11Prompt - Everlasting

Implications of Emergent Spacetime

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Fri, 06 Jul 2018 13:24:38 +0000

If an entity is emergent, then in general that will imply 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 everything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities only (B); and
3) B must pre-exist before the emergence of A.

The first one is simple common sense. For the second one we can give the example of water. We know each water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So water can emerge from the chemical combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom only; water cannot emerge from the chemical combination of any two elements in the periodic table e.g. water cannot emerge from the chemical combination of hydrogen and chlorine or from the chemical combination of carbon and oxygen or from the chemical combination of copper and sulphur.

The above three implications will be true for any emergent entity. So they will be true for emergent spacetime also. But emergent spacetime will imply some more things that will not be true for other emergent entities. What are those special implications of emergent spacetime?

We have already said that an emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence. So emergent spacetime would imply that it has emerged from some entity/entities that was/were not within any spacetime. This implication is very very special for emergent spacetime only; the entity that has emerged (A) and the entity/entities from which it has emerged (B) cannot be within the same spacetime.

In every other case both A and B would be within the same spacetime. In case of spacetime only B would be neither in space nor in time. Scientists are describing it as non-spatiotemporal; in brief we will call it NSE (Non-spatiotemporal Entity/Entities).

Emergent spacetime would also imply some more things. It would imply that the universe cannot have its origin from nothing. The reason that can be given for this is that at the beginning of the universe spacetime also comes into existence. Spacetime being emergent cannot come into existence from nothing; it can emerge from NSE only. So the prior presence of this NSE is a necessity before the beginning of every universe.

NSE would also be eternal and everlasting. Two reasons can be given for this; one is pure reason and the other one is practical reason.

Practical reason: We have already seen that NSE must already be there before the beginning of any universe so that spacetime can also come into existence along with the beginning of the universe. So, if it is the case that big bang has taken place not only once but many many times, that is, if it is the case that the universe has gone through unending cycles of big bang and big crunch, then NSE would also have to be eternally there, because spacetime being emergent cannot emerge from anything else other than NSE. Similarly for every future cycle of big bang and big crunch also the prior presence of this NSE would be required.

Pure reason: There is also one pure reason as to why NSE would be eternal and everlasting. An entity that is not within any spacetime cannot change. Any change can occur either in space or in time. Being not in space we cannot say about NSE that it was at that place earlier and it is at this place now. Being not in time we cannot say about NSE that it was in that state earlier and it is in this state now. Thus NSE will be changeless. An entity that cannot undergo any change can neither cease to be, because ceasing to be is also some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. But for NSE this very next moment will never come, because it is not in time. So NSE can never cease to be; thus it will be eternal and everlasting.

Emergent spacetime has also shattered two myths of the atheists, that nothing can be spaceless and timeless and that nothing can be immaterial. Scientists are already saying that there is something non-spatiotemporal (or, spaceless and timeless) from which spacetime has emerged. This something non-spatiotemporal cannot in any way be material, because GR forbids it.

There is one deep philosophical reason as to why spacetime cannot be fundamental, because in that case there would be an infinite regress. I have already discussed it here.1

Reference:
1. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:45:04 +0000

Only two things can make me convinced that there is no God:

1) If science can show that this universe does not need any God; and
2) If science can show that God of the theistic description cannot exist.

Regarding 1), it should be said that no one on this earth can claim that he/she is omniscient. Therefore no one on this earth can claim that he/she knows with absolutely certainty that there is no God. However scientists can come to know that there is no God if they can show that everything in this universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any kind of god. No doubt this is a very lengthy process indeed, but at the end of this lengthy process one can with some certainty say that the universe does not need any God.

However it has already been shown here1 and here2 that the origin of the universe has not been explained properly by the scientists.

The above shows that science has not yet been able to explain everything of nature by natural means. In such a situation how will the scientists convince us that this universe does not need any God?

Regarding 2) it may be asked: which God? This is because there are thousands of religions on earth and each religion has its own concept of God. I have already made this point clear here3.

This God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

So in order to show that this God with the above attributes cannot exist, I think it will be sufficient for the scientists if they can somehow show that no one or nothing in this universe can be spaceless and timeless. This is because in that case it can very easily be argued that this God does not exist, because this God is said to be spaceless and timeless whereas science has shown that no one or nothing can be spaceless and timeless. But here science has done just the opposite to what it was supposed to do; it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. That means here also science has failed in its endeavour to show that God of the theistic description cannot exist. Here their failure has a much deeper negative impact on us than their failure in the first case, because once they have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, now it becomes next to impossible for them to convince us anymore that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist.

Due to the above two reasons I am not yet convinced that there is no God. Scientists have failed to convince me that God does not exist.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/380/431
2. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/425/478
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/496/534

Irony of Modern Science

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:09:41 +0000

About the God who was never there it has been said that he/she/it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About the God who was never there it has also has been said that he/she/it is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

About the God who was never there we say that he/she/it is spaceless. Here science was having two options: 1) it could have shown that nothing could be spaceless; 2) or, it could have shown how it is possible to be spaceless. Nobody has forced the scientists to choose the second option, but despite that they have shown on their own initiative how it is possible to be spaceless.

About the God who was never there we also say that he/she/it is timeless. Here also science was having two options and here also not being forced by anybody they have shown on their own initiative how it is possible to be timeless.

Now what would have happened if science had shown that nothing in this universe could be spaceless and timeless? In that case it would have been much more easier to show that God does not exist simply because this God is spaceless and timeless and because science has already shown that nothing can be spaceless and timeless.

As we can now show with the help of science how God can be spaceless and timeless, so we can also very easily show how this God is changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. This is because all these attributes are the default attributes of someone or something that is spaceless and timeless.

So, although this God was never there and although modern science also equally denies the existence of God, yet with the help of one of the modern scientific theories (SR) we can fully, completely, excellently explain this God. Is it not really funny?

All this has been possible simply because this God was never there.

11Prompt - Everlasting

Implications of Emergent Spacetime

Tags:

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Tags:

Irony of Modern Science

Tags: