User Tag List

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 145

Thread: Why the Universe isnt infinite

  1. #71
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Created Blog entry50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteranSocial
    Overall activity: 20.0%

    S-N-A-F-U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks
    2,662
    Thanked: 9,769
    Rep Power
    21474846
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    I take a more radical view towards the Bible.

    I claim, it was written by a bunch of old men. Who were probably bordering on senility.

    Just because they were right about God, doesn't mean they were right about anything else.

    They engage in the same fallacies that everyone else does - not the least of which is "attributes" of God, the description of which is nothing more than human arrogance.

    I claim the Bible is NOT free of contradiction, as a matter of fact there are contradictions all over the place, I could rattle off a dozen of em just off the top of my head.

    It is absolutely HORRIBLE to use the Bible as an excuse to stop learning. If you think the Bible is the Truth and that's all there is, I'm sorry to say you're 100% wrong.

    "Complete and final" is the single most dangerous concept in all of religion and philosophy (and science too).
    You said you have a more radical view of the Bible. Well, if that's the case, you will never have complete understanding of God's word! I failed to mention in my last post that, another reason why there is a failure of understanding by many; everything is taken Literally, whereas the Bible is also written in figurative and symbolic language as well, and most can't separate one from the other.

    And yes, the prophets of old that put quell to parchment were old men, but SPECIAL men selected by God.

    "No prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." ~ 2 Pet. 1:20-21

    "God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old time." ~ Acts 3:21

    Of course, we also learn from Science, not supposition. After-all, God is science who made known those things that were already there for discovery.

    BTW, those Scriptures that you think are in conflict, and for expediency sake, please cite one and I will attempt to answer it contextually and Biblically.
    Last edited by S-N-A-F-U; 11-21-2020 at 09:31 AM.

  2. #72
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Created Blog entry50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteranSocial
    Overall activity: 20.0%

    S-N-A-F-U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks
    2,662
    Thanked: 9,769
    Rep Power
    21474846
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    K well, if you're gonna go there then we should move this to the Religion section. We're polluting Smarty's thread. I'll be happy to continue the discussion if you wish - would you like to start a thread or should I?
    I agree. However, things have a tendency to morph into other subjects. Especially, Science and God which are joined at the hip as mentioned in my previous post.

  3. #73
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 26.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31,876
    Thanks
    13,372
    Thanked: 33,795
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by S-N-A-F-U View Post
    I agree. However, things have a tendency to morph into other subjects. Especially, Science and God which are joined at the hip as mentioned in my previous post.
    Science attempts to read the books in the library, whereas religion merely observes that there are books.

    Here's an example. The world that you see with your eyes, is not the same world you study in school. In school they teach you about points and lines, and you learn about Euclidean geometry, which has lengths and angles and such - and in Euclidean geometry any two lines intersect at exactly one point, except for parallel lines that never intersect anywhere.

    But you never SEE any such world, ever. If you look at the parallel lines of a railroad track, it is abundantly clear that they meet in the distant horizon. The renaissance artists knew all about this, they called it "perspective". DaVinci was even able to calculate a lot of it based on stereoscopic vision.

    But the mathematicians, they figured out that there's another geometry that describes perspective - it's called projective geometry. You can easily create a projective plane from a Euclidean plane - what you do is you take a maximal family of parallel lines and create a "point at infinity" where they meet. You do this repeatedly for every family of parallel lines (which means every angle around the origin, so you end up with a bunch of points at infinity that form a circle), and so then you connect all the points at infinity with an additional line. You now have a "projective plane" which is also called an extended Euclidean plane.

    The Euclidean plane was known to the ancient Greeks, but the projective plane was only developed in the 1800's by Felix Klein, who was studying mathematical tools developed by Bernhard Riemann. The interesting thing is that topology has very little to do with stereo vision - EXCEPT for the rather astounding realization that any time you get two observers in a room, the combined perspective changes the entire geometry of reality!

    Same thing happens in religion sometimes - you get one Christian in a room they tell you about God, but if you get a bunch of Christians in a room they start speaking in tongues.

  4. #74
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 35.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,635
    Thanks
    602
    Thanked: 2,829
    Rep Power
    5054595
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    2-d spin networks "stitching together"?

    You're saying they overlap? Or are you invoking an aether?

    You do realize the Arabs invented zero, right? Leave it to the damn Arabs to invent "nothing".

    lol

    You need to go read Roger Penrose's twistor Theory. He postulate that the most fundamental property is spin, and proposes such objects are called Spinors. Spinors join into 2D manifolds called Spin Networks, which themselves can stich together into multi D complex objects called Twistors. The theory has been in devolpment since the 60's.

