Vunderguy,
I don't know who Joseph Campbell is, nor what claims he has made.
but as to your specific question,
"what Consciousness was present to make the initial singularity and the stars work?"
Well, since Solipsism is pretty much ruled out since, as far as we know, we weren't around back then then that would pretty much require Theism to be true wouldn't it?
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University
Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Verified to 80 orders of magnitude)
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
Of humorous note;
Solipsist Humor from Plantinga
,,,At a recent Lecture I attended by Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, he warmed up the crowd with a few solipsist jokes.,,,
FYI, solipsism is the rather odd idea that there is only one individual in the universe and that you are it. Everyone else is just a figment of your imagination.
1. British philosopher Bertrand Russell was a solipsist for a time (why does that not surprise me?), and he once received a letter from a woman who found his arguments very convincing. Well, I suppose it’s not so hard to convince a figment of your imagination that your arguments are brilliant. Anyway, the woman commented in her letter that his description of solipsism made a lot of sense and that, “I’m surprised there aren't more of us.”
2. Plantinga also told of an accomplished academic who was a well-known solipsist (I forget the guys name). And Plantinga thought it would be fun to meet a real life solipsist, so he went to visit him. He was treated fairly well considering he was only figment. I mean, it’s not a given that a solipsist would feel the need to be polite to his imaginary friends. After a brief conversation, Plantinga left and on the way out one of the man’s assistants said, “We take good care of the professor because when he goes we all go.”
http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2011/05/13/solipsist-humor-from-plantinga/
Supplemental note:
,,,due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
"The Broken Beautiful" | Ellie Holcomb | OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpOXrY4BHMA
bornagain77
August 7, 2014
August
08
Aug
7
07
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
@bornagain77
The question is, if the the singularity and the stars worked on quantum mechanics... and the Copenhagen really does require consciousness to collapse wave functions that are more than just possibilities about the locations of particles at the quantum level as a lot of Atheists and New Agers like to believe the Copenhagen interpretation suggests, then what Consciousness was present to make the initial singularity and the stars work?
On another note, do you know someplace where I can get information to refute the popular claims made by Joseph Campbell, because although he was okay when it came to literature, when it came to his religious and philosophical views, he's smellier than week old cabbage.VunderGuy
August 7, 2014
August
08
Aug
7
07
2014
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
What is the point you are driving at? Feel free to make your claim (with reference) if it runs counter to mine and I will show where it fails. That will save us both a bunch of time! :)bornagain77
August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
@ba77
The sun works on quantum mechanical principles, right? And, presumably, in its earliest moments, so did the cosmological singularity, right?VunderGuy
August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Vunderguy, I'm not really that well versed on the Copenhagen interpretations. All I know for certain, from the empirical evidence itself, is that I strongly agree with the following interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
Von Neumann–Wigner - interpretation
Excerpt: The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse [of the wave function]", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation#The_interpretation
A Conversation with Henry Stapp, Ryan Cochrane - March 2014
Excerpt: "I think von Neumann’s orthodox QM gives a good way to understand the nature of the universe: it is tightly tied to the practical test and uses of our basic physical theory, while also accounting for the details of the mind-brain connection in a way that is rationally concordant with both our conscious experiences, and experience of control, and the neuroscience data."
Henry Stapp
http://social-epistemology.com/2014/03/22/a-conversation-with-henry-stapp-ryan-cochrane/
The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
Another weird note from QM:
Contextuality is 'magic ingredient' for quantum computing - June 11, 2012
Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit - a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It's because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That's part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-weird-magic-ingredient-quantum.htmlbornagain77
August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
@bornagain77
So, I'm assuming you're a big fan of the Copenhagen interpretation then? Why?VunderGuy
August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
correction: 'THE' only ‘contradiction’ there is,,,bornagain77
August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Vunderguy, the Cheshire Cat paradox can be read about here,
The Quantum Cheshire Cat: Can neutrons be located at a different place than their own spin?
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-quantum-cheshire-cat-neutrons.html
There only 'contradiction' there is is for people who hold particles to be primary. i.e. materialists! Quantum Mechanics, especially superposition, has a long history of giving reductive materialists incurable headaches.
Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga
Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system's wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.htmlbornagain77
August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
@bornagain
Speaking of physics, have you ever heard of the Cheshire Cat particle? If so, can you explain it to me, because it seems like a weird contradiction to me that rests on the mother of all law of contradiction breakers, the Copenhagen interpretation.VunderGuy
August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
I find it most interesting that Hannam points out that the resistance Galileo felt for his heliocentrism came from other scientists, and not from the Church. The Church, relying on the informed opinion of scientists, comes to the wrong decision.
With this in mind, consider that Ken Miller's argument in "Finding Darwin's God" is that one of his principal motivations for his Darwinism is that he wants prevent the Church from making the same mistake it made in the Galileo affair. Ironically, it is by listening to such 'experts' as Ken Miller that the Church runs, again, the risk of being on the wrong side of true science.
I hope Ken Miller is listening.PaV
August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
The Galileo Affair and “Life/Consciousness” as the true "Center of the Universe"
The Galileo affair has certainly turned out to be far different, and far more nuanced, than the simplistic 'science vs. religion' narrative that is told in popular culture today.
Often times an atheist will try to deride a person’s Christian belief by saying something along the lines of, ‘Well, we also don’t believe that the sun orbits the earth any longer do we?’, trying to mock the person’s Christian belief as some type of superstitious belief that is left over from the Dark Ages that had blocked the progress of science.
"No one looking at the vast extent of the universe and the completely random location of homo sapiens within it (in both space and time) could seriously maintain that the whole thing was intentionally created for us."[1a]
Tim Maudlin - NYU philosopher
Yet, those atheists who say such things fail to realize that, number one, atheism cannot rationally ground science in the first place (A. Plantinga: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism)[a], and that, number two, the primary opponents to Galileo’s heliocentrism, who caused much of the problems for Galileo, were Galileo's academic colleagues not the Catholic Church[b], and that, number three, the geocentric (Earth centered) model of the solar system was overturned by four devout Christians, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, who were definitely not ‘closet atheists’. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, the four primary scientists involved in overturning the geocentric model, were all devout Christians and it certainly was not an atheist, nor some group of atheists, nor even some other religious group, that was involved in overturning the geocentric model. Johann Kepler (1571-1630), a devout Lutheran, was the mathematician who laid the mathematical foundation for Copernicus’s, a loyal Catholic, heliocentric model for the solar system. Diana Severance (PhD, Rice University), a historian with broad experience teaching in universities and seminaries, stated this about Kepler
"About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler.,,, Throughout his scientific work, Kepler never sought any glory for himself, but always sought to bring glory to God. At the end of his life his prayer was: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit."[1]
In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared these very 'unscientific' thoughts:
‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’
“Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” [2,2a&2b]
– Johannes Kepler
Copernicus’s following quote is almost as ‘unscientific’ as Kepler’s quotes were:
"To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge."[2c]
It was the Italian scientist Galileo Galilee (1564-1642), who was also a dedicated Christian to his dying day despite his infamous, and widely misunderstood, conflict with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church regarding heliocentrism [3,4,4a,4b,4c,4d,4e], who, besides improving the telescope, empirically demonstrated that gravity causes all objects to fall with the same acceleration regardless of their mass. Then Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who, during his life, wrote more on the Bible than he did on science, developed the principle of universal gravitation and the laws of motion. With those developments, Newton was able to show mathematically why the planets obeyed Kepler’s laws. Thus where Galileo had failed to convincing persuade people that heliocentrism was correct, Newton’s work finally tipped the balance of the court of public opinion in favor of the Catholic Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus’s (1473-1543) heliocentric theory[4f] so that it finally became widely accepted.
Thus, despite all the controversy surrounding the establishment of heliocentrism as valid, it is a undeniable fact of history that it was men of the Christian faith, and no other faith (especially the atheistic faith), who overturned the geocentric model.
