Multiple dimensions, God and "reality"

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Short and sweet:
I read in a buddhist book that a scientist discovered in a bubble chamber that sub atomic particles (quarks?) appear and disappear and reappear 10x22 power per second! The book is called Vipassana Meditation by William Hart.

If that is true, which it probably is, to my mind this would most definitively point to a Creator and to a creation which has multiple levels of expression, meaning, and interconnectivity.

In essence, this IS proof of a Creator creating.
How else would you account for multiple dimensions and the discovery this scientist made regarding quarks (IF it is quarks that William Hart is talking about.?)

Please provide scientific proof to back up your talk.

Comments, please
hellas1

[Chaigidel]

well the myriad of implications involved in both multiple universe theory and quantum mechanics speak to obviously a much greater reality; I dont know if it implies willful creation but it does imply a process ; and if the universe is a process the only reasonable result would be a God.

[boofhead]

I read in a buddhist book that a scientist discovered in a bubble chamber that sub atomic particles (quarks?) appear and disappear and reappear 10x22 power per second! The book is called Vipassana Meditation by William Hart.

I practised Vipassana meditation for a few years - the retreats are intense beyond belief.

I can't give you any scientific evidence, but I have heard of this discovery, and I would be wary of any idea that things are constantly appearing and disappearing. What of the notion that energy is never destroyed, it just changes form....?

They probably just can't detect where these things are coming from.

But I'm no quantum physicist, and some smarty-pants will no doubt come along shortly and rip my opinion apart.

[hellas1]

@Boofhead,

I practice Naked Awareness or Choiceless Awareness.
It comes from Dzogchen (Naked Awareness) and Krishnamurti (Choiceless Awareness).

I can say to you that IF that discovery that that physicist made is true, IT is direct proof of a Creator creating.

Newton's Law regarding Energy is neither created nor destroyed is NOT based on established fact but on a Classical Physics paradigm, my friend, which was available only to pre-Quantum Physics physicists.

How can you dismiss it? Explain Chance creating multiple dimensions....Probability of that is 0%.
hellas1

[Ummagumma]

How can you dismiss it? Explain Chance creating multiple dimensions....Probability of that is 0%.

It all depends what theory you look at. The easiest to grasp involves 4 dimensions anyway. I don't get what any of this has to do with the probability of a Creator though...

Explain chance creating a creator, before creating/at the same time as it creating us. Unless the creator created itself before creating/at the same time as creating everything else. How can you actually apply values to any of it, beyond arbitrary/assumptive ones? Stuff happened = reality, or God happened = reality (Or stuff happened = God happened = reality).

One day someone might discover something definitive on the issue (which will no doubt be contested, denied and/or ignored by many), but until then it is just like counting invisible or imaginary monkeys.

[ajm317]

Hi all,

Short and sweet:
I read in a buddhist book that a scientist discovered in a bubble chamber that sub atomic particles (quarks?) appear and disappear and reappear 10x22 power per second! The book is called Vipassana Meditation by William Hart.

Without knowing exactly what you're talking about, yes. I suspect that what's being refered to are "virtual particles" (Wiki it if you like), although I am not aware of them being observed in bubble chambers. I suspect the author confused virtual particles with pair production.

In essence, this IS proof of a Creator creating.
How else would you account for multiple dimensions and the discovery this scientist made regarding quarks (IF it is quarks that William Hart is talking about.?)

Um...no. Virtual particles are allowed by the Heisenburg Uncertaintity principle, and they are a critical part of quantum field theory (for example, in quantum electro dynamics forces are carried by virtual photons). Scientists went looking for virtual particles because they had already deduced they were out there.

Virtual particles are certainly not proof of divinely inspired creation. For starters, they are probabilistic, and most people tend not to think of an intelligent creator doing his creation by sitting around and rolling dice.

Quite the contrary I would say that if virtual particles say anything theologically relevant (and I do not necessarily claim that they do) it is that creation does not require a creator.

[dwringer]

Who ever said that if you don't believe in a creator God, then you believe everything is just chance??

Consciousness is a very real thing, thus if one is to believe in the true existence of free will then nothing is "chance" but in fact a product of conscious activity. Is this what you might call "God?" I think that's an extremely limited view, unless you just ascribe "God" to everything. But it's really not necessary to do so.

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments.

Ever think about this:

As scientists examine a living organism each life form living on the organism is smaller and ones living on that are smaller and ones living on that are smaller also!

What I mean by that is this:
If we could expand outward enough, into the mind of the creator "looking outward", we would see a perfect picture called the Universe.

Perspective is a great thing.

This principle is also seen on so called "smooth" surfaces.
IE. Smooth-->Rough-->Rougher-->Roughest-->Rougher-->Rough-->Smooth

Non-Euclidean Space allows for some interesting stuff like toruses, mobius strips, etc. which is now being discussed by cosmological topologists. I believe that, in essence, multidimensionality CANNOT be coincidental and is therefore designed.

The probability of the Universe creating itself is NIL. Convince me.
The probability of Multidimensionality happening per chance is NIL. Show me.

Comments? Please back up your view(s) with scientific discovery(ies).
hellas1

[eventhorizen]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments.

Ever think about this:

As scientists examine a living organism each life form living on the organism is smaller and ones living on that are smaller and ones living on that are smaller also!

What I mean by that is this:
If we could expand outward enough, into the mind of the creator "looking outward", we would see a perfect picture called the Universe.

Perspective is a great thing.

This principle is also seen on so called "smooth" surfaces.
IE. Smooth-->Rough-->Rougher-->Roughest-->Rougher-->Rough-->Smooth

Non-Euclidean Space allows for some interesting stuff like toruses, mobius strips, etc. which is now being discussed by cosmological topologists. I believe that, in essence, multidimensionality CANNOT be coincidental and is therefore designed.

The probability of the Universe creating itself is NIL. Convince me.
The probability of Multidimensionality happening per chance is NIL. Show me.

Comments? Please back up your view(s) with scientific discovery(ies).
hellas1

"True time is four dimensional."

-Martin Heidegger.

I don't think much else requires said in this "topic".

[Amorphos]

add all things in all time then every possible other thing together, then ask; what is beyond that.

jus thought i would throw that in

[eventhorizen]

add all things in all time then every possible other thing together, then ask; what is beyond that.

There is no beyond in any context other than the fundamental existential principle that any state, object, form, entity or even a very absence of these must be what it is. There is no cause of existence, it is implicit in the fact of any state or form, including nothing if nothing be possible.

By correlation there is no alternative to and no beyond the principle of existence for such an alternative or premise to existence would by definition be self refuting. Irrespective of the object or state to which existence applies, existence is the only nature any state can have.

The foundation of everything is the principle of existence, being what it is you are, which although requiring a subject is also the very nature of that subjects being. The uncreated creator, for there is no alternative to existence.

Everything we see, everything that is, must therefore ultimately be in its entirety nothing more than the only possible subject that existence deems necessary. Everything in its holism is nothing more than the only, or all, possible negation of self refutation for there is no mechanism of choosing.

[finsternis]

Hi all,

Short and sweet:
I read in a buddhist book that a scientist discovered in a bubble chamber that sub atomic particles (quarks?) appear and disappear and reappear 10x22 power per second! The book is called Vipassana Meditation by William Hart.

If that is true, which it probably is, to my mind this would most definitively point to a Creator and to a creation which has multiple levels of expression, meaning, and interconnectivity.

In essence, this IS proof of a Creator creating.
How else would you account for multiple dimensions and the discovery this scientist made regarding quarks (IF it is quarks that William Hart is talking about.?)

Please provide scientific proof to back up your talk.

Comments, please
hellas1

I know of this particle that you talk about. The process is called "Quantum Fluctuations" in which as distances get smaller and smaller (near Planck's length, about 1.6 × 10^−35 meters), space gets more energy (seemingly, out of no where). And thus fundamental particles (like the quarks and the electron, and neutrino and all the others) get created along with a anti-particle partner, and then they annihilate each other (since when a particle touches an anti-particle they annihilate each other) into nothingness again. It is an effect created by the Uncertainty principle.

Now, i know it violates the famous "energy cannot be created or destroy" that they taught us so much in high school physics, but that's the thing with quantum physics, it destroys classical thinking. But I don't think this is proof of a god, it is just proof of a really messed up universe that we still don't understand (even though we kind of understand Quantum Fluctuation).

Here is an image that can help you guys understand it:


The sheet represents our 3 spatial dimensions (in a 2 dimensional image, work with me here). As you zoom in on space, nothing happens, it is just flat (meaning, there is no energy, like a planet or a gravitational field) on it. but if you continue zooming all the way until you hit Planck's length, the top of the image happens. The bumps and curves represent bents in spacetime due to large amounts of energy that the universe is "borrowing" for a very short about of time (like a billions or a billions of a second). The energy is so great (the closer you get) that under Planck's length the universe starts to bent upon itself.

[eventhorizen]

The Universe does not "borrow" energy, the energy exists in the surrounding medium and is "borrowed" by the materialisation of a particle pair. Perhaps better summed up as there being a probability that field energy will appear as a particle.

[ajm317]

Deleted.

[Amorphos]

eventhorizon, hi

There is no cause of existence, it is implicit in the fact of any state or form, including nothing if nothing be possible.

i agree. no beginning nor ends = no creation, at least not from nothing, nor from an absolute beginning. i was alluding to the idea that ‘things’ can be boxed up, no matter how many possabilities we have there is a total amount of all possible things. but upon reflection i was of course wrong, i am imgining entities as items rather than as like oil on water

its just something that puzzles me, when considering the omniverse etc.

such an alternative or premise to existence would by definition be self refuting. Irrespective of the object or state to which existence applies, existence is the only nature any state can have.

nicely put! except infinity defies that rule, then an existence is an expression of the infinite, so if we change our terms existence = expression, infinity as unexpressed is equal to non-existence.

Everything in its holism is nothing more than the only, or all, possible negation of self refutation for there is no mechanism of choosing.

i agree in the context that there is no outside body making decisions and no arbitrator. i do think there is an internal mechanism of choosing, e.g. one thing by another, that each and everything chooses its own and its neighbours destiny ~ loosely speaking.

also that if we begin a strain or trend then usually it will begin at ‘1’ then progress by its self denoted pattern, although these are destroyed by improbability and other entropic forces. the important thing for me is that we don’t live in a reality of one or the other, order or chaos, but something between the two. order then exists and has an ongoing effect, as does entropy, i think it is wrong to count out the fact that reality orders itself!

[eventhorizen]

its just something that puzzles me, when considering the omniverse etc.

The word Universe fits best still, it derives from the Latin meaning "everything rolled into one" I believe.

i agree. no beginning nor ends = no creation, at least not from nothing, nor from an absolute beginning.

I tend to disagree somewhat for it is my view that literal nothing is the reason behind entities, that literal nothing cannot exist or it would exist and there would be no entities, and our Universe as a whole is the reply to this absent nothingness. Or perhaps one could say that absolute nothing itself does truly exist, by virtue of absolute nothingness itself being absent. Either way it is my view that that question "why are there things and not nothing?" is answered by the fact that there is a fundamental metaphysical relationship between the two, and that the two concepts themselves are far, far from having been even lightly touched upon by the human mind anything close to their true profundity.

This however does not approach the fundamental priority that existence itself has over all things whether physical entities or any conceivable nothing. Prior to the problem as to things rather than no things comes the very question of existence itself, for either of these "solutions" -a grand Universe or a fundamental void- by virtue of being themselves allude to the fact that even here existence holds a more fundamental position of importance.

Ultimately it is again my view that this "existence", which I define to the best of my abilities but rather poorly as "being what it is you are", is a priori to all irrespective of what. It seems to me at this time to be something like a great realm of fundamental priority that must contain a subject, even if that subject is nothing itself. An irreducible, irrefutable, a-priori premise of requiring some subject, right at the root of all questions that cannot have any other alternative; there cannot be other than this principle of existence that requires a subject.

i was alluding to the idea that ‘things’ can be boxed up, no matter how many possabilities we have there is a total amount of all possible things. but upon reflection i was of course wrong, i am imgining entities as items rather than as like oil on water

Entities themselves are apparently probabilistic. This probabilistic nature might go to the very root of everything itself. You have read my thinking on this.

except infinity defies that rule, then an existence is an expression of the infinite, so if we change our terms existence = expression, infinity as unexpressed is equal to non-existence.

Infinity is a size, a scale and is in my view not relevant here where we question the very premise and foundation of physicality itself. One might say that existence is the first principle beyond the physical, the first metaphysical, and also the final.

also that if we begin a strain or trend then usually it will begin at ‘1’ then progress by its self denoted pattern, although these are destroyed by improbability and other entropic forces.

Only when one views probability in definate terms. You forget here that you exist within a probabilistic paradigm, are yourself a part of a set of probabilistic outcomes, and do not know exactly how it all interacts for fact.

If you take the perspective that beginning a strain or trend that progresses in a denoted pattern is itself a series of definate events that has its own probability, if indeed you scale the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics up to the macro and meta levels, that perhaps our entire Universe as each of us sees it is itself merely a single probable outcome that appears definate from one of its inhabitants, then nothing changes in terms of the definate appearance of perspective, but everything changes in terms of how everything actually relates to everything else.

i think it is wrong to count out the fact that reality orders itself!

As do I, but I don't see it as a willed endeavour, a conscious activity, or a divinely manufactured system from some meta-spiritual blueprint. The ordering of reality is a consequence of necessity, within the boundaries of possibility.

[Ummon]

Phenomena which happen in four dimensions, can interact in mutidimensional spaces.

[motiv-8]

I had a vision that Jesus was an ancient astronaut vampire. Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof would be upon you, champ.

[chriscase]

The burden of proof would be upon you, champ.

Really?
Alright then. So what implications does your stance have for hellas1's conjecture? :hmmm:

[eventhorizen]

The burden of proof would be upon you, champ.

Burden of proof is not an arguement you should bring up in a debate positing the existence of some fundamental intelligent creator.