    Roger Penrose first proposed Twistor theory in 1967, with the intention of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of Quantum Gravity. It is based on projective geometry and an area of mathematics known as integral geometry. Twistors are complex objects like wavefunctions in quantum mechanics. Penrose maps objects in conventional four dimensional space-time into objects into a space with four complex dimensions; complex in the mathematical sense of using complex numbers. The space is called Twistor Space, and points in this space, represented by complex coordinates, are the Twistors themselves. Edward Witten proposed a connection between string theory and twistor geometry that he called twistor string theory. He proposed a way to look at string theory within twistor space, as a way to eliminate the multiple dimensions of space required in Superstring and "M" theory. However, to quote Witten, "I think twistor string theory is something that only partly works", so we will have to wait and see. Another proposal was to use "super twistor space", a supersymmetric extension of Penrose's original twistor space.

    Penrose also has strong views on what he regards as the failure of Quantum mechanics. This is called the "Penrose Interpretation", which seems to be based loosely on objective collapse theory. These theories are at odds with any of the "many Worlds" theories, as they use the collapse of the wave function to circumvent the question of unobserved behavior. While the Penrose Interpretation, and other objective theories, are similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation, they differ in one significant way; they treat the wave function as, essentially, "real". The collapse of the wave function, however, occurs randomly, or at least with no special reference to any observer.


    Ive mentioned Twistors before here, but not really expanded on it, but IMHO, Twistor Space is where the future is, baby. Twistors can also be regarded as aggregations of null lines (light beams) in Complex Twistor Space. Thus a point in Complex Twistor Space corresponds to a Null Line in spacetime. The quantum fields corresponding to massive particles in spacetime are created by he intersection of two Twistos in Complex Twistor Space.

    The great triumph of Twistor Theory is the elegant way its has been able to describe complete all the various fields in Physics. That one reason im a hardcore fan of it.
    Last edited by UKSmartypants; 11-21-2020 at 02:54 PM.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to UKSmartypants For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (11-21-2020)

  6. #75
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredTagger Second Class
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Fall River's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,792
    Thanks
    2,416
    Thanked: 1,080
    Rep Power
    1797232
    Quote Originally Posted by S-N-A-F-U View Post
    Which brings to mind the following quotation:

    “We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” ~ Albert Einstein
    So Albert Einstein thought that God created the universe because it is "marvelously arranged" and "obeying certain laws"? But did he know how any being could possibly do all of that?

    The only being capable of that would be one that we humans create.

  7. #76
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 26.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31,876
    Thanks
    13,372
    Thanked: 33,795
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by UKSmartypants View Post
    You need to go read Roger Penrose's twistor Theory. He postulate that the most fundamental property is spin, and proposes such objects are called Spinors. Spinors join into 2D manifolds called Spin Networks, which themselves can stich together into multi D complex objects called Twistors. The theory has been in devolpment since the 60's.

    Roger Penrose first proposed Twistor theory in 1967, with the intention of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of Quantum Gravity. It is based on projective geometry and an area of mathematics known as integral geometry. Twistors are complex objects like wavefunctions in quantum mechanics. Penrose maps objects in conventional four dimensional space-time into objects into a space with four complex dimensions; complex in the mathematical sense of using complex numbers. The space is called Twistor Space, and points in this space, represented by complex coordinates, are the Twistors themselves. Edward Witten proposed a connection between string theory and twistor geometry that he called twistor string theory. He proposed a way to look at string theory within twistor space, as a way to eliminate the multiple dimensions of space required in Superstring and "M" theory. However, to quote Witten, "I think twistor string theory is something that only partly works", so we will have to wait and see. Another proposal was to use "super twistor space", a supersymmetric extension of Penrose's original twistor space.

    Penrose also has strong views on what he regards as the failure of Quantum mechanics. This is called the "Penrose Interpretation", which seems to be based loosely on objective collapse theory. These theories are at odds with any of the "many Worlds" theories, as they use the collapse of the wave function to circumvent the question of unobserved behavior. While the Penrose Interpretation, and other objective theories, are similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation, they differ in one significant way; they treat the wave function as, essentially, "real". The collapse of the wave function, however, occurs randomly, or at least with no special reference to any observer.


    Ive mentioned Twistors before here, but not really expanded on it, but IMHO, Twistor Space is where the future is, baby. Twistors can also be regarded as aggregations of null lines (light beams) in Complex Twistor Space. Thus a point in Complex Twistor Space corresponds to a Null Line in spacetime. The quantum fields corresponding to massive particles in spacetime are created by he intersection of two Twistos in Complex Twistor Space.

