 or 1, which are also idempotent, i is not the multiplicative or additive identity of its field and I think that is what causes imaginary numbers to lose their ordering.

 

[gaara4158]

you could attempt that but you still need to account for the source of the material that started the universe and the first actor that started it. So if you have some suggestions go ahead a post them. we do know that the universe has a beginning.

Not if you don’t need to account for God.

 

[cloudyday2]

i is modularly idempotent. i²=-1, i³=-i, and iⁿ generates {±1, ±i}. Unlike 0 or 1, which are also idempotent, i is not the multiplicative or additive identity of its field and I think that is what causes imaginary numbers to lose their ordering.

How is "<" and ">" defined? I can follow what you say above, but I can't follow how that ties in to your original quote:

"The problem with using imaginary numbers to denote a system of time is that the ordering relation is lost. i<-i is false, as is i≥-i."

Without knowing the details of imaginary numbers, I would guess that -i < i.

Also, intuitively it seems to me that addition rather than multiplication would be more directly connected to ordering.

It's all interesting, but I suppose I'm not going to understand it no matter how much effort is expended explaining LOL

 

[Halbhh]

How do you define chronology then?

I don't want to pin down in a simple way what chronology is as I would simply have assumed 12-15 years ago, because of how interesting Hawking's theory is -- this is just about his theory. Here're a couple of illustrative short summaries that highlight how Hawking's attitude that the math might be telling us a reality (maybe) might then look:

What Is Imaginary Time?
Einstein And Hawking Had Different Ideas About The Concept Of Imaginary Time

(So, though it's not widely thought at the moment to be about a reality instead of just a math tool that allows useful calculation, Hawking wanted to find it as being a reality, and I don't want to rule that out, but it's an interesting speculative idea that 'imaginary time' may be about something that is real. I'd read Hawking's idea maybe 12-15 years ago first at his website -- "The Beginning of Time" was the title back then, and it's still interesting as a possibility; while the website no longer offered it recently, I was able to find it anyway a couple of years back; and here's a text version someone has i just found: The Beginning Of Time)

 

[Halbhh]

How is "<" and ">" defined? I can follow what you say above, but I can't follow how that ties in to your original quote:

"The problem with using imaginary numbers to denote a system of time is that the ordering relation is lost. i<-i is false, as is i≥-i."

Without knowing the details of imaginary numbers, I would guess that -i < i.

Also, intuitively it seems to me that addition rather than multiplication would be more directly connected to ordering.

It's all interesting, but I suppose I'm not going to understand it no matter how much effort is expended explaining LOL

While some physicists do get more towards the more formalistic math stuff, many instead use math more like a box of greasy tools, and it's more like, "hand me that little wrench with the red handle. Yeah... Ok, now the blue long needle nose pliers..." and so on, more....promiscuous might be a right metaphor. Not quite a string of one night stands exactly. Maybe more like...just loose standards, will hop into bed quick, and only stay as long as it's paying off.... So, it's a set of tools, and they grab and use as useful. And dump the greasy tool (math stuff) back in the box as soon as it's usefulness seems to be done for the moment.

Not that the math tools are unimportant. They are loved. And greasy.

Ok, maybe the metaphor is a little too far, but you might get the idea. Most don't really care much about whether a mathematician would have done it more formally or such.

But...Hawking didn't think of i as just a math tool only....

So, these 2 articles give a bit of background about Stephen Hawking's speculative idea that imaginary time might be a real thing, instead of only a neat math trick.
What Is Imaginary Time?
Einstein And Hawking Had Different Ideas About The Concept Of Imaginary Time
And here's Hawking's idea in his own wording:
The Beginning Of Time