I found this article fascinating as it helped me to understand the basics around Multiverse theory. I was initially curious about arguments against the "Prime Mover" idea. Now that we have a pretty good theory about the energy that existed/exists prior to the big bang, the question is no longer who/what set the big bang in motion but could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?
Before the Big Bang
Moderator: Moderators
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #11
Actually this isn't quite true. There have been many proposals that there needs to be more than one kind of time. Paul Davis wrote a book about this published in 1995. And he wasn't the first person to propose this. Sean Carrol has also addressed this in many of his lectures, and so have many other physicists.SeaPriestess wrote: I probably should have been a little more specific and laid some background...
A popular argument against a "Prime Mover" is that If God created the big bang then who created God? Also, the issue of time. The skeptics say that thinking of God outside of time is just fantasy. However, according to this article and the Multiverse theory, the energy that has always existed lies outside of time. Time only began with the big bang. The energy leading up to it has no time. I just find that quite interesting. It seems perfectly plausible that the prime mover could indeed be the energy that lies outside of time or any force that lies or co-exists with the energy that obviously cannot be detected using our technology. But the point is, it used to be silly to think anything existed outside of time and space, until now.
There are basically two types of time:
1. Entropic Time (time where the law of entropy hold true).
and
2. Non-Entropic Time (time where the law of entropy does not hold true).
The time we experience within our universe is Entropic Time. That is to say that ever dynamic change that takes place within our universe is subject to the law of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).
However, it is believed by some that there also exists exists a Non-Entropic time in certain realms (including the Quantum Realm) where entropy does not apply. In other words, dynamic change in those realms do not obey the law of entropy.
The major difference between these two realms of time is that Entropic Time has an "Arrow". It can be said to flow from past, to present, to future via specific rules of cause and effect.
Time that is Non-Entropic has no "Arrow". There is no recognizable "past, present, and future" in this realm. The reason being that there is no way to distinguish between past and future. Things are still changing dynamically, but it's impossible to say that any specific actions "caused" another action. Or to actually be more precise. there can be no "Record" of what had caused something to happen. This doesn't necessarily mean that an action was uncaused. It simply means that there can be no record remaining of what might have caused something to happen. It may also be impossible to predict with certainly what will happen next (i.e. Heisenberg Uncertain Principle)
So without a dependable historical record of past events, and without any certainty of precisely what will happen next, non-entropic time is quite different from entropic time. We can't really speak of a "past" if there is no valid record of a past to point to. And in a similar way any potential future states are also impossible to predict with certainty.
So if there existed a "time" prior to the Big Bang, that "time" would have been non-entropic and therefore can only be said to exist in an ever-changing present that has no meaningful past that can even be pointed to.
So there may very well be a type of "time" that exists outside of our universe. It just wouldn't be Entropic Time that our universe exhibits.
So in this sense Entropic Time did indeed come into being with the formation of our universe. But this doesn't mean that there wasn't dynamic changes going on prior to the creation of Entropic Time.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Re: Before the Big Bang
Post #12But I'm saying we're not. I've never seen the word used outside the context of a mind...ever.Divine Insight wrote:But that was my whole point.For_The_Kingdom wrote: And that is why I say you are reaching, because intelligence without a mind is not intelligence.
Obviously if you are going to demand this semantics for the term "intelligence" then you've already sealed the conclusions that you must draw.
This is why I said that we need to be careful that we don't create a logical fallacy based solely on semantics.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Before the Big Bang
Post #13If you insist on that semantics then of course you're right. I believe I already agreed to that.For_The_Kingdom wrote: And that is why I say you are reaching, because intelligence without a mind is not intelligence.
But that then misses the entire point of my post. You've ignored the actual concepts in favor of arguing semantics. It's a useless objection on your behalf.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14126
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Before the Big Bang
Post #14[Replying to post 1 by SeaPriestess]
I speak to this in another post > HERE. You can follow the discussion in that thread and draw your own conclusions.
[Replying to post 8 by SeaPriestess]
There is no logical reason why not.I found this article fascinating as it helped me to understand the basics around Multiverse theory. I was initially curious about arguments against the "Prime Mover" idea. Now that we have a pretty good theory about the energy that existed/exists prior to the big bang, the question is no longer who/what set the big bang in motion but could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?
