(Nancy)RE: Immaterial Existence

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

WALT, JR.

>Nancy,

>

>Well, I'm glad you asked.  Here are a few for you:

>

>Heinz Pagels (The Cosmic Code);  "What they find is that the architecture

>of the universe is indeed built according invisible universal rules, what I 

>call the cosmic code--the building code of the Demiurge." p. 156

>

>"The nothingness 'before' the creation of teh universe is the most complete

>void tha we can imagine-no space, time or matter existed.  It is a world

>without place, without duration or eternity, without number...Yet this

>unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence--a necessary

>consequence of physical laws.  Where are these laws written into the void?

>It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that existed prior

>to time and space." (Perfect Symmetry) p. 347


NANCY
It would be interesting to read what Pagels wrote after this.



>WALT, JR.

>Paul Davies (The Mind of God); "First and foremost, the laws are universal...

>Second, the laws are absolute.  They do not depend on anything else.  In

>particular they do not depend on who is observing nature, or on the actual

>state of the world...So we arrive at the third and most important property of

>the laws of nature: they are eternal.  The timeless, eternal character of the

>laws is reflected in the mathematical structures employed to model the

>physical world...(pp. 82-83)...I believe that these proposals about laws of

>initial conditions strongly support the Platonic idea that the laws of nature

>are 'out there,' transcending the physical universe.  It is sometimes argued

>that the laws of physics came into being with the universe.  If that was so, 

>then those laws cannot explain the origin of the universe, because the laws

>would not exist until the universe existed." (pp. 91-92)


NANCY
Singularity theorems show that the laws of physics break down at a
singularity.  If the laws of physics came about when the universe came into
existence, then, as Davies points out, our current laws cannot explain the
origin of the universe. However, I don't see how the laws that explain how
our universe operates could exist without our universe existing, i.e. I
don't see how they could transcend the physical universe.

Hawking postulates that the singularity theorems that prove that the laws of
physics break down at singularities actually show that the gravitational
field becomes so strong that a quantum theory of gravity is needed to
discuss the very early stages of the universe. He uses the mathematical
concept of imaginary time--using imaginary numbers to measure time--and
explains that a quantum theory of gravity would have no singularities at
which the laws of science would break down. The universe would neither be
created nor destroyed, it would just be, although singularities would still
appear to occur in real time.  (Stephen Hawking, _The Illustrated A Brief
History of Time_ pp. 171-175.)
 

>WALT, JR.

>Roger Penrose (The Emperor's New Mind); "How 'real' are the objects of

>the mathematician's world?...Can they be other than mere arbitrary 

>constructions of the human mind?...There often does appear to be some

>profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond

>teh mental deliberations of any particular mathematician.  It is as though

>human thought is, instead, being guided towards some eternal, external

>truth--a truth which has a reality of its own..." (p94-95)


NANCY
I don't have this book and I don't know the context of this quote.


>WALT, JR.

>Others:

>

>William Drees (Beyond the Big Bang:  Quantum Cosmologies and God)


NANCY
As I understand it, William Drees is a theologian as well as a physicist,
and even he recognizes that the "God" hypothesis is not necessary to explain
the existence of the universe. I have not read Drees book, only a review of
it, so I don't know if that is a fair representation of Drees' arguments.

WALT, JR.

>John Polkinghorne (Science and Creation:  The Search for Understanding)

>John Barrow (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)

>Frank Tipler ("  "  "  "  "  "  "  ")

>

>

>Shall I go on Nancy?  So, why don't you answer my question now that I 

>gave you a few sources?  Where did these laws originate?


NANCY
The laws of physics are nothing more that an attempt to describe the
observations we make of the universe. We observe a certain order in the
universe, and we describe it. This order apparently arose spontaneously as
the universe "exploded" in the big bang. At least, this model is consistent
with everything that is currently known. In time, as new information comes
to light, this model may need to be modified, or scrapped altogether. 

WALT, JR.
What is the

>basis of the eternal existence of these laws?


NANCY
Hell if I know. I don't think it has even been established that these laws
have an eternal existence. If Hawking is correct, they have always been and
will always be. If they only came into existence with our universe, then
they are not eternal. 

WALT, JR.
 I would like to hear your

>explanation from an atheistic perspective.  I can't wait to hear this one.


NANCY
Well, I imagine you are disappointed with my explanation. If you want an
explanation from an atheistic perspective, perhaps you should read Pagels'
book, or Hawking's. 

However, I must point out that the "God" hypothesis explains nothing. A
universe that has always existed is a more economical hypothesis than a
universe created by a god that has always existed.

Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net

>

>His,

>Walt Jr.

>

>

>





 

• Previous message: waste of time (eve's anatomy)
• Next message: (Nancy)RE: Immaterial Existence
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]