God as a Continuum.

[asim18]

I wonder a lot, about lots of things. Today I've been thinking about God.

My theory is that if God does exist it is in the form of a completely separate continuum from the spacetime continuum in which we currently reside. This continuum of God may or may not be a spacetime continuum, but could rather be a special "God Continuum".

Could it be that the inhabitant(s) of this separate God Continuum has a sort of special ability by which it can set off big bangs.

Thinking of God as a separate continuum could explain why God cannot influence or change things in our universe. And that the laws set at the big bangs are the only thing which this God can control, like changing the numbers before the equals sign. This theory would also class world religions as simply man-made, and also disregard the existence of heavens and hells et al due to the fact that God cannot physically interact with us and vice versa.

If this is the case, then it is possible that God cannot be worshipped. As in we cannot interact with the God Continuum just as God cannot interact with our observable universe.

 

[Nitefly]

I wouldn't phrase it as such, but your idea has similar traits to some of my own musings.

 

[jsmoke]

You could make up a zillion different theories here. I don't think you would ever get near describing God in human terms. For example we as humans cannot create anything, not even a grain of sand only change energy forms, law of Physics I believe, thermodynamics but yet God created the whole universe. Just imagine that.

 

[semi-pro waster]

If this is the case, then it is possible that God cannot be worshipped. As in we cannot interact with the God Continuum just as God cannot interact with our observable universe.

People can clearly worship (a) god so I think your phrasing may need a bit of work. Whether there is a god and they could acknowledge this worship or even be aware that it exists wouldn't prevent the worship occurring.

If there are separate continuums then how would this god start off the big bang but then have no further ability to interact with the universe - was there a spacelock that they forgot the passcode for? The idea that they've got this one special ability is possible but why wouldn't they keep setting off big bangs? Presumably if they are entirely separate then they've got no idea of what happens in this universe so why not keep going with the party trick and set off a chain of those big bangs like a fireworks display?

 

[PhysicsMan94]

Until there is any sort of feasible evidence for the existence of some "all-knowing, all-powerful" deity existing in any form, I remain an atheist due to the complete lack of evidence. Please note that atheism is not a belief system as many people try to imply - rather, it is that one does not believe in a "god".

Those are my thoughts, and if this thread starts to heat up - which they tend to - then I shall leave it at that. I speak as a physicist by the way, so I do know a fair bit of stuff when it comes to the universe and theories of its evolution*.

* Note that the Big Bang theory is not a theory of origin - one does not currently exist in any acceptable form - it is a theory of universal evolution.

 

[manic111]

Have a look at Spinoza's Ethics. It's not *quite* the same in that it posits God as nature rather than as a continuum, but the way that it's argued towards is very interesting.

 

[Narj]

It's ok, apparently we're just a simulation. Take the blue pill.

 

[JonJ678]

The Christian answer is that there is a communication channel of sorts between the two, named Jesus. I.e. Jesus as the imminent aspect of God.

Neither the Christian approach or your own makes a great deal of sense, so by all means believe whatever you wish.

 

[jak731]

The idea of a god continuum doesn't do away with the infinite regression problem, ie who or what created the god continuum?

 

[kwerk]

If no information can be exchanged or received from something, does it really exist?

If you look through a telescope and see a distant galaxy, then look again and it has disappeared over the cosmic horizon where the speed of inflation has exceed the speed of light (no information can ever reach us)... does it still exist? You know it's "out there" but it's absolutely impossible to prove it.

 

[PhysicsMan94]

If no information can be exchanged or received from something, does it really exist?

If you look through a telescope and see a distant galaxy, then look again and it has disappeared over the cosmic horizon where the speed of inflation has exceed the speed of light (no information can ever reach us)... does it still exist? You know it's "out there" but it's absolutely impossible to prove it.

That's a very human centric and philosophical way of looking at it, and it reminds me of the naive question of "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?". Whenever someone seriously asks that question it irritates me due to the human centric theme of it - implying that nothing can exist nor happen without human observation.

Anyway, if you observe the galaxy through accepted scientific means and publish a paper which is peer reviewed and accepted - then, by all intents and purposes, that galaxy does exist as it has been established through reliable scientific observation and analysis. I'd also like to note that the best current theory for the "topology", if you will, of the universal structure is that it is flat; i.e. that the theoretical critical density of the universe is equal to that actual density, the density parameter Ω = 1. Under this theory, the universe does not accelerate at an increasing rate - rather it accelerates towards a specific rate but never reaches that value; i.e. the acceleration is asymptotic to that point.

 

[asim18]

I wouldn't phrase it as such, but your idea has similar traits to some of my own musings.

Whether we're genii or just mental, I'm glad I'm not alone

believe whatever you wish.

I'm just theorising here, not believing. Seeing is believing in my opinion.

People can clearly worship (a) god so I think your phrasing may need a bit of work. Whether there is a god and they could acknowledge this worship or even be aware that it exists wouldn't prevent the worship occurring.

If there are separate continuums then how would this god start off the big bang but then have no further ability to interact with the universe - was there a spacelock that they forgot the passcode for? The idea that they've got this one special ability is possible but why wouldn't they keep setting off big bangs? Presumably if they are entirely separate then they've got no idea of what happens in this universe so why not keep going with the party trick and set off a chain of those big bangs like a fireworks display?

Yes you are right, I was thinking of worship as a form of one-way or possibly two-way communication, which isn't what "worshipping" is.

They don't have the ability to interact with the results of their big bangs just as we don't have the ability to tamper with the result of an equation.