In fact, it can be forcefully argued that modern scientific thought itself, of a rational, approachable, intelligible, universe, a universe that could, and can, dare be comprehended by mere human minds, was brought to a sustained maturity when a more pure Christian influence was brought to maturity in the Christian church(es) of western culture, and when the stifling pagan influences were purged from it.[5,6,7,8,9]
The heliocentric theory was hotly debated in Galileo’s time, for it proposed a revolutionary idea for the 1600?s stating all the planets revolved around the sun. Many people of the era had simply, and wrongly, presumed everything in the universe revolved around the earth (geocentric theory), since from their limited perspective on earth everything did seem to be revolving around the earth. As well, the geocentric model seems, at first glance, to agree with the religious sensibilities of being made in God’s image, although the Bible never actually, 'literally', states the earth is the ‘center of the universe’.[9a]
Job 26:7
“He stretches the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing”
Galileo had improved upon the recently invented telescope. With this improved telescope he observed many strange things about the solar system. This included the phases of Venus as she revolved around the sun and the fact Jupiter had her own satellites (moons) which revolved around her. Thus, Galileo wrote and spoke about what had become obvious to him; Copernicus was right, the planets do indeed revolve around the sun and geocentrism was effectively, but not popularly, overturned.[9b] It is now commonly believed that man was cast down from his special place in the grand scheme of things, for the Earth beneath his feet no longer appeared to be the ‘center of the universe’, and indeed the Earth is now commonly believed by many people to be reduced to nothing but an insignificant speck of dust in the vast ocean of space (mediocrity principle). Yet actually the earth became exalted in the eyes of many people of that era, with its supposed removal from the center of the universe, since centrality in the universe had a very different meaning in those days.[10a] A meaning that equated being at the center of the universe with being at the ‘bottom’ of the universe, or being in the ‘cesspool’ of the universe, as this following quote makes clear.
In addition, contrary to what is commonly believed, we now know that in the eyes of its contemporaries, the Copernican Revolution glorified the Earth, making it an object worthy of study, in contrast to the preceding view, which demeaned the Earth. Ironically, the Copernican Revolution is almost invariably portrayed today as having demoted the Earth from a position at the center of the universe, the main concern of God, to being merely one of the planets. Danielson(2001) made a compelling case that this portrayal is the opposite of what really happened, i.e., that before the Copernican Revolution, Earth was seen not as being at the center, but rather at the bottom, the cesspool where all filth and corruption fell and accumulated. [10]
Yet contrary to what is commonly believed by many people today of the earth being nothing but an insignificant speck of dust lost in a vast ocean of space, there is actually a strong case that can now be made from science for the earth being central in the universe once again.
In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, Einstein’s General Relativity has shown that 4-dimensional (4D) space-time, along with all energy and matter, was created in the ‘Big Bang’ and continues to ‘expand equally in all places’:
There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. [11]
Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live. And as such, it may now be possible for the Earth to be, once again, considered ‘central in the universe’.
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” [11a]
- George Ellis
That every 3-Dimensional place within the universe may be considered central in the universe may seem very counterintuitive to most people, but that is exactly what has now been shown.
It is also interesting to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann
https://vimeo.com/98188985
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
It is also interesting to note that higher dimensions, such as these higher dimensions from which our universe apparently arises, and upon which it is apparently founded, would be invisible to our 3-Dimensional sight:
Dr Quantum Flatland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6206QWGh3s
So in a holistic sense, when taking into consideration the higher dimensional foundation of space-time, (and when taking into consideration the ‘Privileged Planet principle’ of Gonzalez[12, 12a] which overturned the mediocrity principle, and which gives strong indication that the Earth is uniquely suited to host complex life in this universe), it may now be possible for the Earth to be, once again, considered ‘central in the universe’.
This intriguing possibility, for the Earth to once again be considered central, is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), remaining from the creation of the universe, due to the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity, forms a sphere around the earth. I find the best way to get this ‘centrality of the Earth in the universe” point across is to visualize it first hand. Thus I reference the first few minutes of this following video to clearly get this ‘centrality in the universe’ point across:
Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity - video
https://vimeo.com/98189061
Moreover, this 'circle' of the CMBR that is found by modern science to encompass the Earth, from the remnant of the creation event that brought the entire universe instantaneously into being, was actually predicted in the Bible centuries earlier:
Proverbs 8:27 (King James Version)
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he drew a circle upon the face of the depth:"
Proverbs 8:27 (New International Version)
"I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,"
Job 26:10
He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.
