11Prompt - Timeless

Is mystical experience a hallucination?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 07 Aug 2021 13:23:03 +0000

Mystics who have claimed that they have a direct vision of God
have always described that God as spaceless and timeless. But mystical experiences have been discarded by secular-minded people as merely a hallucination.

Here is a Medical Definition of Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. A hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.

That means a person having a hallucinatory experience cannot have any knowledge about reality.

Physicists in this 21st century are saying that spacetime is emergent. For example, theoretical physicist Sean Carroll who once wrote an article showing that God is not a good theory has recently published a book whose title is this: Something deeply hidden: quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime.

Spacetime is emergent means there is something more fundamental than spacetime from which spacetime has emerged. This something more fundamental than spacetime cannot be within any spacetime. That is because there cannot be any spacetime before its emergence. As it cannot be within any spacetime, so it will be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists describe this as non-spatiotemporal, a new scientific term that replaces old spaceless and timeless. Space and time were two different entities in the pre-relativistic era. In the post-relativistic one, they have become one single entity: spacetime. So physicists can no longer use the old term spaceless and timeless; instead, they use the new term non-spatiotemporal.

That means physicists are now saying that there is something spaceless and timeless from which our known spacetime has emerged.

Now, my question is: If mystics had seen only a hallucination, then how did they come to know that there was something spaceless and timeless long before physicists had come to know that? That is because, as per definition, a hallucination cannot give any knowledge about reality.

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:12:26 +0000

1) Physicists have shown that the total energy of the universe is zero.
2) SR has shown that mass and energy are equivalent.
3) Again GR has shown that space, time, and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any spacetime without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without spacetime. There is a saying of Einstein on this: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Source: Google search)

Based on the three above, it can be shown that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

The total energy of the universe being zero, it can be shown that its total matter is also zero.

The famous equation of Einstein from SR shows that E is equal to m multiplied by c squared. If E is zero now, then m will be equal to zero divided by c squared, which will also be zero. So, the total energy of the universe being zero, Einstein's famous equation shows that in that case, the total mass of the universe will also be zero.

Now, the below portion is from Google search:
//What is mass in Physics with example? Mass can be best understood as the amount of matter present in any object or body. For example, a table, a chair, your bed, a football, a glass, and even air has mass. ... That being said, all objects are light or heavy because of their mass.//

As the total mass of the universe is zero, so the total amount of matter present in the universe will also be zero.

As the total matte of the universe is zero, so we can say that the universe as a whole is immaterial.

If the total matter of the universe is zero, its total spacetime will also be zero because as per GR, there cannot be any spacetime without matter.

What does it mean that the total spacetime of the universe is zero? It means that the universe as a whole is spaceless and timeless, or non-spatiotemporal, if we use the new scientific term that has replaced the old one spaceless and timeless.

We have already seen that the universe as a whole is immaterial. Now we have seen that it is also spaceless and timeless. So, we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

Again, the total energy of the universe always remains zero. Therefore, the universe as a whole will always remain spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

That means the universe as a whole does not change at all.

As the universe as a whole does not change at all, so we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, changeless, and immaterial.

That nicely explains why the wave function of the universe does not contain any time variable.

However, the above conclusion will be falsified if anybody in the near or distant future can show that the total energy of the universe has a non-zero value.

God is not Purely Imaginary

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:33:55 +0000

God is not purely imaginary, because God has also been described as spaceless and timeless.

In this 21st century, physicists are no longer saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying that it is emergent.

If an entity is emergent, then in general, that will mean these three things:
1) The emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence.
2) The emergent entity (A) cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities (B) only.
3) B must pre-exist before the emergence of A.

The above three will also be true for emergent spacetime as well.

Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. Physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal.

'Non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. The special theory of relativity has combined the two separate entities space and time into one single entity: spacetime. So, scientists can no longer use the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’; instead, they use the new term ‘non-spatiotemporal’.

So, emergent spacetime has shown that there is something spaceless and timeless (aka, non-spatiotemporal) in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged.

This is the objectively real part in man's imagination of God.

As we have come to know that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, so some questions arise here that are given below:

1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it? If yes, then how did scientists get that evidence? And also, from where did they get that evidence?
3) If it was fundamental, then how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?
4) However, if it was emergent, then would it not require the prior presence of NSE from which only it could emerge?

Moreover, if an entity is emergent, then how can it be the case that it was fundamental at an earlier time, and that it has become emergent afterwards by losing its fundamental nature? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that if it is emergent now, then earlier also it was emergent, and that it will remain so in future as well?

One can easily understand what will be the implication of this. Spacetime being emergent, would require the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it, when the universe began expanding from the Big Bang.

In the CCC model of Roger Penrose, this NSE would have to be eternal and everlasting, because every time a big bang has occurred or will occur, whether in the infinite past, or in the far distant future, spacetime would have required, or would require, the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it.

The Ultimate Justification for a Creator

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Mon, 01 Mar 2021 14:50:52 +0000

Part I

Two reasons can be given as to why an entity may be spaceless and timeless:

1) Reason A: If the entity is not within any space and time, then it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. We can also say that it will be spaceless and timeless by default;

2) Reason B: If the entity is placed within some space and time, and if it is forcefully deprived of space and time, then also it will become spaceless and timeless.

For 1), we can give the example of the entity from which our known spacetime has emerged. In this 21st century, physicists are no more saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying it is emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, not being within any spacetime, it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists are describing it not as spaceless and timeless, but as non-spatiotemporal. Whatever may be the nomenclature, the concept remains the same in both cases; the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime and so, it is naturally non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless.

For 2), we can give the example of black hole singularities. Earlier, it was known to us that black hole singularities were point-like. Now it has been known that they are not point-like but rather one dimensional ring-like. In case of black hole singularities, whether they are point-like or ring-like, space and time almost contract to zero due to a tremendous gravitational force.

Now suppose there is one more entity within the universe that is also spaceless and timeless, but for which neither Reason A nor Reason B can be thought of as its cause. Here I am speaking about light. Light is within the universe, but as per SR both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So, within the space and time of the universe, light occupies zero space for zero time, which is tantamount to saying that light is spaceless and timeless.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason A? No, we cannot say so, because we know very well that light is within the space and time of the universe.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason B? No, we cannot say so, because we are not aware of any force that is active in case of light causing space and time contract to zero for light.

If light is spaceless and timeless neither due to Reason A, nor due to Reason B, then what is the reason due to which it is so?

Moreover, no black hole is as big as the universe. So, the length that is almost contracted to zero in case of black hole singularities is nothing compared to the entire width of the universe. But for light, the entire width of the universe is contracted to zero. If a tremendous gravitational force is responsible for the contraction of a black hole’s size of length almost to zero, then which force is responsible for the contraction of the entire width of the universe to zero, in case of light?

Does anyone have a clue about it? Can anybody say what the cause is due to which light is spaceless and timeless?

Part II

I have already stated that we do not know the reason due to which light is spaceless and timeless. But, whatever may be the reason of this, it can be shown that this reason cannot lie within the space and time of the universe.

Let us suppose that X is that reason and that X is within the universe. If X is not spaceless and timeless itself, then it is not possible for it to make another entity spaceless and timeless. So, X must have to be spaceless and timeless first, and then only it can make another entity spaceless and timeless. But, if X is also spaceless and timeless, then we will have to ask the same question about X that we were earlier asking about light: Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, how has it become spaceless and timeless? So, now we will have to search for the cause due to which X has become spaceless and timeless. Therefore, from this we can conclude that the cause due to which light is spaceless and timeless cannot lie within the space and time of the universe. It must lie outside any space and time.

The only entity that we know of that lies outside any space and time is the source from which our known spacetime has emerged. The existence of this entity in nature has already been confirmed once physicists have declared that spacetime is emergent. So, here is one entity that is spaceless and timeless by default, and for which we need not have to seek any further cause due to which it has become spaceless and timeless, because we already know that it is not within any space and time.

Now, if scientists can somehow show that this lifeless, mindless, and unconscious entity but that happens to be spaceless and timeless simply by default, can NATURALLY make another entity (aka light) spaceless and timeless, then this universe WILL NEVER NEED ANY GOD.