I speak to this in another post > HERE. You can follow the discussion in that thread and draw your own conclusions.
[Replying to post 8 by SeaPriestess]
The idea of timelessness is nothing new, esoterically. It is generically referred to as the abode of GOD.I probably should have been a little more specific and laid some background...
A popular argument against a "Prime Mover" is that If God created the big bang then who created God? Also, the issue of time. The skeptics say that thinking of God outside of time is just fantasy. However, according to this article and the Multiverse theory, the energy that has always existed lies outside of time. Time only began with the big bang. The energy leading up to it has no time. I just find that quite interesting. It seems perfectly plausible that the prime mover could indeed be the energy that lies outside of time or any force that lies or co-exists with the energy that obviously cannot be detected using our technology. But the point is, it used to be silly to think anything existed outside of time and space, until now.
- SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #15
[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]
I have no objection to you are saying here.
My point is simply that God exists outside of entrophic time and I never knew that anything outside of entrophic time was scientifically acknowledged before I read this Astrophysicist's article. I guess I need to get out more.
It also seems to me, based on his article, that the energy he speaks of he clearly makes the distinction that it's always been there in one form or another. Always , no beginning, always. I just find it interesting how the idea is similiar to the common assumption of a god, for those who believe in a creative force of some form.
I have no objection to you are saying here.
My point is simply that God exists outside of entrophic time and I never knew that anything outside of entrophic time was scientifically acknowledged before I read this Astrophysicist's article. I guess I need to get out more.
It also seems to me, based on his article, that the energy he speaks of he clearly makes the distinction that it's always been there in one form or another. Always , no beginning, always. I just find it interesting how the idea is similiar to the common assumption of a god, for those who believe in a creative force of some form.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #16
One thing you need to understand is that those so-called "theories" have not been scientifically confirmed. These are predictions based upon mathematical models along with various other assumptions.SeaPriestess wrote: [Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]
I have no objection to you are saying here.
My point is simply that God exists outside of entrophic time and I never knew that anything outside of entrophic time was scientifically acknowledged before I read this Astrophysicist's article. I guess I need to get out more.
It also seems to me, based on his article, that the energy he speaks of he clearly makes the distinction that it's always been there in one form or another. Always , no beginning, always. I just find it interesting how the idea is similiar to the common assumption of a god, for those who believe in a creative force of some form.
One assumption being that quantum fields preexisted the universe. We really have no way of knowing that this is the case.
None the less, even if it's true that quantum fields have "always" existed in a state of non-entropic time the very nature of non-entropic time would make it impossible for a "mind" to exist. To use the term that For_The_Kingdom prefers.
In other words, there could not be any "intelligent" thought existing in a state of non-entropic time. In order to have coherent thought entropic time is required. This is because coherent thought requires an ability to remember from moment to moment what's going on. It would also require having some understanding or the past, cause-and-effect, and how that plays a role in determining how the future unfolds. None of that would be possible in a state of non-entropic time.
So even if there does exist an "eternal" (always present) underlying quantum field that gave rise to our universe and its entropic time nature, that underlying quantum field could not have had any "intention" or knowledge of what it was doing.
It would truly be a 'mindless' energy that simply has some organized structure.
There are some String Theorists who are working on the question of why and how these quantum fields (as we humans call them) have organized structure. And the answer appears to potentially stem from pure geometric shapes, or more precisely geometric vibrations.
What they are calling "strings" may not even be physical loops of matter. In fact, they most certainly wouldn't be made of matter as we know it. They are more likely to be some type of "energy" vibrations that are confined to only vibrating in certain limited patterns. And ironically it is this limit on the patterns that can appear that give rise to what we called "organized patterns".
One scientist who is currently working on this cutting edge mathematics is Garrett Lisi. He has given many lectures that you can find on YouTube if you just type in his name.
Here is a very brief TED talk he gave on this geometric idea.
[youtube][/youtube]
Notice that in this geometric picture of reality everything appears to be "well-organized" which causes us humans to jump to the conclusion that this must be a sign of "intelligence". Otherwise how could such beautiful organization come into being by pure happenstance?
