Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Philosophically Speaking, Consider a Ipsum Creatio causal loop?
Disclaimer: I am an agnostic atheist. I am posing this question as a scholarly one, as a hypothetical, to see how people react to it. I acknowledge that there could be people for and against. If you are against this idea, please calmly say why and what flaws there are.
I will be using the term God in this example. I am not saying that there is actually a God or not, or which one. The only assumption is that the God in the example is able to create, destroy, and travel through time. Although a Spatial Mode can be applied, I will not do so in this example.
1. Let us assume that there is a single length of time labeled 'B'.
2. God begins to exist seemingly ex nihilo.
3. God's first action is to create a length of time after B, this one being labeled 'C', that's duration is irrelevant in this example.
4. God then creates a length of time prior to B, this one being labeled 'A'. He travels through time so that he is present in A.
5. While in A, since it is before both B and C, theoretically only A exists during that period of time.
6. God creates B, and then he creates himself within B.
7. The God of step 6 then travels in time to C, where he remains then on.
What are your opinions of this example of an Ipsum Creatio causal loop? Also, let us assume that it is not a God that did this, but rather a human time traveler, in such a way that it appears as the following:
1. The Universe exists as we know it.
2. A time traveler named Stewie is born at some point of time in this Universe.
3. Stewie uses his time machine to travel before the creation of spacetime.
4. Because of the time machine, there is a small "speck" of spacetime that manifests in a void that is without space and without time. This small "speck" shall be known as the Singularity.
5. Stewie overloads the time machine, spawning the Universe as we know it from that Singularity.
6. Stewie then re-manifested at a point in this Universe slightly after the events of Step 3.
7. The Universe from step 5 exists as Step 1 and eventually leads to Stewie's birth in Step 2.
This example can be called the Stewie Griffin Principal. It can be used to show that the Universe is just as capable of creating itself as God would be, in theory, except we already know that there is a Universe around us.
@Child Progeny
Yes, that could also be assumed but (A) it's not really relevant and (B) that situation would cause a Paradox, while the one above is a closed causal loop.
@Jim V
I am sure that you are aware that I was providing only one aspect of any god and not the Judeo/Christian understanding. In the example, none of the lengths of time can be considered pre-existing, due to the methodology of how he created them.
As for the time traveler portion, have you considered a time machine that comes into existence that is more powerful than the one that you're imagining? All time machines that we currently have thought of are fictional and are unlikely to reflect upon the ones that we might possibly come up with in reality. Our science has no way of determining what would actually happen if you overload what would be all of the existing space, time, and energy that exists (at, say, t=-1) simultaneously, so for all we know this kind of event could easily cause the Big Bang.
I also have some skepticism for the mass/energy density that you've provided... Misspelling centimeter has kind of harmed your credibility, as well as knowing that it is impossi
@Tomp
That makes me think of an accordion, frankly. The model that you've presented adheres purely to entropy/enthalpy relations and does make sense to me--I feel that is it quite as feasible as what I've presented, without any way of our current sciences to really allow differentiation between mutually exclusive theories.
A couple of further questions for your position, if I may, and do excuse me if you did intend to have these covered with your explanation (I'd rather be certain anyways). (A) Does your views on spacetime include how the very first Universe came to be in this universe-begets-universe concept, or is the series meant to have always been happening, through an infinite amount of universes? (B) Is it at all possible, in your views of time, for one of these Universes to produce a scenario stemming from a physical law that we know not of, that ceases the continuation of begotten universes? and (C) Would time travel still be possible in your view, assuming that a
@Jim V
I'm glad you've provided sources! But, alas, they are useless sources for various reasons:
(1) We seem to be having trouble staying with the initial premises of the theory. This is purely a philosophical example, it is beyond our purposes (because, as you realize this is only designed to serve a particular purpose, physics and the Big Bang not actually being a part of it.
(2) The scenario is designed to apply to any God that contains the properties I've listed. The Judeo-Christian god can be included because the intent is to respond to the statements concerning God's self-creation (being that there is an ongoing argument as to whether God creates Himself or if he has always been. This scenario is meant to be a continuation on the prior, assuming the latter is irrelevant)
(3) I appreciate the arguments that you've been making. I'll be sure to include another point between 4 and 5 of the time traveler's portion telling of how any spacetime before the U
4 Answers
- TompLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
I'm a little out of depth for this, but my concern would have to do with the properties of time. For me time - and more so, spacetime - has a unique history. By this I mean that a (four-dimensional) spacetime event is a unique event that leaves it's "spacetimestamp" indelibly on the universe. Once that event has occurred, it cannot be undone. Conversely, once an event has occurred, there can be no subsequent events that can ever lead up to that event by it's uniqueness, let alone its position in time. Just in case you may argue that the Earth moves around the Sun in a periodic cycle, remember that the Sun moves in IT'S periodic cycle around the Milky Way, which moves around in its cycle, etc, etc. So we never return to the same point in space let alone the same point in time.