However, if they fail to do so, then only we will be compelled to posit some sort of consciousness here, because it is possible for a conscious being only to know how it is spaceless and timeless.

Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth and so, let science show that there is a natural explanation here.

We will be waiting for that explanation.

Is there no evidence for God?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:06:13 +0000

Recently an atheist has written that if there is a god and if this god affects our reality, then he would be a part of nature. So we will be able to measure the effects of this god in our reality, even if we cannot understand them. But until now we have not measured anything attributable to such a god.

But it is definitely not true that we have not measured anything attributable to such a god. So I have to present my argument to him as to why I think his contention regarding this is not true. Below it is:

God is not only described as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but also as spaceless and timeless. So, if there is such a God, then there would be a permanent state of spacelessness and timelessness along with the universe. If there is such a permanent state of spacelessness and timelessness, then space and time cannot be absolute. For space and time to be absolute, they should have the same values in each and every case without any exception. But if there is such a permanent state, then in one particular case space and time would have null values and in every other case they would have non-zero values. In this way they would become relative. Scientists have also found that space and time are indeed relative.

Here comes another atheist who says that if God is spaceless, then nowhere does he exist and that if he is timeless then at no time does he exist. So if I cannot show it exists, then they have good reason not to believe it exists.

In reply I have to write to him that whatever exists within the universe exists within the space and time of the universe. But can we say within which space and time the universe as a whole exists?

And I have to explain to him in detail as to why this cannot be said about the universe that it is within any space and time. This is because although we know very well that the universe is expanding, yet as per the cosmologists the truth is that it is not expanding into anything, which means the universe as a whole is not embedded within any higher space and time. Although this universe is not within any space and time, yet for that reason we do not say that the universe does not exist.

I also gave him something to think over.

Thought for the day: We know that space and time are relative. But have we ever asked from when they were relative? Were they relative from the very beginning of their existence? If so, then the cause due to which they were relative must already be present there before the beginning of space and time, that is, before the beginning of the universe.

But if we say that this cause is within the universe only and not outside of it, then space and time would only be relative from the moment this cause would make its first appearance within the universe. Before that space and time would remain absolute.

But this does not convince him at all and so he says that he is still waiting for any evidence of this God. As per him even after for more than 2000 years of God-talk, still there is no evidence.

So I have to repeat to him that I have already shown how the presence of a spaceless and timeless God would make space and time relative in our universe and that scientists have also found that space and time are indeed relative.

Then again I show him how his argument that God does not exist because he is not within any space and time has already been defeated, because if it is asserted that God does not exist on this ground only, then for that very same reason we will also have to assert that the universe does not exist, because as per the cosmologists neither is the universe within any space and time. And if in one case we admit that the universe exists but if in another case we refuse to admit the same for God, then that will only show that we are using some sort of double standard which is not a very good thing to promote or support.

I have also shown which problem might arise if the existence of this God is denied, because in that case there would be a period during which space and time would remain absolute.

I have also written that scientists are the only persons who can specifically say whether space and time were relative from the very beginning of their existence, or whether there was a brief period during which they were absolute. However, if it is true that they were relative from the very beginning, then the cause due to which they were relative must predate the beginning of the universe.

And I have to write to him that up to this I have made my point very clear.

This time the atheist becomes silent.

So the conclusion that can be drawn from the above discussion is this: If space and time are relative from the very beginning of their existence, then the cause due to which they are relative must be prior to the beginning of the universe.

Why total energy of the universe can never be other than zero

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:36:40 +0000

In an earlier article ‘Is the total energy of the universe zero?’1 I have already shown as to why the total energy of the universe would be zero. But there is one deep metaphysical reason that surpasses all the earlier reasons, as to why this total energy can never be other than zero.

In another article ‘Existence of anything can ultimately point to God’2 I have also shown that if anything exists at all then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress.

So our starting point would be this: If anything exists, if even a single speck of dust exists, then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time.

