h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm very interested in your story. I was raised not so religiously, but I have to say that religion is encouraged at the schools I've been to and am at.

Something that always puzzled me. When creationsists say "Ah, but what caused the Big Bang?" they usually leave a puzzled load of scientists. But when a clever one of these says "What caused God?" He's either told not to be blasphemous or they say "He doesn't have a cause. He's always been there". Why?

Creationist theorys are quite funny, because most of the bibble just talks about the creation of earth and the hevens (not implying the whole universe) aside from this I would like to say that promising steps have been taken in the Gravitational field theroy as a regular reader of Scitific America they had an artical a few months back about the Higs partical and how it may be linked to grayity.

Higs can't find em' and stay on the floor with out em'

-- DoctoRMO --

Always a good question that. Of course, we do not know that the Universe itself has not always been here - current thinking is beginning to accept that the old steady state theory may not have been as off beam as people once thought. Have their been multiple big bangs? Is it one unending cycle of Universal birth, death and re-birth as Hindu cosmology would have it?

If there was a definite starting point, there was a first cause as Aquinas argued. Does that mean God? I tend to think so, but I am also recognising (as someone who does believe in God) that what we know pr think we know about the universe is in a constant state of flux. Few people with brains would treat Genesis as a textbook of how the cosmos came into being, but as a myth it suggests something profound - that we have a reason to be in this Universe. The details of what that reason is I think is the mystery we have to work out in our lives. Why the Universe is here is, I suspect, far bigger than we can understand. What caused God? - I don't know - maybe it's the wrong question - is cause and effect and linear time just our limited perceptions straitjacket on these questions?

I ramble, it's late, but this interests me profoundly.

It may be interesting to note that the theory proposed in the book mentioned on the article (sorry for the awkward construction there) bears a striking sililarity to Buddhist and Hindu philosophy. Brhama, a kind of cosmic soul, provides life force to all thing and is ultimatly the creator of life.

Another connection lies in quantum mechanics in what is called the Seamless Whole theory. This proposes that the universe and all that is in it is defined as a single complex wave function that is constantly inventing itself.

What both these theories argue is, in effect, that God and the universe are, in fact, the same thing.

In reguards to creationist theory, is seems to be to be more dogmatic than anything else. The belief that the world was created by the biblical God in one weeks time is based not upon observation and logic but on blind faith in a book that was ment as an aligorical text. Even if the bible was the direct word of God, would it be likly that so divine and intelligent a creature would explain exactly how the world was created. Ancient man had no knowledge of physics, so an explanation in these tearms would have been meaningless. Thus the Aligorical account of creation.

There are complexities in arguing an external creator, at least from Occam's point of view. However, the deist and classical theist ideas about God are being re-evaluated by many theologians. The biblical texts seem to argue something closer to panentheism, (rather than theism or pantheism) - i.e. God is both the Universe and more than the Universe.

As for Creationism, actually the Biblical account was never held to be literal until Victorian times at the earliest. Modernism rather forced the church into literalism. Modern cosmology and quantum physics are providing some interesting insights - especially struck by the idea of the Universe as a single wave function - whatever your beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God, it does make one view one's place in the universe in new light - we are all a connected part of something bigger than ourselves.

Are we connect to somthing bigger than ourselves? Well I'd say yes, and I'd also say that I could prove it. every time you take a breath everytiume you eat, you are encorperating some aspect of the universe that wasn't apart of you before. tecnicaly you could almost swear that you existed in the universe.

-- DoctorMO --

This is true, but do most people realise this? Day to day I don't think we all do.

For instance, the matter that makes up your body completely changes over the course of about seven years - in effect the me that is sitting here writing this now is a completely different set of matter to the me that went to University several years ago, or even to the me that met my wife eight years ago. Yet there is a continuity as well. Wonderful stuff are we.

I much appreciate comments made so far on this subject and would wish to try to comment usefully in due course. However, tomorrow I go away for two weeks, so I hope I may be excused from this reaction for the time being. I still hope to see more from scientists on the Gravity speculation.

Best regards to all readers,

Austin

Well I'm already away for two weeks and as you can tell I'm 0.03% diffent person than I was when I posted last.

I think the reason you remeber things before the 7 year let up is because is slow and your brain is constantly making backups into new areas of brain, maybe why you forget things. .

-- DoctorMO --

If there is a continuing cycle of death-birth-death-birth of the universe, what sparked it off? Very good question. There was one theory put forward a couple of months ago on the BBC, on Horizon. M- theory. It states that there are 11 dimensions. The 11th dimension is where gravity comes from - accounting for why it is so weak compared to the other forces in this universe (). It stated that this dimension was full of membranes- hence the 'M'- and that when two- or more- of these membranes collided, a huge amount of energy would be given off. This energy is very similar to the Big Bang- large amounts of energy turning into mass.

makes sense, although it should be treated with scrutiny until it can be proved.

-- DoctorMO --

True. But it does a good job.

Just because the idea of 'Godly creation' did a good job in 100BC dosn't mean that it can stand up to scutiny.

Tell me, do I spell that right?

-- DoctorMO --

Yes, I suppose. And M- theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There's a lot of calculations to 'prove' it but I doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

That's the joy of cosmology - set up the hypotheses and knock 'em down again. Not being a maths genius I still find it hard to see how you can prove somehting that can never be measured - i.e. 11 dimensional space?

And where do superstrings fit into all this? Last I heard there were six contradictory (and all unsatisfactory) superstring theories that someone thinks are just aspects of one theory (rather like the blind men and the elephant - each one thinks it is one thing, but acutlly it is all and none because they cannot see the whole picture). This is what you get for watching the Discovery channel on sleep deprivation! Anyone able to enlighten me?

PS - my memory backups are extrmemly wonky - must be bad tape streamer in my head, or an old DAT tape left by my hi-fi speakers! 0.0001% different person since I last posted a message.

I know something about string theory. One said that there were 10 dimensions, another said that there were 11. String theory and supergravity. Anyway, something happened which meant that string theory didn't work. SO they used 11 dimensions and it worked.

In the beginning all was sameness, not an iota of difference. The only way the Big BAng theory makes any sense is if we understand how the initial difference was created. THis presumes that a Creator exists, however one is imagined. The initial cause was an application of pressure (Big BAng) that set in motion the process of change that is our existence. Applied pressure condensed a portion of the sameness that existed but it left empty a space of equal area to do so. This vacuum space had the power to pull in more substance and begin the materialization . Existence is not just matter, it is the continuous change that resulted, that evolved. The God that we create we reason into being to explain what we ourselves cannaot and then attribute power to it.

Actually there are only two directions in the continuous change that is our existence. THey are in and out. THree dimentions and time are inventions of the reasoning, not in reality. The greater number is from imagination only. Geometric necessity preceded existence, and it determines the directions of change. DEnsity nucleates, emptiness radiates.

The last I heard maths is almost as flexable as words and can be wraped around any prof, although somthing has to be said about super gravity theory.

RPS - I think most people have a bad VHS tape as a backup device. I only know one person who has a CD-RW like memory.

-- DoctorMO --

The dimensions- hmmmmm what you say is true. I know something to say to that but I can't think how to phrase it right now .