Subject: Is God purely mathematical object ? Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:45:11 +0200 Message-ID: <CAM7EkxmT-EAqS4JE9727zkKFGB90czGY8N-6UG8ycVTjtjZChQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]> To: Hyun Seok Yang <[email protected]>, Hyun Seok Yang <[email protected]>, Lars Bergström <[email protected]>, Ariel Goobar <[email protected]>, Gregory Moore <[email protected]>, Karel V Kuchar <[email protected]>, David Brown <[email protected]>, Charles Torre <[email protected]>, Robert M Wald <[email protected]>, Robert Geroch <[email protected]>, Chris Isham <[email protected]>, Greg Galloway <[email protected]>, Bernard J Carr <[email protected]>, Adam Helfer <[email protected]>, Laszlo Szabados <[email protected]>, Ettore Minguzzi <[email protected]>, Tim-Torben Paetz <[email protected]>, Roger Penrose <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Winicour <[email protected]>, Ezra Newman <[email protected]>, Jörg Frauendiener <[email protected]>, Paul Tod <[email protected]>, Piotr T Chrusciel <[email protected]>, Lars Andersson <[email protected]>, Robert Beig <[email protected]>, Sascha Husa <[email protected]>, Hans Ringström <[email protected]>, Shing-Tung Yau <[email protected]>, Richard M Schoen <[email protected]>, John Baez <[email protected]>, Sean Hayward <[email protected]>, James M Nester <[email protected]>, Niall Ó Murchadha <[email protected]>, Xiao Zhang <[email protected]>, Mu-Tao Wang <[email protected]>, Carlos Kozameh <[email protected]>, Louis Witten <[email protected]>, Ed Witten <[email protected]>, Domenico Giulini <[email protected]>, Carlo Rovelli <[email protected]>, John M Lee <[email protected]>, Jim Isenberg <[email protected]>, Demetris <[email protected]>, Sergiu Klainerman <[email protected]>, Rogier Brussee <[email protected]>, Fabiola Gianotti <[email protected]>, Anthony Zee <[email protected]>, Evangelos Melas <[email protected]>, Gary Horowitz <[email protected]>, Jeremiah P Ostriker <[email protected]>, Joe Silk <[email protected]>, Larry Horwitz <[email protected]>, Luca Bombelli <[email protected]>, Pankaj S Joshi <[email protected]>, Paul Busch <[email protected]>, Paul Davies <[email protected]>, Khodr Shamseddine <[email protected]>, Martin Berz <[email protected]>, Wilhelmus A J Luxemburg <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Jose Aguayo <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Andrew Wiles <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Paul G Allen <[email protected]> Dear Hyun, May I share some thoughts with you and your colleagues. Please correct me if I am wrong. You said in arXiv:1503.00712v2 [hep-th], p. 2, that "the inflation is incomplete to describe the very beginning of our universe and some new physics is needed to probe the past boundary of the inflating regions." I believe we need new Mathematics to describe "the past boundary", not some murky physics like background-independent matrix models. Once we reject the prior existence of spacetime, we need new Mathematics to describe the widely known, after Plato, omnipresent object that exists both "prior" spacetime (John 1:1) and "within" every instant here-and-now (Luke 17:21). In Mathematics (not in theology), God can be exposed as *purely mathematical* object endowed with self action, like Aristotelian First Cause and Unmoved Mover. To preserve the theory of relativity, such absolute and purely mathematical object must be *totally hidden* to physical observations by the "speed" of light: we observe the physical "shadows" of the Universe -- one-shadow-at-a-time -- only post factum, and can never look straight into their omnipresent source, as explained by Plato some twenty-five centuries ago, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Plato.jpg To explain the totally hidden omnipresent source, recall that the "inflation" of the APB segment in http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Greg.jpg is called "single scale factor a(t)" (arXiv:1503.00712v2 [hep-th], p. 2), as read by your good old wristwatch, but we still don't know how to explain mathematically the *continuum* of points comprising the finite (Sic!) APB segment (cf. the drawing above): the cardinality of such "set" (if any) is undecidable, and we need new Mathematics to include both the "center" and the W-axis depicted in the drawing above. Details at http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/comments.txt Your critical comments, as well as those from your colleagues, will be greatly appreciated. All the best, Dimi ---- Note: Serguei Krasnikov posed the following questions (arXiv:1408.6813 [gr-qc], p. 1): "the Universe according to relativity is a "motionless", "unchanging" 4-dimensional object, and gravity is just its shape. But what can be called the speed of a shape? What is the "speed of being a ball"?" But what stuff could assemble the *finite* APB segment (cf. Greg.jpg above), including its two endpoints [A, B], in the first place? If we use Archimedean topology and apply frames-per-second analogy (cf. the movie reel in Plato.jpg), what is the rate of assembling topological points to produce 'one meter' cast on a *perfectly smooth* manifold (cf. John M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds; reference from 18 Nov 2014 below)? For example, could this "number" of topological points/frames, assembling 'one meter', be in the range of one googolplex frames-per-second (FPS)? UNdecidable, due to the balloon "center" and the W-axis (cf. Greg.jpg). Check out Eq. 1 in 'Relative Scale Spacetime' and keep in mind that an *invariant* length interval, say, 1 meter or 1 sec, is not the "curved" APB segment in Greg.jpg above, but the perfectly "flat", *finite* (in terms of size and duration), and *closed* interval [A, B] which builds up the "projected" 4-D spacetime (local mode of spacetime): see my email to Florindo Pirone (9 Mar 2015) below. Also, why we reject the prior existence of spacetime? Because The Beginning was not some "inflation" of some pre-existing space endowed with pre-existing metric, say, at 10^-35 seconds "after" the "big bang", when the universe were about 1 cm across, and a causally connected region would have been only 10^-24 cm across (the horizon problem). If you say that the universe were endowed with pre-existing metric, fixing its size at about 1 cm across, you will need some "miracle" to produce such pre-existing metric from 'something that has no part' (Euclid), being positioned "before" it at The Beginning. Surely there is a *limit* that goes at The Beginning and STOPS there, but at this *limit* the physical universe is UNdecidable: see Thomson's lamp paradox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp To understand why physicists need a "miracle", recall the Pink Panther: http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Pink_Panther.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yqgyX9c_hM He sucked the entire spacetime (up to its asymptotic boundaries at Spi U Scri; see 10 Dec 2014 below) inside his vacuum cleaner, and then himself, and finally the vacuum cleaner sucked itself and disappeared into "nothingness". We don't accept such cartoon "miracles" -- see the first quote from Hyun Seok Yang above, and keep in mind that the "nothingness" (the Noumenon) exists both "prior" and "after" spacetime (John 1:1), as well as "between" the successive instants here-and-now (Luke 17:21), right inside the dark strips from the movie reel (cf. Plato.jpg). Thus, God is purely mathematical object: the union (not "set") of the incomprehensible (by our cognition) Noumenon & 'everything that can be comprehensible' in terms of 'reality'. The latter is presented as physical reality, cast in the irreversible past, and potential reality placed in the potential future, in line with the most general form of *relativistic* causality dubbed 'biocausality' (January 1990), http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Chakalov_Jan_1990.pdf I wrote in January 1990 that "the description of the bond "between" mind and matter and the description of the topology of spacetime are, in essence, one and the same problem." Twenty-five years later, I delivered the theory of quantum gravity in 'Relative Scale Spacetime' -- scroll down to the end of this file and read my note from January 16, 2015, 14:00 GMT. D. Chakalov March 9, 2015, 20:25 GMT ===================================================================== Subject: Re: Is God purely mathematical object ? Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:56:24 +0200 Message-ID: <CAM7Ekxnh4v7V66FUGE-uuzyi1U6fXWN-GdvK9uyJKSvVp1BDqA@mail.gmail.com> From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]> To: Florindo Pirone <[email protected]> Cc: Hyun Seok Yang <[email protected]>, Lars Bergström <[email protected]>, Ariel Goobar <[email protected]>, Gregory Moore <[email protected]>, Karel V Kuchar <[email protected]>, David Brown <[email protected]>, Charles Torre <[email protected]>, Robert M Wald <[email protected]>, Robert Geroch <[email protected]>, Chris Isham <[email protected]>, Greg Galloway <[email protected]>, Bernard J Carr <[email protected]>, Adam Helfer <[email protected]>, Laszlo Szabados <[email protected]>, Ettore Minguzzi <[email protected]>, Tim-Torben Paetz <[email protected]>, Roger