Here it may be asked: why should we stop an infinite regress? There is one practical reason as to why we should stop it. If we decide that instead of stopping it we would rather go up to infinity, then we would never be able to reach this present moment from that infinite past moment, because infinite time is such that it can never be bridged. If infinite time can be bridged, then it is not an infinite time, rather a finite time only.

There is one more reason as to why there cannot be an infinite regress of any natural cause. A natural cause (A) that can bring the universe into existence through one step (cause and effect) only is more efficient than the natural cause (B) that would require at least two steps for doing the same. Conversely we can say that B is less efficient than A, because B requires two steps whereas in a similar situation A requires one step only. So a natural cause that would require infinite number of steps for bringing the universe into existence would be infinitely less efficient than A. A cause that is infinitely less efficient has practically zero efficiency, because inverse of infinity is zero. A cause that has zero efficiency cannot bring anything into existence, not to say a universe.

[The truth that there can never be an infinite regress because no causal chain can extend up to infinity can be called “Truth of all truths”, because from this basic truth other truths can be derived.]

So our conclusion is this: Ultimate reality – whatever that ultimate reality may be - can never be within any space and time. Ultimate reality is that reality beyond which there would be absolutely nothing.

Ultimate reality will be thus spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it cannot be material. This is as per GR. GR has shown that space, time and matter are interlinked. So either all the three of them would be there together or none of them would be there. As ultimate reality is not within any space and time so there would be only the ultimate reality and no space and time. As there would be no space and time, so the ultimate reality cannot be material.

Ultimate reality being thus immaterial its total energy would be zero. This is because matter and energy are equivalent and so, zero matter would mean zero energy.

As ultimate reality is the source from which everything has originated, so the total energy of the universe would also be zero, because universe cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

However, the above does not give us the reason as to why the total energy of the universe should be zero; rather we have to find out merely by observation that its total energy is zero, because by observation only we can come to know that space, time and matter are interlinked. But if we assume that the universe has been created by a supernatural agent, then we will get that ultimate reason as to why its total energy cannot be other than zero. This has already been explained by me here.3 However I will very briefly repeat my arguments here.

1) God being the creator would be prior to the creation of the universe;

2) Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy;

3) As God is prior to the creation of energy, so God cannot contain any energy;

4) So neither the universe can contain any energy, because universe cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

I have already said it earlier4 and again I am saying it here that only a created universe gives us at least one particular reason as to why its total energy cannot be other than zero. But an uncreated universe gives us absolutely no reason why its total energy should also be zero.

This also shows as to why space and time can neither be fundamental, because the source from which space and time have originated does not contain any space and time.

Now we can summarize the whole thing:

1) There can never be an infinite regress, because in that case ultimately nothing would exist;

2) But we know something exists;

3) So we must stop this infinite regress by any means whenever and wherever we will encounter such a regress;

4) But in order to stop this infinite regress we would have to posit the existence of a spaceless and timeless entity that would stop this regress;

5) Denying the existence of this spaceless and timeless entity would mean we are admitting there is an infinite regress;

6) That would further mean we are admitting nothing exists;

7) As it is contradictory to our experience that nothing exists, so we are ultimately compelled to admit that a spaceless and timeless entity also necessarily exists that stops the infinite regress;

8) This spaceless and timeless entity is the ultimate reason why anything exists;

9) Although it is the cause behind everything that exists, but itself it is not caused by anything;

10) Being the ultimate reality, it would be the end-point of all existence. So there would be absolutely nothing beyond it that could have been the cause of it.

Now this much is left for us to show as to whether this spaceless and timeless entity is also a conscious entity.

Reference:
1. 3.

On Emergent Space-Time and the Existence of God

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Fri, 04 May 2018 13:42:25 +0000

In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has asked this question: ‘Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?'

He has also written that if the creator doesn't need a creator, then that would be special pleading. He has also stated that if the creator doesn't need a creator then by extension the universe, which created us, also doesn't need one. So, why should we bother conjuring up an additional step? He has also asked: is it turtles all the way?

Here I enter in the thread.

Me to Atheist:
‘'Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?'

‘You do not know the answer yet? Are you so backdated?