I am aware of Richard Feyman's model of anti-particles moving in an opposite temporal direction and while the late, great Professor Feyman was THE authority on a field which I will never even hope to be, I cannot reconcile, that position with how I understand the nature of the universe. Of course my understanding can be as flawed as it is limited, notwithstanding the fact that quantum mechanics throws comonsense preconceptions right out of the window.
However, my argument is that the universe as a physical object must be subject to physical laws no matter how esoteric they may be. If the laws of the universe preclude any phenomena, then I don't believe any outside agency can make that phenomena happen.
It is plausible however, that this universe can be a precursor to a next universe. A model along these lines has been proposed by Roger Penrose where after 10^100 years the state of the universe is such that a new Big Bang is triggered. It is a scenario similar to which I myself have held for a while - my argument was that a previous universe reached a state where a Big Bang MUST trigger a new universe. Unfortunately, unlike, Professor Penrose, my model has none of the mathematical rigour that would form a plausible proposal - ie, it was more fanciful whimsy. However, even in this "universe-begets-universe" scenario, it would not follow that an event which occurred in a previous spacetime, would occur EXACTLY in the spacetime that is the current universe. For that to happen ALL conditions must be exactly the same and ALL events would have follow in exactly the same way as before. Every particle collision; every change in energy distribution; every human thought process (assuming human existence). I very much doubt that this could happen.
So even in this case where the universe "creates itself" this creation would be fundamentally different its parent.
I've gone over your question a couple of times and if I have missed the general point of what you are trying to say, I hope my answer, is sufficient for some food for thought at least.
- Jim VLv 77 years ago
My issue with the "God portion" is that it seems to indicate that God comes to exist within a preexisting time dimension. As such I would say the illustration does not properly represent the Judeo/Christian understanding of God being transcendent of matter, energy, space, time and the associated forces and dimensions and not having a beginning point of existence.
My issue with the time traveler portion is that our time machine, even being a TARDIS, cannot reasonably produce the energy necessary to produce the universe. After all, this item is only a _small_ fraction of the time/universe it originated in. Aside from that the mass/energy density at the 1 nanosecond after t=0 is required to be within 1 part in 4 sextillion per cubic centimeter to produce a viable universe - I can't even give the Doctor that much credit.
So, I don't see this causal loop as being any kind of possibility.
= response
Dismissing a position due to a spelling error is hardly dealing with it.
The thought experiment begins with the assumption of a time labeled "B" (1). It then states that God begins to exist (2) . Therefore I stand by my assessment. If nothing else it does not address the Judeo/Christian God because of (2) and is moot to the discussion of that God.
Now to your "possibility".
1- A time machine created in this universe cannot possibly contain a mass/energy equivalent of the universe without containing the entire universe.
2 - Unless said time machine can produce the equivalent of the entire mass/energy of this universe times about a billion it also needs to rewrite the laws of physics and remodel our Big Bang understanding, because after the BB there was a period of matter-antimatter annihilation at that ratio. ( see links below )
3 - The mass/energy ratio comes from Ned Wright, cosmologist at UCLA. But I did miss quote the number, it is 1 gram in 447 sextillion grams per cubic centimetre (spelled the British way). 3rd link below.
Therefore the scenario is nothing but /ad hoc/ conjecture .
Source(s): http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/139301/c... http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/matterantim... 1:447sextillion ref http://www.astronomycast.com/2008/03/ep-78-what-is... - namelessLv 77 years ago
All time exists in the imagination. Do with it as you like there! Ride it like a horse!
There is One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Reality!
Here! Now!
'Time' is an imaginary limitation, existing in/as 'thought' only!!
We can do all sorts of things in our imaginations; know Jesus, the FSM, unicorns that crap Twinkies...
Reality is, other than in the imagination, literally 'timeless'!'
Every moment of existence exists Now!
"Reality is a synchronicity of moments!"
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Now!!
There is only one moment (Planck moment = 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!
Existence is not 'created', it is 'perceived'!
The "comming from" part implies 'causality' and 'creation' and 'time', all of which, like the word 'nothing', exist as 'thought', only. The actual Universe is manifested for one literally 'timeless' moment, one moment of 'Self!' knowledge!
- Anonymous7 years ago
Maybe if we destroy the Earth with nuclear weapons, someone from the future will come back and stop us. That makes just as much sense.