    The great triumph of Twistor Theory is the elegant way its has been able to describe complete all the various fields in Physics. That one reason im a hardcore fan of it.
    K so, help me out here. Please.

    I get the basics of the twistor theory, and observe that it's fundamentally a discrete (and quantized) theory.

    As near as I can understand it, the twistor theory postulates a minimum volume of spacetime - which is so small 10^-66 that we couldn't measure it - and spacetime "instantiates" because of the projection of angular momentum into linear momentum. Something like that? In other words it's field-dependent. Essentially it's a discrete embedding into a continuous field, yes?

    So, that being the case, it's exactly the same thing I've been studying, in neural networks. And lately, in quantum computing. In neural networks, we have discrete locations (dendritic spines) embedded into a continuous field (by EM volume conduction). In quantum computing the simplest qubits are binary and this feature seems to correlate with the concept of "chirality" in the twistor theory. Call it up or down, left or right, clockwise or counterclockwise...

    Here's the interesting thing about neural networks - they abstract and simplify topology. For instance the abstraction of convex polyhedra into a sphere is automatic. In physics you have to obey certain topological invariances because of the required symmetries - so for example a Klein bottle is impossible because of the torsion. However a neural network need obey no such constraints. A neural network can easily and automatically accomplish the cutting and unfolding of a torus into a flat square, and the gluing back of the edges into various shapes - with or without torsion.

    This "topological computing" seems to be the same thing the physicists are studying. And, at the root of the twistor theory is the same concept I've been promoting, which is that information is more fundamental than geometry. And "information" seems to occur in a way that's consistently related to the idea of "discrete embedding into a continuous space" (space being used here in the mathematical sense).

    In physics the observables are constrained to certain paths, like minimum energy, maximum entropy, etc. The "shape" of the manifold is usually well defined. In neural networks two things are true: 1. the system is self organizing, the shape organizes itself into local hills and valleys, and 2. the shape of the manifold changes dynamically.

  8. #77
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialYour first Group1 year registered
    Overall activity: 27.0%

    Physics Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    1,855
    Thanked: 3,738
    Rep Power
    10755135
    Failed post...
    Last edited by Physics Hunter; 11-22-2020 at 04:07 AM.
    Scientist, Evangelical Christian - reformed, father, entrepreneur, hunter, outdoorsman, motorcyclist, Constitutional Conservative.

  9. #78
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialYour first Group1 year registered
    Overall activity: 27.0%

    Physics Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    1,855
    Thanked: 3,738
    Rep Power
    10755135
    Quote Originally Posted by East of the Beast View Post
    If the universe is finite ,then what's on the other side?

    Yes, this is the essence of it.

    Infinite in what...
    Scientist, Evangelical Christian - reformed, father, entrepreneur, hunter, outdoorsman, motorcyclist, Constitutional Conservative.

  10. #79
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Created Blog entry50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteranSocial
    Overall activity: 20.0%

    S-N-A-F-U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks
    2,662
    Thanked: 9,769
    Rep Power
    21474846
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Science attempts to read the books in the library, whereas religion merely observes that there are books.

    Here's an example. The world that you see with your eyes, is not the same world you study in school. In school they teach you about points and lines, and you learn about Euclidean geometry, which has lengths and angles and such - and in Euclidean geometry any two lines intersect at exactly one point, except for parallel lines that never intersect anywhere.

    But you never SEE any such world, ever. If you look at the parallel lines of a railroad track, it is abundantly clear that they meet in the distant horizon. The renaissance artists knew all about this, they called it "perspective". DaVinci was even able to calculate a lot of it based on stereoscopic vision.

    But the mathematicians, they figured out that there's another geometry that describes perspective - it's called projective geometry. You can easily create a projective plane from a Euclidean plane - what you do is you take a maximal family of parallel lines and create a "point at infinity" where they meet. You do this repeatedly for every family of parallel lines (which means every angle around the origin, so you end up with a bunch of points at infinity that form a circle), and so then you connect all the points at infinity with an additional line. You now have a "projective plane" which is also called an extended Euclidean plane.

    The Euclidean plane was known to the ancient Greeks, but the projective plane was only developed in the 1800's by Felix Klein, who was studying mathematical tools developed by Bernhard Riemann. The interesting thing is that topology has very little to do with stereo vision - EXCEPT for the rather astounding realization that any time you get two observers in a room, the combined perspective changes the entire geometry of reality!

    Same thing happens in religion sometimes - you get one Christian in a room they tell you about God, but if you get a bunch of Christians in a room they start speaking in tongues.

    Is Science and the Bible Compatible?

    “The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it!’”​—HENRY SCHAEFER, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY.