Well, the answer is that it's not exactly happenstance at all. It's caused by the restrictions of geometric shapes (or vibrating fields). So there's no need for any intelligent mind to have designed this situation. It just is what it is due to the geometric limitations of how things can vibrate.
So calling this thing "God" makes a totally unwarranted assumption that there is some sort of purposeful thinking mind behind it that had intentionally created things to be the way they are.
The problem with that idea is that it totally ignores the question of how this imagined "God" became so well-organized in the first place to be able to think and decide to intentionally do things.
In other words, the hypothesis that there must be a thoughtful designer in order to create an organized existence fails to consider its own premise. And that is that anytime we see any organized existence that organized existence must have been thoughtfully created by yet another well-organized being.
So proposing that there is a "God" who designed everything fails, because based on the very premise of our reasoning there would need to be an organized thoughtful entity that created the "God" in the first place.
In other words, proposing the idea that a mind is required to create something as well-organized as a mind becomes an infinite regression. There would always need to have been a well-organized mind to create the first well-organized mind. So this idea doesn't offer an explanation for anything.
In other words, the idea of a God that created an organized world is no explanation at all because the question would always then remain, "How did the organized God come into being?"
So Garrett Lisi suggests that a far better idea is that some extremely simple energy field that is actually quite restricted in how it can vibrate can indeed explain how complex organized systems can arise without the need for any intentional designing mind at all.
How these original vibrating fields of energy came to exist is still a great mystery. However, proposing that they were designed by a far more complex mind seems to take that original mystery and inflate it beyond need to be sure.
So unfortunately for us romantics, the idea that all that ultimate exists is some form of mindless vibrating fields appears to be the most rational answer.
The thought that it was all created by a higher super-intelligence may be romantically attractive, but does it really make any sense?
How could the explanation that well-organized systems can only come into being from a well-organized system make any sense? The how do we explain how the first well-organized system came into being?
So this become circular thinking that is non-sequitur.
An unexplained simple geometrically restricted energy field seems to be a far better explanation, even if we can't know how it came to exist in the first place. At least it wouldn't require a more complex entity to create it which would actually make our hypothesis null and void. We can hardly demand that a well-organized system requires a designer while simultaneous claiming that some well-organized God did not require a designer.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Post #17
[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]
Nicely said DI. The infinite regression paradox definitely poses a problem for the "organized minds are responsible for order" crew. To add onto your thoughts, we see plenty of instances in nature of order seemingly appearing out of natural chaotic circumstances. Crystalline structures, the nature of water forming into ice, and even larger macro structures like the Giant's Causeway illustrate simple geometric forms that have to exist by the nature of their constituent components. Why couldn't it be true that the simplest fields that make up the universe must similarly organize?
Nicely said DI. The infinite regression paradox definitely poses a problem for the "organized minds are responsible for order" crew. To add onto your thoughts, we see plenty of instances in nature of order seemingly appearing out of natural chaotic circumstances. Crystalline structures, the nature of water forming into ice, and even larger macro structures like the Giant's Causeway illustrate simple geometric forms that have to exist by the nature of their constituent components. Why couldn't it be true that the simplest fields that make up the universe must similarly organize?
- SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #18
[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]
It doesn't make sense to argue that an intelligent God would have needed an intelligent mind to create it therefore God must have been created by someone/thing else. What if God is just like the formless energy that was always there, but somehow was able to organize into complex systems. We can, theoretically speaking, apply the same idea to God as we do to the energy before the big bang. Am I missing something here?
It doesn't make sense to argue that an intelligent God would have needed an intelligent mind to create it therefore God must have been created by someone/thing else. What if God is just like the formless energy that was always there, but somehow was able to organize into complex systems. We can, theoretically speaking, apply the same idea to God as we do to the energy before the big bang. Am I missing something here?
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #19
As Carl Sagan would say, "Why not save yourself a step? Simply allow this energy to have formed us directly. Where's the advantage in postulating an intermediate step of having a God formed first?"SeaPriestess wrote: [Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]
It doesn't make sense to argue that an intelligent God would have needed an intelligent mind to create it therefore God must have been created by someone/thing else. What if God is just like the formless energy that was always there, but somehow was able to organize into complex systems. We can, theoretically speaking, apply the same idea to God as we do to the energy before the big bang. Am I missing something here?
