An Alternative to Supernatural Creation

[Cris]

Infinite Natural Universe Again.

This is my third attempt to imaginatively create a scenario that describes an infinite universe (i.e. no start point and hence no creator required), and where I do not break the laws of physics, or require any supernatural influence. And of course make it sound realistic and believable. I’d like to call it a scientific hypothesis, but to be honest it is really pure science fiction, with a vague smattering of general scientific, half understood, popular terminology thrown in for good luck. Anyway here goes, enjoy –

Imagine an infinite void except for the presence of an infinite number of primary particles (PPs). A PP is smaller than any known subatomic particle but comprises a merger of the four primary forces, gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic. Each PP is in motion at or near the speed of light. The trajectory of each PP is a straight line but the vector is random with respect to all other PPs. The distance between PPs is on average the width of our solar system or of that type of magnitude (umm!! Perhaps much larger), i.e. relatively sparse.

Given the infinite nature of the universe there will be times when two PPs collide. Such incidents will be relatively rare given the particle size and proximity of other PPs. The result will be an explosion that we call a Big Bang. The matter and energy produced will expand outward until significant numbers of high gravity phenomena (e.g. black holes) are created. Such phenomena will grow and merge and act like giant vacuum cleaners. At this point the expansion will cease and the bubble (matter, energy, including light) will begin to collapse back into the center until the result is the original two PPs. The PPs will have effectively passed through each other and will now continue with their respective journeys at their original velocities. No matter or energy will have been created or lost, momentum will have been preserved, and the laws of thermodynamics and motion will have been observed, I think.

I’m kinda thinking that the force of the outward expansion will exactly match the force of the contraction (equal and opposite forces), and the collapsing force will return the original momentum to the two original particles. I couldn’t a construct a believable scenario where only a single particle spontaneously exploded, there has to be an interaction or a collision.

The rarity of the event nearly guarantees that two Big Bang bubbles would not overlap or come remotely close to each other. I think that is important, but not sure why.

If my proposal lasts to this point without too much deafening laughter then I would hope that the question is asked as to the origin of the PPs and doesn’t that mean a creator would have created them? But with equal weight I can say that if a creator exists then what created the creator. In both cases there is a need for existence without a cause. And in my story there is no requirement for a supernatural option.

If you argue that my story is pure creative fiction, then again, with equal weight, I can claim the same for gods and spirits, there is no evidence for them either.

So if you scientific types out there can see if you can locate my PPs for me then great we will have solved the mystery of the universe or perhaps re-educate me concerning the laws of physics, it has been over 33 years since I studied that subject and with age my memory is failing fast. However, I do seem to recall that when I was studying bubble-chamber photographs of particle collisions from the CERN cyclotron I was told that to make any further progress on unified field theory would require a cyclotron the size of a galaxy.

Please respond with possible refinements, or complete re-writes, providing my general idea is preserved. Serious rebukes should be avoided (unless you only have one style, then I forgive you) but humor will be welcome.

Have fun whatever
Cris

PS. Wasn’t sure if I should put this under astronomy or religion, but my real point is try to show that there could be an alternative to a supernatural creator – so it must be religion.

[ilgwamh]

"Imagine an infinite void except for the presence of an infinite number of primary particles"

Do you mean that literally? Infinity is pretty big. I was taught that it was impossible for their to be an infinite number of something because you could just add one more to the eons and eons of numbers that you already had and so on ad infinitum.

Also, where did the void and particles come from?

"Given the infinite nature of the universe there will be times when two PPs collide."

If the void is infinitely big then the particles should be infinitely far apart but then again since there are an infinite number of them they should be infinitely close together. It doesn't matter if the void is infinitely big or not. Infinity is infinity. No matter what number of particles you have they should be infinitely far apart given an infinite void. I was just rasing a few questions and points about infinity.

If the void was infinte and around for an infinite amount of time I am inclined to ask why didn't the collisions that caused the big bang happen an infinite amount of time sooner than they did and, because i find this very important, again I ask where did these particles come from?

"If my proposal lasts to this point without too much deafening laughter then I would hope that the question is asked as to the origin of the PPs and doesn’t that mean a creator would have created them? But with equal weight I can say that if a creator exists then what created the creator. In both cases there is a need for existence without a cause. And in my story there is no requirement for a supernatural option."

