The Creation Paradox by Daniel Hall

Dear Daniel,

I had an immediate answer to your presumed statement "If the universe was created, then the Conservation of Energy is violated." It's detailed in my previous essay contest entry on the subject of 'Is Reality Analog Or Digital?' Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?

I love it when people bring God into the discussion of the creation (birth) of the universe. It opens doors to new ideas and new creativity. If you're God, then you can dictate the laws of physics. But dictating the laws of physics requires thoughtfulness. How embarrassing would it be to create laws of physics that cause the universe to big bang, and then collapse 5 seconds later. Fortunately, no worshipers would ever observe a badly designed universe.

As the chemical potential density of earth is more than that of anywhere in the rest of the observable universe, that indicates life; I think, earth been created from eternal universe.

Dear Daniel Hall,

I want to let you know I have read your essay. It was unexpected and unusual.

I felt that at the end the choice of options has been too severely limited by your earlier arguments.I would have liked the option to choose non of the above. As there are other possibilities you didn't consider.

Despite that slight annoyance it was an entertaining essay, easy to read and you have highlighted some interesting issues. Thank you for sharing your ideas.

Dear Daniel Hall,

I found your erudite essay absolutely fascinating. I was especially impressed by the conclusive mention of the possibilities of "infinite regression, divine intervention and inside vacuum fluctuation" as I had remarked on this type of triadic assessment of eventualities adopted by people in my essay Sequence Consequence. I believe that one real Universe can being eternally occurring one dimensionally once, even if such a belief is grammatically incorrect as written. One real Universe can only be represented by one symbolic number 1 once. There is only 1 of anything real or imagined once in the one real Universe. There is only 1 of everything once real or imagined in the one real Universe. Any measurement of anything that uses more or less of a whole 1 is unrealistically inaccurate.

"If you're God, then you can dictate the laws of physics."

Who dictated the laws under which God operates?

Oh, God isn't constrained by any laws? What about logic? If God is not constrained by any laws, including those of logic, then is it not true that he might not have existed while he was setting up the laws of physics? Or that the laws he set up actually pre-existed and set him up instead? Why not, if laws of logic do not apply to God and his actions?

These are the problems introduced when people bring God into the creation of the universe. So, I don't love it.

Hi Daniel,

I like your conversation with God.

It seems possible to escape from your paradox.

1. If potential energy is the algebraic negative of kinetic energy, one may take the view that the energy of the Universe is forever zero.

2. Insofar as entropy is not conserved but tends to increase so information also increases, as the information carried by a point is equal to the entropy of the space in which that point exists.

I have come to the conclusion that we must identify God and the Universe and are in no position to explain why we exist absolutely, only why we exist in this particular form. Science is concerned with documenting the fixed points or invariances in the universal dynamics. Evolution can explain why the system has chosen the particular fixed points that we do observe: they are "fit", that is self sustaining.

I note that on this hypothesis we are "inside" God. Creation in this scenario is equivalent to an increasing number of fixed points in a purely dynamic system, which is equivalent to increasing entropy and information, both being equivalent to a count of the number of states in the Universe.

Jeffrey

Whether you love it or not, it doesn't appear to produce any more problems than many of the current essays.

People are seriously discussing getting rid of causality, unitarity, space-time, the continuum, and almost anything else you can think of. The possibility of a self-evolving universe without external laws has been discussed many times on fqxi, and question of logic versus local realism is also being discussed. At what point do we reach the threshold where there is nothing else but God?

George Ellis has come as close as one can get to the ultimate Top-down designer without daring to even mention it as a possible limiting case.

Get over it.

Daniel

Do you familiar to next Einstein quote?

"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom."

Dear Daniel,

The Big Band model seems to be wrong conception. All effects of the model may be explained by other way, see for example Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles.. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (subject of my essay) there are a lot of different levels of matter, the main force creating bodies and particles is gravitation. At the level of particles is Strong gravitation . Creation of matter take place in such way: relativistic objects of all levels of matter (neutron stars, nucleons) produce gravitons which are neutrinos, photons and cosmic rays; these gravitons are possible to form compact object of high level of matter from the diffuse matter. Then the paradox of creation is disappearing.

Sergey Fedosin

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Have just re-read your essay. The conversation does make it stand out from the other essays in this contest. I think you have asked some interesting questions and given some interesting possibilities, using the conversation to carry the reader easily through them. Good luck. Kind regards Georgina : )

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Alan Lowey,

In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present as if the big bang and expanding galaxies were an established fact. But actually there is no evidence that the we are at the center of the Universe and the galaxies are all moving away from us other than the assumption that the cosmological red shift is a Doppler shift. There is a discussion of other possible causes of the red shift in http://charles_w.tripod.com/red.html . My own view is that the red shift is due to an interaction of the photons with masses passed in space. If light actually is degraded by the ether itself, It should prove impossible to establish the cause by experiment, because the affect would be so tiny.

Astronomers speak of a "young Universe". It was, of course, younger than it is now when distant stars shone. However, there is no chance at all that the Universe was as young as astronomers say when the light from those distant stars was created even if the big bang hypothesis were valid. It took the light over 13 billion years to arrive here, so it is obvious that the atoms emitting it took well over 13 billion years to get out there even given a big bang. It does not make any difference if the atoms traveled out there from a spot near here or the ether is expanding, well over 13 billion years would have had to go by, so by now the Universe could be over 30 billion years old even in the unlikely event that there was a big bang.

You may also find interesting a hypothesis that the characteristics of quasars arise because of refractive lensing by gases near a huge mass inside the quasar of the light from an opposite jet in http://charles_w.tripod.com/quasar.html .

Sincerely, Charles Weber