ChatterBank1 min ago
God Had No Beginning
66 Answers
And will have no end.
Impossible for the human brain to comprehend something or somebody having no beginning. Even I can't do it.
Aware this isn't a question but questions dont always fit this forum
Impossible for the human brain to comprehend something or somebody having no beginning. Even I can't do it.
Aware this isn't a question but questions dont always fit this forum
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fiveleaves. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Could God have done maths differently, created the circle so that pi = 3 or 4. //
No. I don't think this is too controversial. But since the relationship between a circle and its diameter exists independent of our ability to imagine it, I don't see why it would be any different for anyone else. You could make an argument perhaps that "God" could have insisted that the Universe had a different geometry, so that "circles" might appear to have a different natural relationship between diameter and circumference. But, even in that case, the Mathematicians of this other Universe would be able to discover, or conceive of, a "flat" geometry like our own, in which the shape would have the same properties.
I would say that the same answer holds for your first part -- that is, inasmuch as it makes sense to talk of a time "before" the Universe, Mathematics would have been the same "then" as it is now. The reason for this is that Mathematics, in its purest form, is abstract: it doesn't care about applicability to reality, and there are no constraints placed upon it by the Universe we exist in.
No. I don't think this is too controversial. But since the relationship between a circle and its diameter exists independent of our ability to imagine it, I don't see why it would be any different for anyone else. You could make an argument perhaps that "God" could have insisted that the Universe had a different geometry, so that "circles" might appear to have a different natural relationship between diameter and circumference. But, even in that case, the Mathematicians of this other Universe would be able to discover, or conceive of, a "flat" geometry like our own, in which the shape would have the same properties.
I would say that the same answer holds for your first part -- that is, inasmuch as it makes sense to talk of a time "before" the Universe, Mathematics would have been the same "then" as it is now. The reason for this is that Mathematics, in its purest form, is abstract: it doesn't care about applicability to reality, and there are no constraints placed upon it by the Universe we exist in.
Maths does help describe the Universe, it's true, but in a way that's purely coincidental. Maths is also capable of defining abstract objects that have no relevance to reality -- or, at the very least, no relevance to our ability to measure it.
For example, the question of whether or not the Universe is literally infinite in size is certainly impossible for us to determine one way or another: we'll only ever see a small piece of it. But mathematics can describe infinities, of many kinds, with no trouble.
Likewise, our ability to describe reality at small scales is almost certainly constrained from below: the "Planck Length" scale may or may not actually matter, but we're almost certainly not going to be able to physically measure units of distance smaller than it. But, again, mathematics is unconstrained by such considerations, and can describe units of distance as small as you like -- and then smaller still.
So, for sure, Mathematics can be used to describe the physical Universe, but it also describes many other things.
For example, the question of whether or not the Universe is literally infinite in size is certainly impossible for us to determine one way or another: we'll only ever see a small piece of it. But mathematics can describe infinities, of many kinds, with no trouble.
Likewise, our ability to describe reality at small scales is almost certainly constrained from below: the "Planck Length" scale may or may not actually matter, but we're almost certainly not going to be able to physically measure units of distance smaller than it. But, again, mathematics is unconstrained by such considerations, and can describe units of distance as small as you like -- and then smaller still.
So, for sure, Mathematics can be used to describe the physical Universe, but it also describes many other things.
// as far as I’m aware energy cannot be created or destroyed. It simply changes form. //
That's the Famous "Law of Conservation of Energy". And, like most things we first come across in school, it turns out to be more complicated, eg see this section https:/
In particular, General Relativity and "conservation of energy" can be difficult to reconcile with each other, or at least not without some serious care. The details are beyond me, so I'll leave it there, but hopefully the resources above are interesting.
That's the Famous "Law of Conservation of Energy". And, like most things we first come across in school, it turns out to be more complicated, eg see this section https:/
In particular, General Relativity and "conservation of energy" can be difficult to reconcile with each other, or at least not without some serious care. The details are beyond me, so I'll leave it there, but hopefully the resources above are interesting.
It might well be. I don't know one way or another. But the weirdness of conservation of energy in General Relativity is going to be relevant when discussing what happens in and around the beginning of the Universe.
But even if your answer to pixie was sufficient, I hope the links above are useful in and of themselves.
But even if your answer to pixie was sufficient, I hope the links above are useful in and of themselves.
I haven't come to apply scientific rigour to the discussion, if that's what you're afraid of. But you made a scientific statement, and I saw an opportunity to add a bit of background, and hopefully stimulate further investigation.
In any case, discussions are allowed to evolve. Even OP's most recent post touched on mathematics, the question of "beginning" in general, etc. Pixie brought up energy. My latest comments touch on all of this.
If you're interested in the discussion, feel free to add your own thoughts; if you aren't, then other people are free to add theirs instead (or not). But I'm curious why you feel a need to try and curate what is and isn't posted in this thread. Or just in general. Discussions evolve where they will, and it stands to reason that it's up to all participants where they go, rather than any one person. The only exception to this is the OP.
In any case, discussions are allowed to evolve. Even OP's most recent post touched on mathematics, the question of "beginning" in general, etc. Pixie brought up energy. My latest comments touch on all of this.
If you're interested in the discussion, feel free to add your own thoughts; if you aren't, then other people are free to add theirs instead (or not). But I'm curious why you feel a need to try and curate what is and isn't posted in this thread. Or just in general. Discussions evolve where they will, and it stands to reason that it's up to all participants where they go, rather than any one person. The only exception to this is the OP.
