Why Would God Use…

Yes, he did.

Agreed, but with the realisation that it’s just possible our logic and rationality may be flawed.

We have to beware of assumptions/presuppositions – but
maybe the assumption here is that: if God knows or sees the future, it is ‘coded’ to happen.

I know what I just said seems to contradict what I said in my original post in this thread, where I more or less said God coded (if you like) the entire development of the universe and evolution of life into the big bang. But maybe the free will of the individual is the one thing not predetermined.

My spouse is always telling me that a huge amount of human behaviour is genetically/chemically driven, however it is possible to modify it by willpower. For example, he says he “sometimes feels his mother’s anger welling up in him but he wills it away”. I sincerely thank God for that!

Your second example seems to be responding to a post by someone else as I didn’t use the words “God created everything to perfection” in talking about the big bang or the reality we experience. Whether God did “originally” create a perfect creation described as The Garden of Eden is entirely another matter… heck, you are going to ask “when?” aren’t you?

But I’m off to finish making my pyjamas.

Flawed and probably limited. When you try to consider something that can affect change without changing, you may get a sense that it defies possibility. It’s never been observed, and yet that is what every conscious being is when it determines to act. It’s really quite ironic when you think about it.

1 Like

Scientifically, only us slow-moving turtles see a beginning and end, here or there as separate. I asked a quantum physicist to glance at my simplified write-up on time that I promised you earlier since it also speaks of quantum gravity that I wanted his feedback on. I may pull the gravity piece out and post the first part to help us visualize Wayne Grudem’s description of what is beyond time, or the source of time.

1 Like

Tag me if and when you do, please. You may have noticed my interest in the subject. ; - )

1 Like

Since the topic of time in being dicussed here I’ll offer it here first as a strawman to pick apart. My wording is purposeful as my intent as usual is so a child can understand.

Alpha & Omega, A condensed and inspiring peek into astrophysics.


TLDR; A nice quick version is traveling at the speed of light, space and time both fully collapse. Only us slow-moving turtles see a beginning and ending, here or there as separate.

If enticed, the following is offered in hope of removing some of the confusion between thousands and billions of years passing. It’s both. And a proposal that may eloquently unite quantum and cosmological gravity that can be falsified.

First I should note brevity and slight liberties are used to help introduce and visualize ideas, then build a clearer larger picture from what we see. This is also a hobby as I refer to Einstein’s equations for his proofs, I like the pictures. grin

Let’s look at what we know.

  1. We have recently measured that the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating.
  2. We design clocks in our satellites to run slower so they will tick at the same rate as ours.

Let’s unpack those before adding anything new.

Einstein shows us that space and time are two sides of the same coin, they are not separate but are parts of the same thing. If we express both space and time together we are speaking of constant motion, speed, as in kilometers in space per hour in time, or miles per hour and feet per second as more examples.

For our satellite clocks; Einstein also shows us how accelerating to high speeds causes space and time to get shorter for the traveler. To others, even our rocket looks shorter and our seconds are shorter than theirs. We slow the clocks down on our satellites so their shorter seconds don’t tick faster than ours.
cite.

Simply, how long a second is depends on how fast we are going. Even traveling slightly faster than one another our clocks will eventually become out of sync.

Did we have difficulty imagining how light passes us at the same speed, no matter how fast we are going? We are shorter.

For a simple visual analogy, let’s say light travels a foot a second so we can watch it move, and it so happens both your feet, fortunately, measure one foot in length. Mine too, we’re twins. So it takes one second for the light at the back of our heel to reach the tip of our toe. And… we agree, it took that long.

So you now jump in your rocket and you pass me so that the light hits our heel at the same time.

When the light reached your tow, you check your watch and report; “Yes, one foot a second”.

But I say; "Wait a minute here, you look a bit squished. Your foot is only half the size of mine. For me, the light has only traveled half a foot in half a second. We measure the same speed because your space and seconds are physically shorter than mine.