So we dismiss the need for a cause with a little verbal rhetoric? The need for an uncaused first cause that violates no formal laws or logic is required in both scenarios. God happens to a synonym for an uncaused first cause.

You can't say the PPs do not need a cause because some christian couldn't answer the old question of "who created God." The PPs need a cause because thats what the logical relationship between cause and effect events dictates. Besisdes, the "who created God" question is answerable. You just need to talk to the right people or find good sources.

"If you argue that my story is pure creative fiction, then again, with equal weight, I can claim the same for gods and spirits, there is no evidence for them either."

Your counterclaim would definately not be of equal weight. You said it yourself that this story was only fiction. This is quoted from you "imaginatively create."

That story was pure fiction, you are its author and admitted to that. Given the facts that we have and the limits of of what we can know I think its pretty clear that your story was fiction. You have to substantiate your counter-assertion. Something that neither you, nor anyone ele on the earth, let alone on this bb, can do

Peace,
Vinnie

[Tiassa]

Actually, Cris, if I'm laughing, it might have something to do with that serious haze in the room. (cough-cough)

But, as regards your post, my grin really is that big. I haven't the scientific knowledge to shoot down your scenario, but I think I've got enough to appreciate its scope and function and part of its possibility. It's plausible, if I choose to pick out specific words.

What you've given me, though, is an inkling of an idea I'm ordinarily far too lazy to actively chase. You've given me a possible answer to the notion of "What comes before the Big Bang/What comes before God?" Mind you, I'd love to chase that one, but if we respect our own notions of our personal purposes in the world, such an adventure would draw me too far from the Intended Purpose (though never let me claim I know entirely what mine is ... just the general idea we're all entitled to, and perhaps a little more from what might have actually been a well-fought Battle of Youth ... did I mention the haze in here?)

Geez ... digressions. Here's where you blew me out of the water, though (I'm sure the operating concept will adapt and recover):

* If we go as far as the Big Bang, and respect various monotheistic notions that God is creative force, &c., &c., then we look at the moment of the Bang and ask, What brought about the Big Bang? If you can answer that specific question, you have the single most direct view of God ever attained. (See? The concept is already adapting; before I would have said you were looking at the Platonic [?!] Unmoved Mover--the original Impulse of the Universe.)

I had looked at a single Big Bang from the perspective of the change. A uniform mass and density suddenly erupts; what destabilized it? That impulse, that process, is in its mathematical expression the defining factor for the entire physical universe. That impulse will be reflected in every thing within the universe. A mistake in the equation will repeat itself infinitely unless observed and corrected. A genetic mutation can stabilize in the (future) heritage, becoming a standard trait. Ad infinitum, so to speak.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if we someday discover the Hebrew "hidden name of God", and discover it to be a mathematical equation. On that note, it is a dormant notion of mine (not abandoned, merely less relevant to my current phase) that such an equation is in our reach. Consider the Hubble Space Telescope. Presently, the HST can see what its patrons describe as 95% of the way to the end of the (expected) known universe. If we could see far enough into the process that we can see the billions-of-years-old light signal from a moment when the leading edge of universal creation passed through this or that part of space (whence-ever that nexus of space and time may be), we might be seeing the Creationary Fire, and derive from it certain hitherto unknown (or lost, forgotten, mythic, &c.) mathematical equation describing processes of universal creation. That is, we might, in effect, be seeing Creation taking place.

The idea of an equation for Creationary Force is even more amusing when you put it next to the myth (I haven't the foggiest when from) that knowing the hidden name of God will cause uncreation. I mean, imagine that we know "the name of God", and attempt to actualize what the equation describes, and destroy the planet and a notable portion of the solar system. That actually might be worth trading the human race, to know that we can seriously affect something so powerful as the universe. Such a power, in fact, might warrant our extinction.

Did I mention the haze?

I'll stop now, because I've promised people dinner and, well ... did I mention the haze?

Dream well ... there's a stunning amount of reality buried inside, isn't there?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 04, 2000).]

[Tiassa]

That story was pure fiction, you are its author and admitted to that. Given the facts that we have and the limits of of what we can know I think its pretty clear that your story was fiction. You have to substantiate your counter-assertion. Something that neither you, nor anyone ele on the earth, let alone on this bb, can do

Aww ... Vinnie ....