By the way, the above is not a direct quote of Sagan. But he has made very similar statements quite often in his many videos.
[youtube][/youtube]
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #20
[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]
I will watch the Sagan vid after I finish my post here. Just some background on myself first. I am very limited in my ability to understand much of all these scientific theories. I can gain basic understandings and with those sometimes they correlate with my spiritual understandings or I see similarities that I may not understand how to explain or describe. So, I love learning about science but just for the great joy it brings me, not so I can argue "proof" one way or the other. I just like to throw out ideas. I don't fully understand a lot of the Atheists arguments when it gets very technical. What I have learned about basic arguments has come directly from my experience in discussing them with people, like yourself. So, I don't have an arsenal of "proof" to back up everything I believe. I know this is a debate site and that's what most of everyone here does. They build their arsenals so they can debate. I try to rely on logic mostly so when you start talking logic, I'm more confident in grasping things from that angle. But you have to lay it out in simpler terms in order for me to follow you, if you do indeed want to convince me of something.
Although I am a Christian, I do not discount the possibility of other origins of creation. I'm perfectly fine with the idea the Hindus have concerning creation and consciousness etc...All this being said, I did put in my google search "Arguments for God" so I could see what was out there from the super brainiacs that defy my thinking abilities. I came across a great article that lays out the strongest philosophical and scientific arguments for God, out there. Ironically, you gave me a Sagan vid to watch and the argument I want to present to you uses Sagan's methods as a primary example. I will post the link to all the arguments and the one that speaks of Sagan is the argument called "Argument From Specified Complexity". I personally am not hell bent on proving an intelligent creator/designer. There are other ways I can argue for the possibility for eternal life aside from any specific God. Again, I'm thinking more of the Hindu's here, but thats another thread. But for this thread's argument sake, on this link, you have to scroll down. The author of the article gives a synopsis of each argument then provides the official documented argument by that particular person making the argument. I did not delve into each argument because as the author says, they are highly technical. A synopsis is efficient for me. So, anyway, here it is:
https://arcdigital.media/arguing-for-god-d6caebb40cdc
I will watch the Sagan vid after I finish my post here. Just some background on myself first. I am very limited in my ability to understand much of all these scientific theories. I can gain basic understandings and with those sometimes they correlate with my spiritual understandings or I see similarities that I may not understand how to explain or describe. So, I love learning about science but just for the great joy it brings me, not so I can argue "proof" one way or the other. I just like to throw out ideas. I don't fully understand a lot of the Atheists arguments when it gets very technical. What I have learned about basic arguments has come directly from my experience in discussing them with people, like yourself. So, I don't have an arsenal of "proof" to back up everything I believe. I know this is a debate site and that's what most of everyone here does. They build their arsenals so they can debate. I try to rely on logic mostly so when you start talking logic, I'm more confident in grasping things from that angle. But you have to lay it out in simpler terms in order for me to follow you, if you do indeed want to convince me of something.
Although I am a Christian, I do not discount the possibility of other origins of creation. I'm perfectly fine with the idea the Hindus have concerning creation and consciousness etc...All this being said, I did put in my google search "Arguments for God" so I could see what was out there from the super brainiacs that defy my thinking abilities. I came across a great article that lays out the strongest philosophical and scientific arguments for God, out there. Ironically, you gave me a Sagan vid to watch and the argument I want to present to you uses Sagan's methods as a primary example. I will post the link to all the arguments and the one that speaks of Sagan is the argument called "Argument From Specified Complexity". I personally am not hell bent on proving an intelligent creator/designer. There are other ways I can argue for the possibility for eternal life aside from any specific God. Again, I'm thinking more of the Hindu's here, but thats another thread. But for this thread's argument sake, on this link, you have to scroll down. The author of the article gives a synopsis of each argument then provides the official documented argument by that particular person making the argument. I did not delve into each argument because as the author says, they are highly technical. A synopsis is efficient for me. So, anyway, here it is:
https://arcdigital.media/arguing-for-god-d6caebb40cdc