I incorrectly stated it this way to easily visualize the basic idea of shrinkage before I add that you moving and my prior example is not complete yet. In reality, I will see my second pass before you.

I am the first one to say “Yes, one foot a second” because you are still speeding along. Even though the tick of your second is shorter and your foot is shorter, your toe is ahead of mine when the light hits my toe. I’m first.

When you claim one second has passed, I will see the light having traveled two feet in two seconds. And you will have lived only one second of life within my two. At the same time. Even though we are twins, you will return younger than I am.

Now that we are a little more comfortable about shrinking space and time together, the opposite occurs when we slow down. Space and time expand again. The universe looks bigger already.

So let go back to our expanding universe and ask; Is the universe really expanding or are we slowing down and it just seems like it? It’s both, or more accurately, the same thing. If we were instead traveling at the same speed as the expansion, our measurements would say the size of our universe is static, with no change. Any faster and the universe would begin to shrink and we gather predictions and theories of an eminent big crunch. [inside joke]

But for us on earth, we see the universe as expanding and our seconds are getting longer. As well as the Planck constant. A second back then was much shorter when we add in the exponential curve of acceleration, and seconds were even shorter before then. There should in fact be a historic point in time having a ratio of a thousand years passing within our day. And if you take the length of every year in between, laid out end to end, short to long…

Dinosaurs were not that long ago.

Yes that many clock ticks have passed as carbon dating suggests but clocks tick faster and faster as we go back in time. Even the years start to pack together, the further back in history we go.

Below is a simplified comparison of six billion recorded years occurring within our perceived four billion fixed-length years.

The first is a simple linear scale of equal length years as we perceive time passing.

0
|-----|-----|-----|-----| ← perceived 4 billion years passing

The next scale is a sample of 5 billion years passing in an expanding universe, time expands.

||-|–|—|----|-----| ← actual time having passed

A proper logarithmic scale would include the acceleration rate of our expansion.

Now we can ask an odd question. Is God waiting for our prophesied end?

A key we learned is we don’t have to go back in time to find shorter time lengths, we have a rocket. As we accelerate faster and faster, space and time are getting smaller and smaller. Thankfully we are also shrinking in proportion so as not to get overly tight in here. We don’t even sense we are shrinking as everything else is shrinking proportionally with us.

For reasons I’ll skip, along with new FTL theories, in claiming as Einstein did that the fastest we can travel ‘through space’ is the speed of light. Once we reach the speed of light; both space and time have fully collapsed. In essence, all there’s are here so it takes no time to go anywhere.

And our clock was running so fast in the last few seconds that we made it to the end of time, in no time. But our rocket did not get us to the proverbial end of time faster than anyone else. For them, years had passed and we arrive at the same time. For them, space is way out there and they see us still zooming away year after year. The difference is how much time we experienced.

Generations will have passed within our final second.

At the speed of light, we are now where all things begin and end. The proverbial Alpha and Omega. At the speed of light, there are no divisions to distinguish. If we try to imagine it, as if using our senses, we can’t. There is nothing separate from us to reference, there is no there, no beginnings. Only us slow-moving turtles see a beginning and end as separate.

And fortunately, there is No Waiting.

The following link is a nice video by famed scientist Brian Greene explaining the Block Universe theory with some nice graphics to go along with my story but leaves out the expanding universe pieces for simplicity (or He hasn’t realized it yet, grin). The video also provides additional references.
video.

Is this not also predestination?

  • That is a very controversial topic so I do ask to discuss under a new post, wink, and I may share a couple thoughts there.
    For one, the book also says the heavens and earth are eventually rolled up and there will be a new heaven and earth. Perhaps one without a need for predestination.

And with that, I’ll just say “God help me”, be merciful, I’m not insistent. grin.

Let me know if you found this helpful, or at least understandable. thanks

2 Likes

I didn’t include this piece as I’m having it reviewed, hoping he finds the time.