* Aren't you reaching just a bit?

* How many nations of people should he kill to do that?

thanx much
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[Rambler]

Tiassa,

Not sure if I understood the last post so let me know if I'm just stating the obvious....

The "spark" that started the universe is somewhat a trinity (ooh dangerous ground for an unbeliever):

Gravity,
Nuclear Force,
Electromagnetic Force...

Which one do you wanna call Jesus

[Cris]

Vinnie,

Thanks very much for responding; I hoped you might. I also read your long Creation/Genesis post at the end of the Creation vs Evolution topic a little while back. I hope you will find some time for chapter 2 eventually.

Now it is true that I am being slightly flippant with this topic but there are some serious points that can be extracted.

INFINITY.

For many people this is a difficult concept to imagine and I think you are having understandable problems.

Infinity is not simply a very large value it is a qualitatively different construct compared to conventional values in mathematics. An example: Imagine the typical number line often taught in mathematics. The center is zero and negative numbers are on the left and positive numbers are on the right. In conventional mathematics we can always find the end of the line and increase it a little. Hence the phrase: Whatever number you can think of I can always add 1 to it and have a larger number. The property of infinity, however, says that the number line (in this case) does not have an end so it is impossible to add something to it. To say that ‘infinity is big’ has no meaning, since ‘big’ for this special case cannot be defined.

I don’t understand your problems with an infinite number of particles and their proximity. Imagine a cubic meter of empty space with a dime in the center. I can repeat that construct an infinite number of times retaining the proximity between dimes at exactly 1 meter.

I think you have missed my point about big bangs. There isn’t just one big bang. There are an infinite number of big bangs occurring simultaneously throughout the universe (although at different stages). The distance between each big bang is defined by the size of the colliding particles (very small), their proximity to each other (relatively very large), and the probability of two particles being on opposite collision vectors, thus producing a large value. My concept of a single big bang bubble is what you refer to as the current known universe. The universe in my concept has no boundaries; this is the nature of infinity.

EXISTENCE AND FIRST CAUSE.

When something exists we can comprehend it because it has material properties. The definition of existence does not appear to be applicable to supernatural entities since they have no material properties. Any terms we wish to apply to a god regarding his existence or non-existence or his being created, have no meaning since anything that is supernatural is outside our comprehension. It follows then that no human can know if a god exists because supernatural existence is beyond our natural abilities to comprehend. And since there is no practical evidence or proof of a supernatural existence or natural existence of gods we can safely equate such conclusions to the equivalence of non-existence according to our ability to comprehend.

However, we do exist in a material universe that we can comprehend. We can just about comprehend infinity, which has no beginning and no end. It should not be difficult to comprehend an infinite natural universe that contains basic primary material out of which we evolved. With anything that is infinite there is no first cause or beginning or end. The universe simply exists; there is no need of further explanation, since that is the nature of infinity.

FICTION

I stated that my story was fictional in that none of it is based on any hard evidence or proofs. And until you can provide hard evidence or proofs for the existence of your God then you are in exactly the same position as my story and me. The stories of God’s existence remain complete fiction unless you can prove otherwise. They are the creation of imaginative people, just like me huh???

Have fun whatever, and stay loose.

Cris

[Tiassa]

Rambler--

Not so much a trinity. There is no need for a triumvirate.

But if we loosen up our definition of God until we have erased the anthropomorphic, favoritist traits that humans have invented, we're left with sort of a blank idea that Aquinas hit well enough: God simply defies expression. But assuming that our Universe has a beginning, such as we understand beginnings--and, after all, is it not In the beginning ...?--it would seem that what begins the beginning is an act of will, of some sort.

That is, if we assign anthropomorphic notions to the Universe, why did it decide to Bang?

What change in conditions required the Big Bang?

(There's interesting considerations of "Time" there that might someday play into Devil-traditions, but that's well beside the point; I just wanted to mention it while I'm thinking of it 'cuz it'll be years before that set of ideas line up that way again.)

Since God has no substance, and simply "is", inasmuch as the Abramic monotheists have been able to suggest, then God is only manifest in its Will.

That moment of change, that destabilizing of conditions, that moment of differentiation ... that moment of Will, perhaps, would allow us a glimpse of God.

