Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Think You're Right About That, Alan

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on July 29, 2002 16:45:43 UTC

Hi Alan,

***it is misleading view I think to say that any communicable universe must obey physics laws and God allegedly had no choice.***

I agree that it is misleading. But, I think that what makes it misleading is not being more specific about what it means to be "communicable".

Each time I write a sentence talking about the "communicability" of the universe, I am aware that I should be more specific. I usually couch it in terms like, "communicable to people", or "communicable in some human language".

Now, I know you believe, and I think you are correct, that there are forms of communication that are direct and which cannot be converted to language, or to numbers. When Dick challenges us to give an example, he is poised to immediately pounce on our answer and point out that we just communicated what we said couldn't be communicated. He can always win this game. But, on the other hand, I maintain that that success doesn't prove that there isn't something real which cannot be communicated in numbers.

Dick and I exchanged a huge number of words some time ago in the General Interest forum on this site in which I tried to get an agreement from him on this very possibility. I think I sort of got his agreement, but I am not really sure.

But, as for me, I believe that God, (or G.O.D. or whatever you want to call the agent responsible for reality, or our universe) did have a choice in the creation of the universe, just as you say. But I also believe that the exercise of that choice lead to some parts of reality that could indeed be expressed, or communicated, in numbers, and, as Dick has shown, those parts of reality must of necessity obey the laws of physics.

I also believe that as the ability of the thinker (whoever or whatever that is and however many such things there are) grows, it becomes able to discern patterns previously undiscernable, and thus attain a position whereby something that was previously non-communicable has become communicable. And this new thing is then brought into the fold of things which obey the laws of physics. I think that when that happens, the laws of physics must also extend and get a little more complex in order to accommodate the new data. (I think this is the addition of more of Dick's unknowable data to the picture, although I'm not sure of that.)

Furthermore, as I have told you before, I suspect that you have some unusual capability of "seeing" of "knowing" some very deep things about our reality that the rest of us can't see so easily, and which you are at a loss, with our meager languages, to explain or describe them to the rest of us. Thanks for trying, though. Every little glimpse helps.

Warm regards,

Paul

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins