[talk.religion.misc] Holy Spirit, Trinity, angels and cosmology: ANSWER PART I

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/25/86)

>> ... 
In article <1272@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - 
>in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of 
>angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum.
>
>In article <257@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>> Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look 
>> around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. 

Scanning quickly ahead  I notice that Padraig has probed the
cracks and crevices quite well so this could get a little long
and it probably isn't the kind of thing that would interest the
casual or strictly "classical religious" types with rather fixed
and already personally satisfying or complete answers to theological 
and human concepts.  The response has been split in 2 long articles.
A word to the wise--- 

One of the common difficulties noted relates to a tangle of different 
meanings of concepts when they are visualized in a mathematical space 
or a real physical space.  Real here means one that is NOT idealized.  

Now let's get on with it.  Before the angels and souls got in the
picture, the hypothesis was constructed for other reasons.

To be a viable hypothesis and be able to provide the "energy/information"
source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain 
requirements.  First the source had to logically predate the big
bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than 
that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical 
universe.  The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been 
able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open" 
within physical space that could do the trick.

>
>> ...  The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of 
>> our space and two space is not.  Also only one object can exist in one 
>> space.  That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges";  and 
>> since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided" 
>> into segments like lines in two space can.  Consequently, only a single 
>> entity can occupy one dimensional space.  Incidentally, zero dimension is 
>> a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because 
>> lines can "intersect"). 

>This is garbage for the following reasons:


>   - You are confusing mathematical constructs - lines, surfaces, volumes
>     which are used to MODEL the physical world, with the physical world.

It is true that such constructs do model the "physical three-space world"
and I am using them also to model the three manifolds of one, two and 
three dimensional space, of which the physical world is just one (latter). 

>   - Mathematically, a line perhaps may be treated as being infinitely
>     thin, however in physics no substance is known to be infinitely thin.
>     Physicists are limited in their ability to resolve detail by the
>     famous Uncertainty Principle. The nearest physical construct you
>     could construct would be to refer to a line of particles, however
>     there are no infinitely small particles that I'm aware of.

Yes, that is very true in physical three space.  Because our space
contains a limited amount of information, a location can not be 
infinitely precise.  Our space is in fact "grainy".  This is why
particles have "width" to "smooth" out the otherwise discontinuous
space.  I can hear the "mathematical physicists' screams" already
but we'll just ignore them for the time being.  So our space is 
"quasi continuous" "particle-wise".  

This isn't the case with G.. .  oops  let's back up and get out
of the trap of physical world. 

We are used to being a little arrogant with our point of view,
which currently is the "3 space" and the physical world is the
the only one.  Used to be the world was flat and the earth was
the center.. we've been making progress but we're not There yet.

The problem with the next set of observations is they don't apply
to a one dimensional space, they apply to a one dimensional line
embedded in a three dimensional space.  There's a great difference.  

We know that gradients exist in three space, and a line can be
considered to be a cut through the gradient so that gradients can
exist along lines.   Of course such lines get their properties
from the three space, and not one space. 

If I have a scissors, I can cut a thread pulled taut by a friend. 
Also, two straight lines can be drawn to intersect in a plane.  
That means that points and zones can be identified along lines
because of "externally originating cuts" or "coordinates".  

But in one dimensional space cuts can NOT occur, simply because 
there are no intersecting lines.  

>   - A 1-dimensional system can have gradients along it.

An embedded one can, that BTW does NOT have an infinite density. 

>   - A 1-dimensional system can have edges i.e. {x| 0.0 <= x <= 1.0} has
>     edges at 0.0 and 1.0.
>
>   - A 1-dimensional system can be cut and divided ie the previous set
>     can be partitioned into {x | 0.0 <= x <= 0.5} and {x| 0.5 < x <= 1.0}.

At this point, Part I is finished; this is continued in Part II.

             Then we knew we're here, and
               now we know we're there 'n TWO;
             So what does it take to switch
               our precious physical point of view? 
W. pooh
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/26/86)

In article <260@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
> 
> ... 
> To be a viable hypothesis and be able to provide the "energy/information"
> source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain 
> requirements.  First the source had to logically predate the big
> bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
> interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
> universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
> thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than 
> that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
> should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical 
> universe.  The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been 
> able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open" 
> within physical space that could do the trick.

Here we have it. You can't find what you want to see (i.e. a creator to do
the "trick") hence you conjure up spaces to squeeze him into to satisfy
your bias.

Also, covering assertions with more assertions is irritating to me. 
Where did you get the idea that any of this has to do with quasars? 
Why not seyfert galaxies?
Why should the energy density be greater than that of our physical universe?

All I see  here is strings of buzz-words thrown together in an attempt to
explain away that which you don't understand. You are using phrases
like "low interaction cross-section" to protect your theories from
examination. 

Padraig Houlahan.

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/28/86)

>In article <260@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>> ... 
>> To be a viable hypothesis and be able to provide the "energy/information"
>> source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain 
>> requirements.  First the source had to logically predate the big
>> bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
>> interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
>> universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
>> thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than 
>> that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
>> should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical 
>> universe.  The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been 
>> able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open" 
>> within physical space that could do the trick.
>
In article <1285@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>Here we have it. You can't find what you want to see (i.e. a creator to do
>the "trick") hence you conjure ..him .... satisfy your bias.

No! No! No! Paddy!  The Creator Substance CAN'T be physical matter
without upsetting the nature of matter.  Also, an "alien substance"
co-existing with physical matter would still raise havoc with the 
"universality of the "laws of physics" here in three space.  We don't 
expect Him, and therefore want NOT to see him "face to face" here in 
this space.   Now, if we DID FIND the CREATOR SUBSTANCE here in 3-space,
then I would have problems accepting the data until I really triple
checked it myself.  I couldn't help but think that it was not a logical 
way for THE GOD, and so perhaps it may be an intermediate form such as 
an angel.  I would take a long and hard look before I "worship".  

>..you conjure up spaces to squeeze him into to satisfy your bias.

It's quite reasonable to expect that since three space exists (as
known from conscious physical experience) that the simpler spaces 
of one and two probably exist too.  Also, since likewise we know 
that substance exists in 3-space, unique substances also are likely
to exist in the two lesser spaces.   

So rest a little easier Padraig, I didn't "conjure" them up, in 
spite of any rumors you may have heard about my being Druish. 

The energy/information density is "postulated" as being infinite
for the one space substance.  That's reasonable because two space
is intermediate in density, 1 space is the beginning, and we can
expect that time is omnichronous.  Such densities can be located
in an infinitesimal (no volume) 1-space and "no squeezing" is 
required.    The squeezing I mentioned in a previous posting was 
probably to point out the increase in energy and density with 
loss of volume (area).

>Also, covering assertions with more assertions is irritating to me. 

Gee, just like physics, huh?.  Generalize, and find those assertions
that make sense and you can accept as "a possible scenario".  Then
let's work on the others and perhaps you could suggest modifications
that would make even better sense.  Although I know this is possible,
I also know that I could win the lottery if Padraig buys a ticket for
me.  This is NOT a theory it is DOGMA.  :-)  Just  kidding folks.  The
operative word here is "HYPOTHESIS" and not dogma.  

>Where did you get the idea that any of this has to do with quasars? 

They are big energy "consumers" indicating high density.  If the big
bang was caused by a "decay of a chunk of hypermatter" than it is
possible that a secondary "wave" also released much smaller and
scattered "micro-shocks or sparks" which may have generated the dense
initial energy that these things are made of.  

>Why not seyfert galaxies?

Aren't Seyfert galaxies related to quasars or are "later stages" of quasars???  

>Why should the energy density be greater than that of our physical universe?

It's consistent with what we know from thermo and hydrodynamics.  
High Energy / (unit space)  ==  pressure ==  force / (unit boundary space)
Want to make a big Ka-boom?  Then suddenly release "pent up energy".  

>All I see  here is strings of buzz-words thrown together in an attempt to
>explain away that which you don't understand. You are using phrases
>like "low interaction cross-section" to protect your theories from
>examination. 

I am sorry you think that.  Cross-sections can be measured, and I think 
that there is evidence for the "graininess" of "gravity fields". (MTW)

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+