[Then I have given him the reference to my article If God created universe, Who created God?1]

‘There it has been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes and that zero needs no creation.’

The Atheist then asks me as to whether I did even read what he said? He also writes that my response was already preemptively addressed, because if god doesn’t need a creator, then the universe also doesn't need a creator, so why should I bother conjuring up an additional step?

Me to Atheist:
God does not need a creator because it can be shown and it has actually been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes. Can anybody show that the universe is also a bunch of several zeroes and so universe would also need no creation?

The Atheist here replies that zeroes can't create anything, because it has been shown that anything multiplied by 0 equals 0. He also writes that if god doesn't need a creator, the same applies to the universe.

Me to Atheist:
‘Universe would not need any creator if it can be shown that everything in this universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any outside agent. But the question is: can it be explained in that way? Below is just one problem:

‘One person in one YouTube comment thread has written that the universe is still nothing, because there is as much energy as there is negative energy; so: Energy + - Energy = 0. So basically we still are where we started; the universe is just a more complicated state of nothing.

‘My reply to him was this:

‘If the universe is still nothing, then that will mean that initially the universe was nothing and that it has still remained nothing, because its total energy has always remained zero.

‘But when initially the universe was nothing, it was not that only its energy was zero. Its space, time and matter were also zero. So if the universe still remains nothing, then why should it be that only its total energy remains zero but not its total space-time? What is the logic behind that?

‘So, if the universe still remains nothing, then not only the total energy, but the total space-time of this ever-expanding universe must also always remain zero.

‘But have the scientists like Krauss, Hawking and others provided any explanation as to how this total space-time always remains zero?’

This time The Atheist does not reply. Not getting any reply from him I write to him again.

Me to Atheist:
‘I have mentioned just one problem, but there are other problems also. No scientist can answer whence appeared those quantum mechanical laws without which no cosmological model is complete. In that sense quantum mechanical laws have the same status as that of the theistic God; origin of both remains unexplained and mysterious. However the question ‘who created God?’ can be answered and it has already been answered. Whereas the question ‘who created quantum mechanical laws?’ has not yet been answered.

‘Then there is the fine-tuning problem. There are about 30 numbers within the laws of physics that include the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces, the values of which cannot be predicted by any scientific laws. Rather scientists have to find their values from actual experiments only. If these numbers have slightly different initial values at the big bang, then the world, and life as we know it, would probably never have come into being.

‘The question is: why do these numbers have the values that they have? At present scientists cannot answer this question from within their known physics and they resort to multiverse hypothesis for its explanation. But up till now there is no direct experimental evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe and so at present multiverse has remained a theoretical probability only. But there are some scientists within the scientific community who think that even if multiverse is real, yet multiverse will not help us solve any single problem within our universe, because physics in each and every member of the multiverse would be the same as that of our universe.

‘So long scientists will not be able to solve these problems, their claim that the universe does not need any God will not be trustworthy.

‘You have written that zero cannot create anything. If zero does not have any power to create anything, then how has zero energy created such a vast universe?’

This time The Atheist gives a reply that first of all I need to actually demonstrate such a god. But as because I am saying god has been "demonstrated to be zeroes", which doesn't make any sense, so he is willing to bet that I have been duped into some hippie kool-aid. He also writes that he would suggest actually thinking for a moment who is more likely to have analyzed these things more rigorously, the guy that said god is a sequence of zeroes, who probably hasn't achieved anything in his whole life in regards to his career as a professional, or the elite scientists in the history of the world from around every country that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today.

What follows is my final reply to The Atheist:
‘I have requested you to go through the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 But you have not gone through it. So I will quote here the first paragraph of that article before proceeding further:

‘‘Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give the most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question.’

‘The purpose of quoting this passage here is to show that the same elite scientists that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today have also prepared the path for us believers so that we can argue for the existence of God.

‘Now let us first see what would be the attributes of a creator God.

[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article One True God2 for showing how it can be concluded that a creator God would always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.]

‘So as per logic a creator God must necessarily have to be spaceless and timeless, because this is the one and the only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.