Yes, thanks. It intuitively works for me anyway, and God’s omnipresence and his omnitemporalality (a word I made up, according to someone :roll_eyes:) fit hand in glove. I need to watch the whole NOVA maybe, not that they’re exactly scientifically rigorous.

Yep, I even give Brian some room. Where he started talking about the alien seeing our future, it is more accurate to say he is seeing a more recent history of us all along his travel the point of physically reaching us and sharing our now.

As to traveling FTL, I have another one about history is not lost. One light year away from us is the image of what we were doing last year. Sitting still with a good scope, we could watch the movie. If we want a more current view, fast forward, we simply move closer. Or slow motion as we move away. Rewind requires we move away faster than the image traveling the speed of light.

Are scientific theories of traveling back in time only observational?

And that right there is more important than beliefs.

Is one day a week more precious or all of them? If we eat meat or abstain? It is the good intent that makes both acceptable. Without it, neither are acceptable on their own. Is an act of kindness acceptable if not from a kind spirit?

Spirit: [intent, motive, what compelled] Spirit is not mindful, as we see neither love nor anger care about a reason.

A verse says we may think a thing is right, but God weighs the spirit. As we do without realizing it sometimes.

That was a :+1::sunglasses:

This is not a direct response to reality, I’m thinking there is a deeper question but may be off base.

Function is in the subjective, as if I want the curve to be concaved for a slide, or convexed for a roof. The objective cares not.

Are we thankful everyone focuses on different things? If everyone was like me, a lot wouldn’t get done. Not that I wouldn’t try if needed, but not my focus or skill.

It sounded like you were scoffing subjectivity. If the dislike is the subjective view is constrained, who else but mom puts us as most important, or will we allow anyone to operate on us if a surgeon is there? Each have a different view of us, which is wrong?

If the dislike of subjective is limit, consider when we rephrase a question that answered itself. Was it not the change viewpoint that revealed the answer? The answer became obvious before we even formed the words. Highlighting one perspective out of many revealed the answer [to a subjective question]

I find life is in the subjective and truth is persistent in all perspectives wether we can see it through the minutia or have a clear view.

Thought experiment: if you could choose to create a new world free of all bad actors, or one with all kinds of criminals, why not choose the former?
A much cleaner explanation would be that He allows us our total free-will to do as we choose. Some of us sin more than others. So then God did not create a world intentionally to fabricate sin. It just happens.

My first reaction is to say this is a difference between writing a play for entertainment and making a place for your children to grow up. In the former you need conflict to resolve, but in the latter you want to protect your children. This argument would then call into question whether a God doing this for entertainment should be called good.

But then with further thought, I realized I would question the basic assumption that making a place for your children to grow up would put have protection as your only consideration. How can you grow up without challenges. As parents we don’t have to worry about this because there are challenges enough in the world already. But God’s situation is different, isn’t it?

Someone upstairs must be watching. grin.

By chance, I came across this nice progression and differences between scientific thoughts on the nature of quantum mechanics.

In the end, the presenter leaves open the observer affecting reality question but I feel his lead-up supports my view…

Reality is persistent and falsified according to our intent that frames reality with value (qualia). Observation does not create the curve but the curve’s reality falsifies it according to our needs. “Nope, I need it to be convexed”. The reality of its nature is objective but the reality of my purpose with its own true or false requirements is just as subjectively real having falsifications. As in I know it’s a rock but it makes a great slide for the pond. Objectively, the rock cares not.

The results of measurement without a need are objective, lacking purpose.
Without a need, even to prove a theory, what does a measurement falsify?
Quanta v. Qualia, or Quantity v. Value.

In conclusion, Hope I got the idea across, our perspective is what falsifies and adds value to reality, else I may be off with the fairies as an NZ sentiment in disagreeing with your perspective…

Scientific thoughts on QM ~youtube video

There are inaccuracies in this video. Here is the first of what he said which is wrong.

He said, we cannot even assign physicality between measurements.

This is incorrect. The correct statement is that we cannot always assign measurement values to an object before a measurement. What this person fails to understand is that this is about incompatible measurements. Let’s take an example…

If you measure the spin of an election in a particular direction, then you get either an up or down result in that direction. If we now consider measurement of that electron in a perpendicular direction then we know that the result of such a measurement will be up 50% of the time and down 50%. This is not simply a matter of not knowing which it “actually” is, but that the spin of the electron really isn’t either up or down in that direct. But this DOES NOT mean that we cannot assign any physicality to the spin of the electron between measurements. Quite the contrary we know exactly what the spin of that electron is because we just measured it. and if we repeat our measurement in that same direction we will get the same result. We cannot assign an up or down value to the spin in the perpendicular direction because that measurement is not compatible with the previous measurement. And we know that the measured spin in the first direction is a superposition of up and down spins in the perpendicular direction.

I will add more as I watch more of the video…

As for the claim of Bohr… “no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon” This is not a result of physics but is a claim of the philosophy of logical positivism which is has fallen out of favor.

In the next discussion of Schrodinger’s cat this person makes a false equivocation between measurement and observation. It is quite clear from our experiments that observation by conscious observers have no effect whatsoever on these experiments and it only the measuring device that matters. Thus the decision with Schrodinger’s cat occurs when the measuring device decides whether to release the poison or not, and thus there is no superposition of cats or scientists. How this happens is a different discussion which I can explain if you like.

BTW in the wider discussion which he starts the video with about whether reality is objective or subjective, my position is that it is both. We have excellent evidence that there is an objective aspect to reality but no evidence that reality is exclusively objective.

Clearly this is not the case. In fact, one of the things I say quite frequently is that science requires objective observation but life requires subjective participation. The conclusion is obvious: science is utterly inadequate for the living of our lives.

??? All I can come up with for making sense of this is New Zealand ???

P.S. I am not really finding anything in the video or what you said that has relevance to what I said about being the god of your own dream.

What is total free-will? Can you point to it? Is there a TED Talk that shows it? How is it allowed?

Absolutely. How can we grow without pain? It seems that consequent to pain, we struggle and we gain strength, insight, motivation and resolve. So I should have delineated the thought-experiment to become the option of creating a world without sin, but otherwise to continue to have bad behavior. The more I think about it, the grayer that thought becomes. How could we define sin? Where would we draw the line from clear sin to borderline bad-actors? Never mind…

Have you finished watching the video? Are there any spacetime slices where God is not? He is present in all and all are the present to him. He is omnipresent and omnitemporal, nothing hyphenated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is the dreamer.

Nope. And if you expect me to watch the final part answering questions regarding other videos, then forget it.

I have already agreed God is omni-temporal, even though the word is not in the dictionary and I hyphenate it because it complains of a spelling error when I do not. But your question is trying to sneak in an annihilation of the temporal ordering of the universe. Logic requires that God choose between knowing the future (as a singularity of events rather than as a superposition) and participating in the present. And that applies separately to every point in space-time with the Minkowsky conical division at that point between past and future.

Continuing to watch the video I see that he continues with the two previously mentioned errors which make nonsense of his philosophical conclusions. Consciousness has no impact and even the measuring devices do not create reality but only alter it to one of the states compatible with that particular measurement. And measurements are just an interactions involving large numbers of particles (conscious observers are not required) and these kinds of interactions happen all the time without any scientists involved. As for the participatory universe… I certainly believe that living organisms participate in their own creation, but no scientists did not cause the big bang by observing it. :roll_eyes:

Yes. A nice way of saying you’re insane. Joking about my own comments.

I think I did a poor job in agreeing. Our functional intentions may be subjective, but reality insists. Proper repeatable test results beat theory.

I was equating dream to subjectivity. It seems we agree about the functional usefulness of subjectivity. The dream you mentioned looked like another word for subjectivity. e.g. God had a subjective purpose.

I’m not understanding what you mean by God of his dream if not a subjective purpose. Trying to make sense of what you mean.