david_c Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 If the universe is a torus, Euclidian geometry does not apply.The natural geometry of the torus is Euclidean: indeed it is a quotient of Euclidean space. Admittedly, you don't "see" this if you try to embed the torus into (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space, but why would you want to do that? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 If the universe is a torus, Euclidian geometry does not apply.The natural geometry of the torus is Euclidean: indeed it is a quotient of Euclidean space. Admittedly, you don't "see" this if you try to embed the torus into (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space, but why would you want to do that? :P Right. Arend told me the same. I thought that the fact that straight lines bide themselves in the tail makes a thorus non-euclidian. But now that I think about it I'm not sure if it violates any of Euclides axioms. So maybe, if Jimmy insists the universe be bounded and I insist it being symmetric and eucidian, we could compromize on a thorus. But in the meantime I've realized that what Jimmy does not believe in is the continous space rather than unbounded space. Not sure what this has to do with God, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 mark a point and call it "then"... mark another point and call it "now"... let's assume the 2 points are separated by a unit of measurement called 'seconds'... now then, count... how many increments, if time is infinite, are between the 1st and 2nd second? an infinite number, right? would you *ever* reach second 2 (much less 'now') from second 1, in infinity?This is Zeno's paradox and it is not a problem. It's true that we can't observe an infinity of events between "then" and "now". But that doesn't say that there can't be an infinity of time points. but we can observe the passage of time, correct? that's all i was trying to say.. I'm not saying that infinity can be "found" in nature - if infinite sets exist we can never observe them. This is more related to our limited perception than to nature.perhaps my use of the word "natural" was unfortunate... what i meant by it was "actual"... so in case my position hasn't been clear, it's simply this: to say that time is infinite is to say that an *actual* infinity exists... this cannot be shown (proven) to be true by logic, mathmatics, or even simple observance... i come at this from the philosophical side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigi_BC84 Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 perhaps my use of the word "natural" was unfortunate... what i meant by it was "actual"... so in case my position hasn't been clear, it's simply this: to say that time is infinite is to say that an *actual* infinity exists... this cannot be shown (proven) to be true by logic, mathmatics, or even simple observance... i come at this from the philosophical side OK, I cancel my previous claim that time is infinite (ie. that there is no beginning of time) and that this is logical. I replace it by "I assume that time is infinite and that there is no beginning of time" without claiming that this follows from logic. However, I also do not accept any claims of the opposite (ie. that time cannot be infinite). Now, if you still want to uphold your claim that time cannot be infinite, then please give accurate reasoning (or provide some links to sources that do so). Helene has mentioned Occam's Razor already (which in a nutshell says that of two otherwise equally satisfying theories the simpler one is to be preferred). I'm applying this here. If the Big Bang did actually happen, it was replacing something before the singularity, which is beyond our possibilities for observation. Maybe an earlier universe had collapsed into the singularity just to be reborn into the present one, so time never actually ceased to exist -- I do not know. After all, assuming a creator of the world and a beginning of time is not necessary in my eyes and only makes the theory more complicated without explaining more. --Sigi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 If the Big Bang did actually happen, it was replacing something before the singularity, which is beyond our possibilities for observation. Maybe an earlier universe had collapsed into the singularity just to be reborn into the present one, so time never actually ceased to exist -- I do not know. After all, assuming a creator of the world and a beginning of time is not necessary in my eyes and only makes the theory more complicated without explaining more. --Sigi but sigi, this is merely an assertion on your part stated as a fact... as i've stated, an actual inifinity needs imaginary numbers used in complex math... as for stating sources, we're each free to draw our own conclusions from debates held by others... as for me, when hawking says (in 'a brief history in time') "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" it makes it obvious (to me at least) why it was imperative to prove the existence of an infinite universe... and if the only way to do that was to use imaginary numbers, well that's better than having to use God, right? notice that even hawkings admits that if there was a beginning, God (or at least a creator) exists... to me hawkings is saying that the universe is either infinite or created... since it can't be created (his mindset), ergo ... so while you contend that assuming a creator makes the matter more complicated, i contend the opposite - what could be simpler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigi_BC84 Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 so while you contend that assuming a creator makes the matter more complicated, i contend the opposite - what could be simpler? Having to explain the creator makes it more complicated. If you don't suppose the existence of a creator (while choosing a model