‘Now let us see how believers have described their God. About the supernatural God it has been said that he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About the same God it has also been said that he is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

‘So it can in no way be denied that God has been described as spaceless and timeless by the believers.

‘Now let us see what science has done here. Science has also given its full support to this logical concept of a creator God by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 for showing how a spaceless and timeless state would obtain.]

‘So it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

‘Now let us ask ourselves this question: why has science done this? If God is purely imaginary and non-existent, then why is it that science has provided such explanations for the attributes of a purely imaginary and non-existent God? What shall we have to conclude from this? Shall we have to conclude that those highly intelligent persons who have provided these explanations were not intelligent at all and that that was the reason as to why they failed to distinguish between what was actually real and what was purely imaginary? Or shall we have to conclude that this God is objectively real?

‘Not only that. Phenomenon of quantum entanglement has compelled the scientists to conclude that space and time are not fundamental at all and that space and time have emerged from something more fundamental that is spaceless and timeless. Here are two relevant quotes:

‘“If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics…Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.” (Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011)

‘“Indeed, a number of serious physicists have for some time by now stated that our usual perception of TIME is wrong, due to the fact that TIME, as much as SPACE, are NOT fundamental entities in Physics, but ONLY ... epiphenomena arising from OTHER yet more fundamental entities ...” (Personal e-mail to me)

‘We have already seen that God is described as spaceless and timeless. And we now see that scientists are also saying that space and time have somehow emerged from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.

‘So, if there is indeed a God, then at the beginning of everything there would be an entity that would be spaceless and timeless. Scientists have not yet admitted that there is a God. But they have at least admitted this much that space and time are not fundamental entities at all and that the more fundamental entity from which they have emerged is indeed spaceless and timeless.’

Addendum: Has anybody ever thought that if it is true that space and time are not fundamental entities in Physics, but only epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then at the same time it might not be true that the universe has originated from nothing? If space and time are emergent entities only (epiphenomena) arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then were they emergent also when they made their first appearance at the beginning of the universe? Or, were they fundamental entities at that time? If we claim that they have originated from nothing at the beginning of the universe, then they were fundamental entities at the beginning, simply because they have originated from nothing and not from those yet more fundamental entities. If they were fundamental entities at the beginning, then how and when did they become emergent by losing their fundamental nature? However, if they were emergent at the beginning also, then would they not require the prior presence of those fundamental entities from which only they could arise? Being epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, was it possible for them to arise from nothing?

If my above argument is correct, then it cannot be the case that the universe has originated from nothing, but from those fundamental entities from which only space and time can emerge. That means all those hypotheses that try to explain the origin of the universe from nothing are all false hypotheses only.

That space and time are emergent would also have two more implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which is an absurdity.

However it has already been shown that there can be only one single entity in spaceless and timeless condition.3 It means that the entity from which the universe has originated is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

Theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge that the first part of the religious belief is true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances scientists have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the religious belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only.

I hope within some fifty or hundred years from now on scientists will be again driven to the conclusion, and this time also they will be forced by the circumstances only, that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent.

Once it is admitted by the scientists that space-time is not fundamental, but emergent, now all the atheistic nonsenses can be very easily countered.

Reference:
1. 3.

Atheist Using Double Standard for Ascertaining Truth

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 05:22:00 +0000

Recently I have some communications with an atheist.

He has written that there is a magic leprechaun who created the universe. He has also written that he has evidence for it, because he has a book which says so.

So I have to ask him as to whether his magic leprechaun is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because otherwise his magic leprechaun cannot be the creator of the universe because of the following reason:

Logic dictates that a creator will always precede its creation. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by magic leprechaun will mean its space, time, matter and energy have been created by magic leprechaun. That will further mean that before creation by magic leprechaun there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That will again mean that before creation magic leprechaun was in no space and time and that magic leprechaun did not contain any matter and energy. So a magic leprechaun who is the creator of the universe will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Therefore a magic leprechaun who is not spaceless, timeless and immaterial will fail to qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of the creator of the universe.

In reply he informs me that this magic leprechaun comes from another universe and that he created this universe. He also writes that it is all in the book and that it makes more sense than the Biblical God. He also states that if something (or someone) is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, then it doesn't exist, because there is no space where that something exists, there was no time that it existed and there is no material where that something exists of. So as per him something cannot exist without space, time and / or matter.

In reply I have to write to him that he has no idea about what it actually means to be spaceless nad timeless. For him spaceless and timeless means to be in no space for no time and therefore something that is spaceless and timeless does not exist at all. But actually it means something else. I present the following argument to him:

Whatever exists within the universe exists within space-time. But what about the universe itself? Does it exist within some higher space-time? Is there any space-time beyond the universe? If there is no space-time beyond the universe, then universe as a whole does not exist within any space-time. In that case shall we say that the universe does not exist?

Then I have given him one example also:

We also know that the universe is expanding. Now if one asks any cosmologist this question that what it is expanding into, they will always reply that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. Their answer is fully consistent with the big bang theory. Big bang theory says that space-time began along with the big bang only. That means big bang did not occur within any pre-existing space-time, because there was no space-time before the big bang. Therefore neither is the universe expanding within any pre-existing space-time. So, here cosmologists are also saying the same thing that the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. Again I ask him the same question: can we say that the universe does not exist because it is not expanding within any space-time?

In reply the atheist confirms that the universe does exist, because as per him the universe IS space time and matter. He states that as far as all of us know, there is nothing outside of our universe. So he thinks that it is indeed fully consistent with the Big bang theory. He also states that outside the universe there is no space and time where anything can exist and that therefore probably nothing exists without our universe.

In reply I have to write to him that everybody knows that universe is space, time and matter. But I have to give him a reminder that here the question is something else and that it is this: within which space-time does the universe as a whole exist if there is no space-time outside the universe? I have to repeat to him that his concept that spaceless and timeless means existing in no space for no time applies equally to the universe as well, because the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. I also write to him that in whichever way he will try to suppress this truth that the universe is not within any space-time, he will fail.

In reply he writes that there is a council of gods existing without time, space and matter, spending no time doing nothing no-where. He also writes that these gods never showed any interest in him or his well being. So, he guesses that the god(s) have better things to do with their no time, and that he will try to spend his time as good as possible, because he has to deal with time as because he is in the universe. He also requests me that in case I meet one or more gods, then I should tell them that he would really like to meet them. This is because he is very curious how it is to live without space and time.

In reply I have to write to him that his last comment shows that either he is a dogmatic person, or that his intelligence level is low. So either he refuses to understand (due to his dogmatism), or he fails to understand (due to his low level of intelligence) that whatever may be the ultimate reality, that ultimate reality can never be within any space and time.

Here the communication ends.

Here the atheist is clearly using double standard for ascertaining truth; he is using one standard for God and another standard for the universe. For him existence means existing within some space-time. So for him God does not exist because God is not within any space and time. But for him the universe exists, although as per the cosmologists neither is the universe within any space-time, because it is not expanding into anything. So as per his own standard he should also say that the universe does not exist. But he does not say so.

So his using double standard for ascertaining truth is quite apparent.

Which God?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 05:34:45 +0000

In one YouTube comment thread an atheist has asked this question: 'Which god? I like Zeus... Can I study his word as the one and only truth? Odds are he's as right as Yahweh is or Allah or Odin or Shiva or Osiris or... You get the point'

So the most crucial question is: which god? Because there are thousands of gods which man has imagined so far. Out of so many gods, which one is the true god?

Actually there can be only one true God, a God who has created the universe. The answer is as simple as that.

But how do we come to know that out of these thousands of gods which particular god has actually created the universe?

There is an easy way out. First determine what will be the attributes of a creator god. Then find out which god out of these thousands of gods has these particular attributes of a creator god. Then that god will be the true god.

So our next question will be: what are the attributes of this creator God?

Anybody can find out what will be the attributes of this creator God if he/she is intelligent enough and if he/she can use his/her brain and logic properly.

Here no spoon-feeding from the big peers is required at all. One's own intelligence is sufficient for this purpose.

Universe has been created by God.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy.

So universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy has been created by God.

That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy.

That will again mean that before creation God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy.

That is the reason as to why theists always describe their God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

So a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because this is the one and the only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.

Now let us ask ourselves this question: have Zeus, Ganesha, Poseidon, Santa, Easter Bunny, Odin, Thor, Shiva, Appollo, Osiris or any other mythical gods that we can think of, ever been described as spaceless, timeless and immaterial?

If not, then none of these mythical gods can qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of this creator God, because logic dictates that a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

But God of almost all the major religions all over the world has been repeatedly described as spaceless and timeless.

Actually spacelessness and timelessness are the two most common major attributes of God of the religions throughout the world. Mystics who claim that they have direct encounter with God have also described their God as spaceless and timeless.

But where is the evidence that there is such a creator God?

Scientists have also faithfully served the purpose of this creator God by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless (SR), whereas they could also have shown just the opposite, that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless.

Yes, they could also have shown that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless if it was the job of the scientists to manufacture truth.

In that case they could have very easily falsified science and shown that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless.

In that case all our arguments for a creator God would have stopped then and there.

But it is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. So they had to show what they were supposed to show: THE TRUTH AS IT IS.

So they had to show how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

Thus they have failed to suppress the truth that it is really possible to be spaceless and timeless.

It is most important for us believers that science has failed to suppress the truth that it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

[Here, am I not insulting the whole scientific community by suggesting that they can even think of suppressing any scientific truth?

No, hereby I am merely uttering one bitter truth about some modern day scientists who so vehemently deny the existence of God that practically nothing is impossible for them, not even suppressing some scientific truth that may eventually point to a creator God.]

By showing how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, science has actually given its validation to our concept of a spaceless and timeless God. It has indirectly said here that from the scientific point of view it is not impossible for someone to be spaceless and timeless.

Logic dictates that a creator God will always be spaceless and timeless and science has also given its full support to this logical conclusion by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

Thus both logic and science converge here and point to a single entity: creator God.

Based on this fact alone it can safely be said that mathematics of SR points to a creator God whose two major attributes are his spacelessness and timelessness.

If atheists deny the existence of this spaceless and timeless God, then they will have to answer this question: if no one or nothing in this universe is spaceless and timeless, then why was it necessary for science to show as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless?

When I have pointed out to some atheists that God is called spaceless and timeless and that in SR science has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they have desperately tried to falsify science. One can go through the below links to see it oneself:

What will be the total energy of the universe if created by God?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:39:31 +0000

It can be shown that the total energy of the universe would also be zero if it is created by some supernatural agent. Let us say that this supernatural agent is God. Now what does it mean that the universe has been created by God? As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy have been created by God. That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That will again mean that God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy. That is the reason as to why theists always describe their God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. (There are some atheists who failing to grasp this simple logic raise question about this spaceless, timeless and immaterial God. But a creator God can never be anything other than spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because this is the one and only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.) Neither this spaceless, timeless and immaterial God can contain any energy, because energy was also created by God only along with the creation of the universe. That means the total energy content of God is zero. Therefore the total energy content of the universe will also be zero, because universe cannot contain more energy than the source from which it has originated.

Here it might be objected that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. But if we keep in mind that the total energy of the universe has always remained fixed at its zero value, then we can say that as such energy has not been created or destroyed at all. Only that it has taken positive and negative forms in the universe, the total energy always remaining zero. The same can be said about matter also.

This once again shows that the reasoning of Lawrence Krauss is faulty when he has argued that as because the total energy of the universe has been found to be zero, so from this it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.1 But here we have shown that the total energy of the universe will also be zero even if it is created by God. So once again it is established that zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.

Reference:
1.

11Prompt - Timeless

Is mystical experience a hallucination?

Tags:

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Tags:

God is not Purely Imaginary

Tags:

The Ultimate Justification for a Creator

Tags:

Is there no evidence for God?

Tags:

Why total energy of the universe can never be other than zero

Tags:

On Emergent Space-Time and the Existence of God

Tags:

Atheist Using Double Standard for Ascertaining Truth

Tags:

Which God?

Tags:

What will be the total energy of the universe if created by God?

Tags: