1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Is the universe infinite or finite?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by firedragon, May 12, 2021.

?
  1. Infinite

  2. Finite

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    I know there are some pretty cluey people here who are up to speed on the latest understanding of most science subjects.. From my own reading, it seems electrons are considered to be a dimensionless point, a spherical particle, or a cloud type particle. I was trained in electronics/radio back in the days of thermionic valves, aka vacuum tubes.

    And I have literally seen electrons.

    I would not be surprised if you did not believe me but it's true. One of the experiments we all underwent in training to highlight the theory of the electron was to take a vacuum tube diode with its thoriated tungsten plated diode electrode and remove the high positive voltage off the anode. When power was applied, the heated filament would cause electrons to be emitted from the cathode in countless numbers and a cloud would build up as they had no where to go. Normally they would travel to the anode but in this case the voltage had been removed. You could see the electron cloud get darker as the maximum emission rate was reached. You had to have light on the other side of the tube to see it, but the theory of the electron as taught matched what we saw. The electron cloud had movement as the convection caused electrons to cycles from the hotter areas to the colder and back again.

    So if electrons were particles, the cloud we saw would be that, a cloud of particles. But the if electrons were a cloud of some underlying smaller 'particles", it could still be what we saw. If electrons were dimensionless points, I imagine we would not see them so I don't get that theoretical explanation of an electron. That is why I am interested in the expert's understanding, they are more up to date on this stuff and so I ask.
     
  2. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,357
    Ratings:
    +3,043
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, you are right.
    Now here is my point of view as from non-natural science, but still science.
    Explain something requires several conditions, where one of them is what is taken for granted. That was tried to by eliminated with logical positivism, but failed. So an electron is that what you say or a theory laden world view.

    Just as the word science itself is based on assumptions. And in the end we play what objective reality really is.
    As for what science is, here are 5 versions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

    It is just like what religion is and thus what God is, can change and what an electron is can change.

    But you answered what you want to know: For the standard version of methodological naturalism and axiomatic science, what is an electron?
    Ask somebody else how have a higher level than me and then check their answer.
     
  3. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    Thank you for your constructive comment mikkel_the_dane,
     
  4. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,095
    Ratings:
    +2,318
    Why? Let's suppose, for the moment, that we will not compare Galilean or Newtonian spacetime to the spacetimes of special and general relativity. Those proponents of the block universe view have generally built their cases upon special, not general relativity. The reason for this is quite straightforward. In special relativity, we first see a real need to construct spacetimes (although Einstein initially hated the fact that his teacher Minkowski did so). 4D Galilean and Newtonian spacetimes exist and have been investigated, but it was with the impossibility of any global simultaneity and the ways in which time-like coordinates "mix" with those of space in special relativity that prompted the philosphical, metaphysical, cosmological, etc., interest in the implications of a 4D Minkowski space (or some equivalent).
    But General Relativity poses severe problems for any kind of block universe picture. More so, actually, than in the Newtonian picture or in the geometric spacetimes of either Galilean or Newtonian physics (in both, the manifold structure is built about a topological product space combining R3 and R1 where the space-like structure has to be "built" around the global nature of the 1D real-valued time dimension).
    In general relativity, spacetime has no kind of global structure an it is entirely unclear if it is in principle possible for a spacetime consistent with general relativity to possess the kinds of features of a "block universe", in part simply because spacetime in GR is dynamic. Moreover, spacetime in GR cannot be linearized nor can it be equipped at any point with some kind of relative coordinate system as in special relativity. The geometrical structures of spacetime are defined only locally.
    More problematic are the solutions to Einstein's field equation(s) which allow for closed timelike curves. These dynamics allow for trajectories in spacetime involve acausalities and something like time-travel in ways that are inconsistent not just with a block universe but with any kind of physical principles we have used successfully (or any coherent, logical structure of any dynamical theory or causality itself).
    So general relativity is about as opposed to the block universe as one can get. Newtonian and Galilean spacetimes are equipped with an absolute time dimension that is the same for all observers. General relativity prohibits any coordinate system for any observer from being global in any way whatsoever.

    Dimensions for good models need not be physical still less metaphysical. Time in general relativity is actually rather terrible from a theoretical perspective as, again, general relativity allows for causal/temporal paradoxes.

    Perhaps you are confusing the spacetime of special relativity with that of GR?
     
  5. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +3,893
    Religion:
    none
    Dynamic with respect to what concept of time? The manifold doesn't change. A static solution is just one in which the components of the metric do not depend on the chosen time coordinate.
    Maybe the 'block universe' gave you the wrong idea. I don't think GR is like SR, but I was discussing with somebody who thinks you can define an absolute time and everything in the universe is the same age. I'm well aware that you can't define space and time coordinates globally. The point was that we are dealing with a 4-dimensional manifold, not a global time that actually flows.
     
    #485 ratiocinator, Oct 26, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
  6. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    19,363
    Ratings:
    +2,427
    Is the universe infinite or finite?

    Since G-d is infinite as per the method of "claims" and " reasons" so the universe must be, if I am not wrong, certainly finite as it is deaf and dumb and has never given any claims and reasons in this connection please , I understand. Am I right, please? Agreed?

    Regards
     
  7. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    If God and the universe are both infinite, then the manifested universe is the manifestation of God. So there is no separation of God and universe, the two are actually an indivisible one.
     
  8. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,896
    Ratings:
    +5,158
    Religion:
    Islam
    You mean pantheism?
     
  9. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    If you want to call it that, or panetheism, Brahman, etc., it's all ok with me. I don't call it anything.
     
  10. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,896
    Ratings:
    +5,158
    Religion:
    Islam
    No problem.

    I have a question on that. Do you think of God as a creator in this model of yours?
     
  11. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    Only in the eternal sense, all manifested universal objects are continually dying and being born, but there was never the creation of time in the sense of a beginning, existence is without beginning or end.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,896
    Ratings:
    +5,158
    Religion:
    Islam
    Still, do you believe God is the creator?
     
  13. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    Yes, as I explained, stars, planets, people, flowers, etc., are being created continuously and naturally dying continuously. Only the creator endures eternally, all creations have a beginning and an ending.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,896
    Ratings:
    +5,158
    Religion:
    Islam
    If creation had a beginning, then its not eternal is it? Was not the creator available prior to creation to create?
     
  15. Thirza Fallen

    Thirza Fallen Crazy Cat Lady

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    5,047
    Ratings:
    +2,645
    Religion:
    Buddhist/Stoic/Pantheist
    I think it depends on what the sun does. If the sun dies, then the universe will die.
     
  16. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,896
    Ratings:
    +5,158
    Religion:
    Islam
    Well, I think suns die all the time and its part of existence.
     
  17. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    Correct, but the creation of a flower does not disprove eternity!

    There is no duality except as an erroneous concept in your mind, creation and creator are one and eternal, there was never a beginning.
     
  18. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,896
    Ratings:
    +5,158
    Religion:
    Islam
    I am not talking about the creation of a flower. I am talking about creation itself.

    If God is creation and creation is God, was not God there to create creation before creation existed?
     
  19. ben d

    ben d Dhyani

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,151
    Ratings:
    +1,341
    Religion:
    Panentheism
    No, eternity means there was no beginning of a creator nor creation. Only material created objects have beginnings and endings, but the underlying mass/energy is never lost, it is eternal like the creation process itself.
     
  20. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    19,896
    Ratings:
    +5,158
    Religion:
    Islam
    So mass and energy was not created by the creator?
     
Loading...