for the universe that doesn't need one) you don't have to struggle with proofs for the existence of the creator as well. Also, if you assume that a creator exists, you expose yourself to questions like "where is this entity now?" which lead to very unsatisfactory answers at most. --Sigi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 hawking says (in 'a brief history in time') "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" it makes it obvious (to me at least) why it was imperative to prove the existence of an infinite universe... and if the only way to do that was to use imaginary numbers, well that's better than having to use God, right? notice that even hawkings admits that if there was a beginning, God (or at least a creator) exists... to me hawkings is saying that the universe is either infinite or created... since it can't be created (his mindset), ergo ...Hawking [no 's' please] does not say "if there was a beginning, a creator exists". He is actually arguing for the converse statement, that is, "if there was no beginning, then there was not a creator". Note that even if you accept that this second statement is true (and Hawking is careful to avoid making such a concrete statement in this passage), it does not imply the first. An atheist would say that there are two possibilities - either there was a beginning, or there wasn't - but that neither requires a god in order to work. Hawking also seems to have a rather unusual idea of what God is - "God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws". This premise seems completely incompatible with any religion that I know of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Hawking also seems to have a rather unusual idea of what God is - "God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws". This premise seems completely incompatible with any religion that I know of. Hawking writes in "A brief history of time" that he was invited by Pope John Paul as a member of a scientific advisori board that should help the pope formulate the official catholic view on .... well, "life, the universe and everything" or some such. The pope asked the scientists not to come up with any atheistic vision on the creation of the universe since that was the domain of God. For the rest, the scientist were free to say whatever they wanted. I'm not sure how the story ended but is sounds as if the pope was willing to accept the view on God that Jimmy quoted. Also, it occurs to me that polytheistic religions do not necesarily attribute an active role for the creator after the creation. But I could easily be wrong. Anyway, I don't think Hawking (or any other non-theologist) should be seen as an authority on theology. Surely, when the ancient religions were founded there was an overlap between theology and everything else, including cosmology (many astrononomers functioned as astrologists until a few centuries ago) but academic disciplines drift farther and farther away as int becomes increasingly imposible for an individual academic to span multiple diciplines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 I'm not sure how the story ended but is sounds as if the pope was willing to accept the view on God that Jimmy quoted.Well, if you accept that God does not intervene in the universe, then that pretty much rules out Him having a son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 I'm not sure how the story ended but is sounds as if the pope was willing to accept the view on God that Jimmy quoted.Well, if you accept that God does not intervene in the universe, then that pretty much rules out Him having a son. Modern theologist tend to see the biblical accounts of miracles as allegoric. I'm not sure about the particular case of the holy virgin, but since Johannes Paul accepted Darwinism he probably also had some view on this that is compatible with biology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 i simply quoted a passage attributed to hawking... i don't know his theology, or even if he has one... i do know that a God who doesn't intervene in his creation is counter to my beliefs, even if such a God is acceptable to a pope ... i think if you want views on beliefs, and reasons for those views, a new thread is needed If you don't suppose the existence of a creator (while choosing a model for the universe that doesn't need one) you don't have to struggle with proofs for the existence of the creator as well. Also, if you assume that a creator exists, you expose yourself to questions like "where is this entity now?" which lead to very unsatisfactory answers at most.i don't struglle with proofs... as for exposing myself to questions, that has never bothered me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 I'm not sure about the particular case of the holy virgin, but since Johannes Paul accepted Darwinism he probably also had some view on this that is compatible with biology. "Virgo" means both virgin and "young lady". It is possible the latter was meant and was misinterpreted as the former. Well, if you accept that God does not intervene in the universe, then that pretty much rules out Him having a son. It appears Hawking's view is that there are certain "Laws of Nature" which the creator set in to place and then let it run perhaps like an ant farm, without interfering. Seen from inside this means that there are no exception to the "Laws of Nature", this means no miracles and in particular no divine conception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 i simply quoted a passage attributed to hawking... i don't know his theology, or even if he has one... i do know that a God who doesn't intervene in his creation is counter to my beliefs, even if such a God is acceptable to a pope ... Well said Jimmy. Your beliefs may be completely different to mine, but you have my respect for being consistent about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.