But as tempting as it is to use the privileged planet principle, in conjunction with the centrality of the Earth in the 4-Dimensional (4D) space-time of General Relativity, to try establish the centrality of the Earth in the universe, this method of establishing centrality for the earth falls short of explaining ‘true centrality’ in the universe and still does not fully explain exactly why the CMBR forms an ‘almost’ perfect sphere around the Earth. The primary reason why the higher dimensional 4D space-time, governing the expansion of this 3-Dimensional universe, is insufficient within itself to maintain 3D symmetry becomes clear if one tries to imagine radically different points of observation in the universe. Since the universe is shown to have only (approximately) 10^79 atoms to work with, once a person tries to imagine keeping perfect 3D symmetry, from radically different points of observation within the CMBR sphere, a person quickly finds that it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality within the CMBR sphere with finite 3D material particles to work with for radically different 3D points of ‘imagined observation’ in the universe. As well, fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, seem to, at least from as far as I can follow the math, mathematically prove the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the ‘completeness’ of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from differing points of observation in the universe. [13] But if the 4D space-time of General Relativity is insufficient to explain ‘true 3D centrality’ in the universe, what else is since we certainly observe centrality for ourselves within the sphere of the CMBR? Quantum Mechanics gives us the reason why. ‘True centrality’ in the universe is achieved by ‘universal quantum wave collapse of photons’, to each point of ‘conscious observation’ in the universe, and is the only answer that has adequate sufficiency to explain ‘true 3D centrality’ that we witness for ourselves within the CMBR of the universe.
Quantum Enigma:Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University
Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.
And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…
- per UncommonDescent
As well, whereas higher math refuses to give General Relativity clearance as a complete description of reality, higher math has recently (June 2013) confirmed the confidence we can have in Quantum Mechanics as an accurate description of reality. [13a & 13b] Moreover, an experiment has been proposed that would, if successful, would establish the primacy of Quantum Mechanics over General Relativity in dramatic fashion as to being a more accurate description of reality. [13c]
Moreover, because of advances in Quantum Mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central, position within material reality. [14]
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15]
Psalm 33:13-15
The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
Moreover, from a slightly different angle, ‘Life’ is also found to be central to the universe in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very credible reconciliation to the most profound enigma in modern science. Namely the unification of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (Quantum Electrodynamics) into a ‘Theory of Everything’:
The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
http://vimeo.com/34084462
Of Related Note:
Two very different ‘eternities’ revealed by physics:
Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
"Einstein's equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist."
Kip S. Thorne - "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" pg. 476
As to the fact that, as far as the solar system itself is concerned, the earth is not ‘central’, I find the fact that this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be a very fitting ‘poetic reflection’ of our true spiritual condition. Please reflect on this for a moment, in regards to God’s ‘kingdom of light’, are we not to keep in mind that our lives are to be centered on the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God’s kingdom of light? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on the temporal pleasure this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than the lasting pleasure of what heaven has to offer?
Matthew 16:26
And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?
Here is a quote from evangelist Louie Giglio which I think captures this 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition
You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God.
- Louie Giglio [16, 16a]
Thus, as is extremely fitting from the basic Christian view of reality, the centrality of the world in the universe, comparatively speaking, is found to be rather negligible, save for ‘the privileged planet’ principle, and universal geometric considerations [17, 17a, 17b] which have now been discovered, which reflects God’s craftsmanship. Whereas the centrality found for each individual ‘conscious soul/observer’ in the universe is found to be of primary significance,,, In other words:
,,,"Is anything worth more than your soul?"
Matthew 16:26
Verse and music:
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
Alison Krauss – Down in the River to Pray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VLKngHexeU
Related note:
The following site is also very interesting to the topic of 'centrality in the universe';
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
bornagain77
August 2, 2014
August
08
Aug
2
02
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
I can't tell you HOW MANY times I've heard and seen this issue totally misrepresented by the "new atheist" (read: gullible suckers) crowd.johnspenn