A friend of mine with whom I regularly discuss some of the deeper philosophical questions of life posed this to me:
"On the Nature of the Universe and the "Creator"
Many religions, including the recent Abrahamic philosophies, conclude that
(a) God created everything and, also, that (b) God is a part of everything.
Just as many creation myths speak of an aqueous origin of life, this widespread idea of the nature of the creator and it's infinite presence may hold some remote truth when placed in the proper context. Just as the answer to everything is 7, with the proper units affixed, the following short essay will attempt to prove how one can believe in a thing that both creates everything and is a part of everything while maintaining a logical and scientific point of view.
My understanding, thus far, is that the universe is in a constant pattern of motion.
The big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but rather a part of the never-ending cyclical process that is the universe.
Assuming the infinity of time stretches forever in both directions, rather than a beginning the big bang would have to have been simply one of many big bangs, both before it and still to come.
This would imply that the universe can expand only so far, at which point everything will be spread as thin as possible.
This will lead to a reversal of the motion, as the universe begins to shrink back into itself, like a rubber band snapping back.
Just as the universe reaches a point at which it can stretch no further,
it will also reach a point when it can condense no further.
When all that is completes this inward motion, everything will be one.
Everything will squeeze together until it becomes one thing, and just as the matter or energy [one finds these two are interchangeable] reaches this point of ultimate contraction, a "Big Bang" occurs, beginning the expansion phase all over again.
Everything spreads and stretches out, only seemingly endlessly, until the universe can expand no further and once again snaps back on itself.
The parallel can thus be drawn between the moment of complete contraction and the creator of all that is. This moment when all things are one, after all, is responsible for the creation of the universe. It marks the moment when all things become one and, in essence, become the creator.
From this one sees how, according to this representation of the universe, the "creator" is indeed a part of everything that is, has ever been, and ever will be. More specifically, everything that is, has ever been, and ever will be is the creator- in which case one comes to the conclusion that there is no true and single creator but rather a collection of equal contributors. So maybe we can call that moment between the contraction and the expansion god and god can be everywhere and be everything and be everyone and we can thank god for being here.
I don’t know, what do you think?" ~A.M.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
how about the 'fact' that the universe is expanding at an exponentially more rapid rate? if the traditional laws of physics and gravity are applicable then it should be slowing down as it prepares to condense.
ReplyDeleteso this theory would insist on infinity... because the next great question any child could ask you is who/what created the creator? how did the universe (the series of big-bangs) begin?
after reading some early American philosophers (pragmatists) it is more clear to me that we think based on science. science is simply a method of inquiry, i.e. scientific method, and it is very good for talking about physical things and how they (probably will) interact, but it is less valuable in dealing with the abstract like spirituality. but we have become so unilaterally versed in science that we look to science for approval as we try to unify that external reality with internal substance
http://www.byteland.org/cosmology/infinity.html
ReplyDeleteSo how would one really know if the universe was expanding or contracting at a specific moment? Will things literally begin to crush down as it contracts and scatter as it expends? (over a ridiculously large amount of time, of course).
ReplyDeleteScattering is usually a chaotic event, but contracting really can't be. So if things need to equal out, is there an organized method of scattering/expansion?
Hm!
admittedly it is much harder to imagine the contraction then it is to imagine the expansion. My attempts usually leave me with the picture of , say, ripples in a pail of water. The out motion is relatively identifiable but when the wake bounces off the walls of the pail the resulting interference stops much of the ripple from returning to the center. In other words, the bouncing together of 'stuff' during a hypothetical contraction might negate the contraction entirely.
ReplyDeletefurthermore, there is the important idea of entropy. I think the concept of the single bing bang theory looks at the universe as an egg. When you drop the egg on the floor, it's contents are released and it's shell is shattered. The egg will never be whole again, it will never return to it's original state of organization. So, then, does the law of entropy tell us that cyclical contraction of the cosmos is impossible?
perhaps.
-A.M.
I believe the scientific opinion on the matter of expansion/contraction is as follows: Space itself will one day expand at a faster rate than the speed of light, and all matter will be torn apart. Black holes will evaporate, and without matter, there will be no time.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of multiverses though?
as in the theory where universes exist as branes?
ReplyDeletefollow this link to a video where they try to explain dimensions up through the tenth dimension - i think it relates
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
thanks, interesting link
ReplyDelete