|
Greetings:
I stumbled across your blog while doing a Google search on theories of the infinite Universe. I was wondering if you could help me w/a (hopefully simple, commonly discussed) idea:
It seems to me that, in an Infinite Universe, everything that is Possible would have to occur, at least once.
[Each occurrence in the infinite universe is unique. Whether something is possible or not depends on univironmental conditions: the state of the microcosm with respect to its macrocosm. Because both the microcosm and the macrocosm contain an infinite number of submicrocosms and supermicrocosms in continuous motion, each possibility occurs only once. On the other hand, according to our assumption of RELATIVISM (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things.), similar possibilities occur wherever there are similar univironments. Since no two microcosms can be identical, however, there will never be another you at any time and in any place.]
What brought this idea up is a discussion on the likelihood of there being life out there that approximates ours. I realize that the universe is not, in fact, infinite, so for the purposes of this postulate, I'm just interested in what the great minds of the ages have theorized/concluded. I figured you would know.
[Even if you still believed in the Big Bang Theory, the number of stars is so great (over 1024) that the possibility of life on other planets is a near certainty. With the infinite universe, of course, it would be a certainty. Planetary systems have been shown to be relatively common. A planet just needs to be at approximately the right distance from its sun to get the right amount of radiation for biopoesis, the production of life from inorganic chemicals. BTW: It is not a fact that the universe is finite. By its nature, that statement must always be an assumption, not a fact. It is a fact that the light from distant galaxies is red shifted. How one interprets that empirical data is dependent on the assumptions one uses. If one uses finity, it is because of the Doppler Effect and the universe is expanding; if one uses infinity, it is because of absorption and the universe is not expanding. More on this in my next book…]
Thanks in advance!
G:
Thanks for your reply. . .some really fascinating concepts.
However. . .I should've probably been a bit more specific. What I'm wondering is: in an infinite universe, would there necessarily Have to be a planet with bioforms close to (or for that matter, equivalent to) ours?
[I don’t see why not, although they would not be identical to ours. Carbon is one of the more common elements in the universe and because the carbon-based biosystem evolved once, it is likely to evolve elsewhere wherever similar conditions exist.]
I suppose to some extent this is a purely mathematical/statistical problem; in modeling a universe in which infinite boundaries are assumed, would you necessarily have to find every possible combination of matter?
Does this imply a duplication of that pattern must exist (e.g., organisms with DNA like ours)?
[Yes. Here is a simple example: soluble calcium, when in the presence of soluble sulfate forms calcium sulfate. Slow evaporation of the water necessary for solubilization allows beautiful crystals to form. This happens every single time those particular microcosms are brought together, although no two of the crystals are identical.
The “pattern” that you mention is biopoesis, the transformation of inorganic chemicals into organic chemicals capable of replication. The transformation would occur, producing DNA, wherever carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are brought together under proper temperature, pressure, etc. Although biopoesis occurred on Earth millions of years ago, the reactions involved are so common that a similar pattern occurs at present: carcinogenesis. In my opinion, every organism and every biological system containing C, H, O, and N has the potential to develop cancer. That is why cancer is so intractable, non-communicable, and inevitable. The very reactions that brought us into being have the power to take us out of being.]
Further: does the scientific "community" such as it is have a consensus on this question, or is it hotly debated?
[Sorry, I am not the expert on that. I doubt that there is a consensus. Also, I don’t think that it gets much play in the curriculum because of its obvious conflict with scripture.]
Thanks,
Anon
Posts
4 comments:
Radhasoami Faith View of Modus Operandi of Creation of Universe
Yes,Universe existed before Big Bang please.
Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.
Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe.
Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound (this was the first Big Bang). It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.
These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.
I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat Lok and region below to it only.
Anirudh:
I can't make head or tails out of what you are saying. I see no evidence to support any of it. Maybe after you read TSW we can discuss some of your ideas.
Glenn
Glenn
In simple terms Gravitational Force is the Ultimate Creator of the Universe, Its Sustainer and Annihilator. In Scientific terminology source of gravitational force is God the Supreme Being. All other forces of the universe are the modification of this gravitational force when the creation process progresses and when the creation process is reversed all forces are merged in gravitational force.
Anirudh:
Please realize that the universe consists of matter in motion. Forces really do not exist. They are calculations (F=ma). All that exists is matter. All that occurs is motion. The matter-motion term, force, is used to describe the motion of matter. Remember that conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can neither be created or destroyed) is the scientific assumption opposed to the indeterministic assumption of creation. What we think of as creation is simply the convergence of various forms of matter to form new forms of matter. The reverse occurs when some of those portions of matter diverge from one another to continue throughout the universe to form still other things in an endless cycle. All this motion is inertial, just as proclaimed by Newton in the Second Law. In an infinite, eternal universe you do not need an initial push. There is always yet another microcosm providing the push. You really need to read “The Scientific Worldview” if you want to have a decent discussion.
Post a Comment