Hence my quiet fascination with that leading edge of universal expansion ... is Creation taking place on that border? If we can catch up to the Universe with our telescopes, then perhaps we might actually see God, inasmuch as God is only manifest in his Will.

That's about what I can figure for the moment.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[Cris]

tiassa,

I think you need some sleep.

I'll re-read your texts tomorrow when I am more awake and hope a wakeful state will help me.

Have fun if you can and thanks.
Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited October 04, 2000).]

[Tiassa]

Oh, Rambler ...

Forgot somethin'

Jesus, then, is simply an effect of God's Will. Whether he is the messiah or a political rabble-rouser, he is merely an effect of God's Will. As are we all. Hey, we might see God if we look in a mirror. Who the hell said that before me?



Or am I wasting space? (at Exosci ... on the one hand, I know I'm wasting space in the Universe; on the other hand, real estate is infinite, so I'm not sure if there's a problem. Aren't I just full of myself tonight?)

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[Cable Man]

That stuff isn't haze...it's snow! Look at that stuff guys its SNOWING IN HERE!!!

[Cris]

tiassa,

OK I read your text again and now my whole office has become hazy. I ' m hav i n g proble ms fin ding the ke y boa rd.

B y e

[Cris]

tiassa,

The fog has cleared a little and I can now see my monitor and keyboard reasonably clearly.

I think I saw a few of your insights, and you must tell me which drugs produce the best effects, but otherwise quite enchanting.

The only material idea you gave me was, and please tell me if I have misinterpreted your prose, is that a supernatural being screwed up his math and caused an explosion on his physics homework, which turned out to be one hell of a bang. He is unconscious right now but if someone can shout his name loud enough he might wake up and clear away the mess.


Have fun
Cris

[Tiassa]

The only material idea you gave me was, and please tell me if I have misinterpreted your prose, is that a supernatural being screwed up his math and caused an explosion on his physics homework, which turned out to be one hell of a bang. He is unconscious right now but if someone can shout his name loud enough he might wake up and clear away the mess.

That's certainly among the possibilities.

I don't know what the something is that caused the explosion, but your way of putting it suddenly brings an image to mind.

Does anyone recall a Far Side panel in which a fat boy with buck teeth and Coke-bottle glasses stands next to a wrecked Bunsen burner in a storm of feathers, bearing the caption, "God, as a child, fails to successfully create the chicken", or something just about to that effect?

As to the unconsciousness ... sure. That, in fact, reminds me of a terribly dumb joke that I'm sure I've told before.

A man goes to God and says, "Father, I bet a million years is like a second to you."

--Yes, my Son.

"And I bet a million dollars is like a penny to you."

--Yes, my Son.

"Hey, Dad ... can I have a penny?"

--Sure, Son. Have you got a second?


Ever since I heard that joke, I have always wondered if God didn't just take a five-minute coffee break. All that creationary work must have been rough, and we don't know whether or not God's a Union man.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[ilgwamh]

"I can repeat that construct an infinite number of times retaining the proximity between dimes at exactly 1 meter."

Yes but if there is a meter between each dime then technically there is room for more dimes. It is possible to add in another dime in between those meter spaces. Therefore, it is impossible for you to have an infinite number of dimes. Infinity is a tricky subject. From what I have learned it is impossible for there to be an actual infine, let alone traverse one.

The problems with infinity is that you can always add one

I'll try to respond to your reply on Sunday,

Peace,
Vinnie

[Cris]

Hi Vinnie,

It wasn’t the dime that was the subject but the construct of the dime plus the cubic meter of space surrounding it. I was not trying to maximize the number of dimes. I cannot see any reason why conventional distances would not be preserved in an infinite space.

Infinity simply has no end so it is impossible to add something to the ‘end’, which doesn’t exist. Again you cannot apply conventional mathematical terms when operating with an infinite set; adding 1 has no meaning. Also you are confusing the mathematical term ‘maximum’ with infinity. Infinity does not imply that density has to be maximized. Maximum has no meaning in an infinite set.

Traversing infinity, as you rightly say, is impossible. But I’m not sure why you said it. It is impossible because there are no boundaries. Perhaps we agree on something – a first maybe? I assume by 'traversing' that you mean travel from one end to the other.

Have fun if you can.
Cris