Think about a mathematical operation. We can control anything at the start, but once the operation has been executed, the number after the equals sign cannot be modified. The only way to change the result is to perform a new calculation while changing the numbers you started with.

Now apply this to our theoretical God. It can create many big bangs with predetermined laws of nature, but cannot change or interact with the results of these big bang. Think about a big bang like pressing the equals button on a calculator. Maybe this ties with the Multiverse hypothesis?

 

[PhysicsMan94]

They don't have the ability to interact with the results of their big bangs just as we don't have the ability to tamper with the result of an equation.

Think about a mathematical operation. We can control anything at the start, but once the operation has been executed, the number after the equals sign cannot be modified. The only way to change the result is to perform a new calculation while changing the numbers you started with.

Now apply this to our theoretical God. It can create many big bangs with predetermined laws of nature, but cannot change or interact with the results of these big bang. Think about a big bang like pressing the equals button on a calculator. Maybe this ties with the Multiverse hypothesis?

I fail to see the link, or the relevance, between the fundamentals of how mathematics works and a "theoretical god"; whatever that may be. Also, you do realise the number/variable before the equals sign is exactly the same as the number afterwards - that is just the definition of the equals, you could quite easily replace either side of the equation by the other; the equals sign is not an operator.

Also, what is the relevance of the multiverse hypothesis here?

All in all - how do you go from essentially saying that there are many ways to calculate an equation which give different results to this means that a "god" creates many big bangs? I see no mechanisms, no real explanation... just crackpottery so far I'm afraid.

 

[asim18]

Also, what is the relevance of the multiverse hypothesis here?

Lots of big bangs = lots of universes = multiple universes = multi-verse.

I see no mechanisms, no real explanation

Really? People have been trying to identify God for millennia, Do you really think I can provide you with "a real explanation" or are you just trying to be a douche and point out the obvious?

 

[kwerk]

That's a very human centric and philosophical way of looking at it, and it reminds me of the naive question of "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?". Whenever someone seriously asks that question it irritates me due to the human centric theme of it - implying that nothing can exist nor happen without human observation.

Anyway, if you observe the galaxy through accepted scientific means and publish a paper which is peer reviewed and accepted - then, by all intents and purposes, that galaxy does exist as it has been established through reliable scientific observation and analysis. I'd also like to note that the best current theory for the "topology", if you will, of the universal structure is that it is flat; i.e. that the theoretical critical density of the universe is equal to that actual density, the density parameter Ω = 1. Under this theory, the universe does not accelerate at an increasing rate - rather it accelerates towards a specific rate but never reaches that value; i.e. the acceleration is asymptotic to that point.

So it only exists because of your FAITH in science. ok.

I would say it doesn't exist, it has stopped existing in our universe or "continuum" and we have stopped existing in theirs.

It does fit with the topology of the universe, it's exactly the same principle as stuff falling in to black holes. In fact the "inflation" is caused by the super massive black holes at the center of galaxies condensing spacetime towards their galaxy at the expense of stretching it out (relatively) in between them. Eventually it stretches out too far for a bit of info to transfer across, similar to crossing the horizon of a black hole.

 

[kwerk]

There's actually an theoretical engine being worked on by NASA that uses this very principle.

http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

 

[PhysicsMan94]

Lots of big bangs = lots of universes = multiple universes = multi-verse.

Okay, well yes, but that is still not really relevant to "how equations work" and "god".

Really? People have been trying to identify God for millennia, Do you really think I can provide you with "a real explanation" or are you just trying to be a douche and point out the obvious?

To be quite honest, no I don't think you can come up with a real explanation I was just asking you some questions which criticise your thoughts - I see that that was apparently a bad thing to do given such an aggressive and insulting response. I do hope that you are not a scientist given your hostile response to questioning of your ideas.

Shame really, I suspected that I might get a response like this.

 

[PhysicsMan94]

So it only exists because of your FAITH in science. ok.

I do actually laugh at that response now, "faith in science" haha - I think you'll find that faith is "belief with lack of evidence", the very nature of science and the scientific method is in perfect contradiction to that. Faith is exactly the wrong word to use when talking about science.

I would say it doesn't exist, it has stopped existing in our universe or "continuum" and we have stopped existing in theirs.

Incorrect. This hypothetical galaxy would "not exist" within our observable universe - but it would still exist within the universe.

It does fit with the topology of the universe, it's exactly the same principle as stuff falling in to black holes. In fact the "inflation" is caused by the super massive black holes at the center of galaxies condensing spacetime towards their galaxy at the expense of stretching it out (relatively) in between them. Eventually it stretches out too far for a bit of info to transfer across, similar to crossing the horizon of a black hole.

I do not even know where to begin with this - so you are claiming that you know the mechanism which causes the expansion of the universe. Well, bloody hell! Quick man, go and publish your paper and have it peer reviewed as that is one of the biggest questions in modern cosmology.

Anyway, I'll say it again - current observations suggest that the universal topology is flat, meaning the expansion rate is not exponentially increasing. Perhaps you are getting confused with the inflationary period which has already occurred in our universe's history according to current established physics.

 

[asim18]

I do hope that you are not a scientist given your hostile response to questioning of your ideas.

Yes, and I hope you're not a scientist given your thought process of coming to the conclusion that "Think about a mathematical operation." means the same thing as "GOD=MATHS".

 

[PhysicsMan94]

There's actually an theoretical engine being worked on by NASA that uses this very principle.

http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

I'd take such articles with a pinch of salt - both general and special relativity theories quite explicitly state that the speed of light c is the universal speed limit, if such a postulate were to be broken then that would be a serious problem as it would mean that a lot of the physics that has been researched over the past century is fundamentally wrong.