    SCIENCE does much to help us understand the natural world, revealing a level of order, precision, and sophistication that points, in the eyes of many, to a God of infinite intelligence and power. In their view, science reveals not just details of the natural world but also facets of the mind of God.

    That point of view finds abundant support in the Bible. Says Romans 1:20: “[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” Likewise, Psalm 19:1, 2 states: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling. One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth, and one night after another night shows forth knowledge.” Despite all its wonders, however, the natural world reveals only some aspects of our Creator.

    Where Science Is Limited

    Many truths about God are beyond the scope of science. To illustrate, a scientist may be able to describe every molecule in a chocolate cake, but will his analysis reveal why the cake was made or for whom? For answers to questions like that​—which most people would regard as the more important ones—​he needs to consult the person who baked the cake.

    Similarly, science “gives a lot of factual information,” wrote Austrian physicist and Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger, “but it is ghastly silent about all . . . that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us.” This includes, he says, “God and eternity.” For example, only God can answer such questions as the following: Why is there a universe? Why does our planet have an abundance of life, including intelligent life? If God truly is almighty, why does he permit evil and suffering? And is there hope beyond the grave?

    Has God answered those questions? Yes, in the pages of the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16) ‘But how,’ you may ask, ‘can I be sure that the Bible really is from God?’ From a scientific point of view, what the Bible says about the world around us must harmonize with scientific fact, for God does not contradict himself. Does the Bible reflect such harmony? Consider a few examples.

    Scientifically Ahead of Its Time

    When the Bible was being written, many people believed that various gods inhabited the world and that those gods, not natural laws, controlled the sun, the moon, the weather, fertility, and so on. But that was not the case with the ancient Hebrew prophets of God. Of course, they knew that Jehovah God could directly control the natural world and that he did so on specific occasions. (Joshua 10:12-14; 2 Kings 20:9-11) Nevertheless, John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England, observed that those prophets “did not have to have their universe de-deified [of mythical gods]. . . , for the simple reason that they had never believed in the gods in the first place. What had saved them from that superstition was their belief in One True God, Creator of heaven and earth.”

    How did that belief protect them from superstition? For one thing, the true God revealed to them that he governs the universe by precise laws, or statutes. For example, more than 3,500 years ago, Jehovah God asked his servant Job: “Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens?” (Job 38:33) In the seventh century B.C.E., the prophet Jeremiah wrote about “the statutes of heaven and earth.”​—Jeremiah 33:25.

    Hence, all who lived in ancient times and had faith in the writings of the Bible prophets could know that the universe was governed, not by mythical, temperamental deities, but by rational laws. As a result, those God-fearing individuals neither bowed down to created entities, such as the sun, the moon, or the stars, nor did they have a superstitious attitude toward them. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19) Rather, they saw God’s works as objects of study that reveal his wisdom, power, and other qualities.​—Psalm 8:3-9; Proverbs 3:19, 20.

    In harmony with the views of many scientists today, the ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, when science was still in diapers, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space. (Job 26:7) And finally, more than 2,500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle or sphere.​—Isaiah 40:22.

    Yes, the Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible​—they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.​—Psalm 119:105; Isaiah 40:26.





  11. #80
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Created Blog entry50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteranSocial
    Overall activity: 20.0%

    S-N-A-F-U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks
    2,662
    Thanked: 9,769
    Rep Power
    21474846
    Originally Posted by nonsqtr
    "Same thing happens in religion sometimes - you get one Christian in a room they tell you about God, but if you get a bunch of Christians in a room they start speaking in tongues."

    Scripture tells us that Christian's are to be in agreement in God's word. However, there is a serious departure when you have 26,000 christian denominations and sects in the world where there is disagreement. Whereas Jesus' established one faith, one church and one way.

    When one takes on the mantel of a Christian he/she will be given every opportunity by God to prove their dedication, faith and works. There is no guarantee that one won't waiver and lose sight of that dedication through the distraction and influence of Satan, "the god of this world" 2 Cor. 4:4. As they say, to their chagrin, "the road is littered with good intentions."

    It all started with “ONE Lord, one faith.” (Eph. 4:5) When the apostle Paul under inspiration penned those words (about 60-61 C.E.), there was but one Christian faith. Yet, today we see a profusion of denominations, sects, and cults that claim to be Christian, though they teach conflicting doctrines and hold to different standards of conduct. What a far cry from the one united Christian congregation that started on Pentecost 33 C.E.! How did these divisions come about? For the answer, we must go back to the first century of our Common Era.
    Last edited by S-N-A-F-U; 11-22-2020 at 06:36 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. usfan

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •