Not really, because if our universe would be a spatial subset of of higher dimensional space, it's possible that our natural laws are only a subset of the bigger set of natural laws in the higher dimensional space.
Buy on AliExpress.com
The Problems With Ethical Relativism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Thus we define this God as everything that is unnatural. We assign attributes such as 'infinite' because infinity does not actually exist in the natural world. We assign words such as 'timeless' because timelessness does not exist in the universe.
This is how I've been trying to define this supernatural being. We understand the concept of infinity, we know it is not part of nature, thus why can we not use it as a working definition for a supernatural being?
But would that make the higher dimensional space "unnatural"? Or would it just make it "otherwise natural"? Classical laws of physics in our universe, new sets of physical laws in the higher space. But physical laws nonetheless, aren't they?
I don't know, this is rather abstract to me. But somehow I don't think the theologians who decided all these descriptions of god meant a higher dimensional space.
I don't know, this is rather abstract to me. But somehow I don't think the theologians who decided all these descriptions of god meant a higher dimensional space.
I congratulate you. But mathematics is one thing, and the real world is another. You can create things in mathematics that don't exist in the real world. But that doesn't prove they exist outside mathematics.
I certainly don't understand the concept of infinity outside of mathematics. I don't imagine a lot of people do.
EDIT: I'll give you an example. I was driving somewhere with the family once and my brother was observing the window wipers, it was raining. He was thinking about how fast they would have to operate to keep the windshield dry at all times. He suggested infinity. I said if they were moving with infinite speed then the wipers would be at every position over the windshield at all times, and no rain would penetrate. You could also not see out of the windshield because there'd be a solid plastic obscurement over it.
Now I can understand mathematically how a small object can obscure a large object by moving over it with infinite speed. But physically I don't understand it at all.
I certainly don't understand the concept of infinity outside of mathematics. I don't imagine a lot of people do.
EDIT: I'll give you an example. I was driving somewhere with the family once and my brother was observing the window wipers, it was raining. He was thinking about how fast they would have to operate to keep the windshield dry at all times. He suggested infinity. I said if they were moving with infinite speed then the wipers would be at every position over the windshield at all times, and no rain would penetrate. You could also not see out of the windshield because there'd be a solid plastic obscurement over it.
Now I can understand mathematically how a small object can obscure a large object by moving over it with infinite speed. But physically I don't understand it at all.
I'm studying electrical engineering, but I've had a quantum physics course this semester so I've seen some of the modern physics concepts in class, but most of this stuff I've just discovered somewhere else or figured out myself. Not that I know much about it lol. You can't even begin to imagine how crazy modern physics is.
Well, so far we've managed to describe everything we know with physical laws, so I don't see why it would be any different for a higher dimensional space. So in that sense I agree it would be natural. But if you define supernatural as "outside of our universe", then it would be supernatural. Of course, if god would exist in this higher dimensional space he couldn't have created that space itself because he's a part of it, but he could have created our universe.
I personally believe everything can be described using mathematically defined physical laws. I wonder if that means I cannot believe in a god. Anyhow, the only definition of god that's plausible for me, probably coincides with the definition of the most fundamental law of nature anyway. I've been told Lévinas wrote something similar to this, so I guess I'll have to look into that because all these definition issues are confusing me too. Actually, the more I think about it the more confused I get.
I have no idea, but my guess is that they're probably not trying to give a physical interpretation of god.
I don't know whether it's that meaningless. Of course we can't directly see something that's infinite, but a lot of abstract concepts like infinity and complex numbers are used a lot in physics to describe things we observe. e.g. in the core of a black hole, a singularity, gravity and density are supposedly infinite.
Well, so far we've managed to describe everything we know with physical laws, so I don't see why it would be any different for a higher dimensional space. So in that sense I agree it would be natural. But if you define supernatural as "outside of our universe", then it would be supernatural. Of course, if god would exist in this higher dimensional space he couldn't have created that space itself because he's a part of it, but he could have created our universe.
I personally believe everything can be described using mathematically defined physical laws. I wonder if that means I cannot believe in a god. Anyhow, the only definition of god that's plausible for me, probably coincides with the definition of the most fundamental law of nature anyway. I've been told Lévinas wrote something similar to this, so I guess I'll have to look into that because all these definition issues are confusing me too. Actually, the more I think about it the more confused I get.
I have no idea, but my guess is that they're probably not trying to give a physical interpretation of god.
I don't know whether it's that meaningless. Of course we can't directly see something that's infinite, but a lot of abstract concepts like infinity and complex numbers are used a lot in physics to describe things we observe. e.g. in the core of a black hole, a singularity, gravity and density are supposedly infinite.
I don't know and have never claimed to know. Just trying to give a notion of what supernatural can be.
Get off my back you anti-religion police guys.
Get off my back you anti-religion police guys.
You have an idea of a superior, supernatural being and then you try to fit what we know about the world into complying to the being that we have an idea about.
Its all backwards.
Sure they are, but it goes like this.
- Gunter, it's zeems we hapf discovered ze nature ov a black hole.
- Wat iz it?
- According my celculationz ze mass of ze black hole is infinite.
- Say again?
- Infinite. You can observe zis on page 324 of meine small proof.
That's what Einstein was all about it, wasn't it? "If you think you have problems with mathematics, you should see mine." They plug in their physical observations into formulas and crank away. Out comes an answer that in terms of math is completely sane. But when applied back onto the physical world noone knows what it means. I have absolutely no sense of a singular yet infinite mass, it's absurd!
These notions of infinity and singularity are not first observed in the world and then used in mathematics. If you could find an infinite mass in the world (and probably build a museum around it), that would be something else. But we've never seen these things, and we don't really understand them either, even if they exist in math.
- Gunter, it's zeems we hapf discovered ze nature ov a black hole.
- Wat iz it?
- According my celculationz ze mass of ze black hole is infinite.
- Say again?
- Infinite. You can observe zis on page 324 of meine small proof.
That's what Einstein was all about it, wasn't it? "If you think you have problems with mathematics, you should see mine." They plug in their physical observations into formulas and crank away. Out comes an answer that in terms of math is completely sane. But when applied back onto the physical world noone knows what it means. I have absolutely no sense of a singular yet infinite mass, it's absurd!
These notions of infinity and singularity are not first observed in the world and then used in mathematics. If you could find an infinite mass in the world (and probably build a museum around it), that would be something else. But we've never seen these things, and we don't really understand them either, even if they exist in math.