RockyMidnight Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 563 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/06/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 39 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I'm not much of a cosmologist, but I'm sure there are some hypotheses (but not theories) about the origin of the universe that differ from the big bang. I can carry out a much better conversation with biological evolution. The "Spotlight Theory" being quite comparable to Creation IMHO. The Block Universe. just an FYI-. http://news.mit.edu/2015/book-brad-skow-does-time-pass-0128 Cheers!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, RockyMidnight said: The "Spotlight Theory" being quite comparable to Creation IMHO. The Block Universe. just an FYI-. http://news.mit.edu/2015/book-brad-skow-does-time-pass-0128 Cheers!!! The block universe is a direct consequence of the ontology of time we got from relativity. IOW: if relativity is true, then the block Universe is true. What is the block Universe? It is the idea that the fabric of the Universe is a 4-dimensional surface with a certain geometry (technically: a pseudo-Riemannian 2-tensor covariant field) on it. Translation: a set of rules that allow to measure distance between points on this surface. This surface is not a theoretical construct, but a real thing subject to curvature and such. So, if this thing is real, how can it change? It cannot, since it is not itself embedded in a spacetime context. It is spacetime. But if it cannot change, what is the meaning of things like "the universe is expanding", or "the universe had a beginning"? Simple: these statements are meaningless when applied to the 4-dimensional continuum that fills the Universe. Ergo, they are meaningless when applied to the Universe as a whole. They are vestiges of an outdated ontology of time, namely the one that states that there is a flow of time, and that things like past, present and future have any objective reality. Scientist lie when they say that the Universe is subject to any dynamics at all. But it is a white lie: it is, among the set of all false assertions, the one that is closer to the truth and our naive intuitions. sieglinde Edited July 30, 2018 by siegi91 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brujaq Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/15/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, RockyMidnight said: The "Spotlight Theory" being quite comparable to Creation IMHO. The Block Universe. just an FYI-. http://news.mit.edu/2015/book-brad-skow-does-time-pass-0128 Cheers!!! The big difference is it claims space and matter has always existed which is physical, God created space and matter in the beginning to begin time . God stretched/stretches out the heavens like a tent known way before matter collapsing on itself then the space expansion/inflation theory became the new kid on the Atheist block , now this .. Edited July 30, 2018 by brujaq 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brujaq Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/15/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, siegi91 said: The block universe is a direct consequence of the ontology of time we got from relativity. IOW: if relativity is true, then the block Universe is true. What is the block Universe? It is the idea that the fabric of the Universe is a 4-dimensional surface with a certain geometry (technically: a pseudo-Riemannian 2-tensor covariant field) on it. This surface is not a theoretical construct, but a real thing subject to curvature and such. So, if this thing is real, how can it change? It cannot, since it is not itself embedded in a spacetime context. But if it cannot change, what is the meaning of things like "the universe is expanding", or "the universe had a beginning"? Simple: these statements are meaningless when applied to the 4-dimensional continuum that fills the Universe. sieglinde I know of two dimensions the natural and the supernatural .. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, brujaq said: I know of two dimensions the natural and the supernatural .. Good for you siegi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyMidnight Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 563 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/06/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, siegi91 said: The block universe is a direct consequence of the ontology of time we got from relativity. IOW: if relativity is true, then the block Universe is true. What is the block Universe? It is the idea that the fabric of the Universe is a 4-dimensional surface with a certain geometry (technically: a 2-tensor covariant field) on it. This surface is not a theoretical construct, but a real thing subject to curvature and such. So, if this thing is real, how can it change? It cannot, since it is not itself embedded in a spacetime context. But if it cannot change, what is the meaning of things like "the universe is expanding", or "the universe had a beginning"? Simple: these statements are meaningless when applied to the 4-dimensional continuum that fills the Universe. sieglinde Not so with the Spotlight version Seigi91. In this version past, present, and future all exist at once, but only a specific "now", this point of experience in the "Spotlight" seems real. This describes God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence. This allows for perpetual change and free will at at our "level" in perfect compatibility with God's Attributes and Will. I would think an unbeliever who has faith in Science might be able to accept this Theory as well. JMHO. CheersSiegi91!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyMidnight Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 563 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/06/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, brujaq said: The big difference is it claims space and matter has always existed which is physical, God created space and matter in the beginning to begin time . God stretched/stretches out the heavens like a tent known way before matter collapsing on itself then the space expansion/inflation theory became the new kid on the Atheist block , now this .. You expected they would say God created matter and energy? Cheers Brujaq!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brujaq Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/15/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 Just now, RockyMidnight said: Not so with the Spotlight version Seigi91. In this version past, present, and future all exist at once, but only a specific "now", this point of experience in the "Spotlight" seems real. This describes God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence. This allows for perpetual change and free will at at our "level" in perfect compatibility with God's Attributes and Will. I would think an unbeliever who has faith in Science might be able to accept this Theory as well. JMHO. CheersSiegi91!!! I must've been talking about another new one, . Sorry Rock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, RockyMidnight said: Not so with the Spotlight version Seigi91. In this version past, present, and future all exist at once, but only a specific "now", this point of experience in the "Spotlight" seems real. This describes God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence. This allows for perpetual change and free will at at our "level" in perfect compatibility with God's Attributes and Will. I would think an unbeliever who has faith in Science might be able to accept this Theory as well. JMHO. CheersSiegi91!!! Yes, well. the problem I have is that free will is hugely challenged by these ontologies. For instance, the idea that the universe preserves information, does not give any space to the introduction of novelty. According to what we know today, the configuration of bits I am causing on computers by writing this post, was in principle deductible by the microstate of the Universe millions years before my birth. So, what was my freedom? I did not have any. I could not possibly change the state of things that were set in advance. Sobering maybe, but beautifully in agreement with other theories. siegi Edited July 30, 2018 by siegi91 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, siegi91 said: Duplicate Edited July 30, 2018 by siegi91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts