Is the existence of God nothing more than a myth?

[Walter]

Ok Stevil, now for infinity.

'To infinity… and beyond!" Buzz Lightyear.

The in joke here is that infinity can’t be reached and so you can’t go beyond it. If it were a defined number with a specific value, then it could be reached and gone beyond by simply adding the number 1 to it. The reverse would also be true. You could subtract 1 from and get infinity minus 1.

But those options are impossible. As are the examples you gave. Specifically, 11 grams or a billion tonnes. You can take these away from infinity or add them to infinity and still have infinity. Because you are adding or subtracting a defined quantity from an undefined quantity.

I’m sorry to say that I can be of no comfort to you Stevil on the concept of infinity. I can only report and explain the little I know about it. But when I asked Google AI about Hilbert’s Hotel, this came up.

AI Overview

Hilbert’s Hotel (or the Grand Hotel) is a famous mathematical thought experiment demonstrating the counterintuitive properties of infinity. Conceived by German mathematician David Hilbert, it imagines a fully occupied hotel with an infinite number of rooms, proving that it can still accommodate new guests without anyone ever checking out.

The mind-bending mechanics rely on the fact that infinity is endless, meaning no matter how full the hotel is, there will always be a bigger number. The rules of accommodation at the hotel are as follows:

• A single new guest: The manager simply asks the guest in Room 1 to move to Room 2, the guest in Room 2 to move to Room 3, and so on. Since every guest (n) moves to room n+1, Room 1 becomes instantly free for the newcomer. Mathematically, this means ∞ + 1 = ∞.

• An infinite bus of guests: The manager instructs each existing guest to move to a room with double their current number (the guest in Room 1 moves to Room 2, Room 2 moves to Room 4, etc.). This empties all the odd-numbered rooms, leaving an infinite number of vacancies for the new busload.

• An infinite number of infinite buses: To handle an infinite number of buses arriving simultaneously, the manager uses prime numbers. Each current guest is moved to room (2^{n}) (where n is their original room number). Guests from the first bus are moved to (3^{n}), the second bus to (5^{n}), the third to (7^{n}), and so on. This neatly accommodates everyone without overlap.

For a deeper dive into the math behind this paradox, check out the Wikipedia: Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel page or explore the Plus Maths Hilbert’s Hotel Explanation. [1, 2]

I suppose the take home message here Stevil is that once again we are in that grey zone of theorisation without real world testing. Conceptually and mathematically infinity works just fine. But are there infinities in nature? Perhaps we will never know.

Thanks,

Walter.

[Stevil]

@Walter

It’s my understanding that time only appears to appears to come to a stop at the EH to any observer outside of it.

Yes, I understand this. It leads me to consider that there hasn’t been enough time in the entire universe for an outside observer on Earth to see a single particle that was once on the outside of the EH to now be on the inside of the EH. From Earth’s perspective, which is us, and yet we see lots of black holes! I have an uneducated guess as to what would otherwise be happening, but I can’t prove or disprove it, because I don’t know how to do that. But essentially I think all the matter and energy is on the outside, very very close to the EH but not inside it, and eventually all the matter/energy evaporates away, and for an infalling object, it sees that by the time it gets to the Event Horizon, the black hole no longer exists which happens very quickly from its own perspective, but takes billions of years from Earth’s perspective. Anyway, a crack pot idea from a guy using logic and intuition who really doesn’t know the science. Maybe I’m just all wrong there.

@Walter

So if Bob is falling into a black hole and Alice is some way off watching him, then as he approaches the EH he appears to Alice to be moving more and more slowly. If they are both in spacesuits then his radio messages to her become more and more red-shifted, as does his image.

Yeah, I understand that light gets so red-shifted that he will disappear from view before he hits the EH but he will still be there, outside the EH for the entire lifetime of Alice, for all her offspring, for the entire lifetime of the Earth and the Sun and for billions upon billions of years after that. Unless I’m missing something here.

@Walter

Eventually Alice sees the image of Bob come to a complete standstill, right on the edge of the EH. As far as she is concerning he has become frozen in time.

Yeah, like 1 microsecond will be 1 billion years of Alice’s time. One thing I’m wondering about here, does plank’s length come into the equation here? Like we can’t just keep making the distance closer and closer to the EH forever, as far as I understand it we can’t go smaller than a plank length?

@Walter

But for Bob time passes as normal as he passes through the EH and approaches the singularity.

Yeah, I mean, if we imagine he stays intact and just watches his own descent towards the EH, if he happened to look outwards and if we imagined you could get a clear view of the universe from his perspective, he would probably see galaxies born and die in an instant.

@Walter

Unfortunately tidal forces stretch him out in a process called ‘spaghettifcation’ killing him in a horribly painful way. Only when his remains reach the singularity itself does time come to and end for him. As explained earlier, the infinite curvature of space-time of the singularity equals the end of space and the end of time.

If the infinite curvature of space-time occurs as he approaches the Event Horizon then would that mean that space-time doesn’t exist beyond that point? I know if we are thinking Euclidian space it would seem I am saying the Black hole is an empty sphere, with a hollow centre. But I’m actually trying to say, that maybe there is no inside, it’s not hollow, it’s not nothing, it is a place that doesn’t exist, so it’s not a place. Just like that there is no place that exists outside the universe?

@Walter

The key to understanding Bob and Alice’s different experiences is to remember that GR is relative and not absolute. There is no absolute frame of reference for time that applies to both of them equally. Their experience of time is relative to each other and not absolutely determined by any frame of reference that applies equally tot both of them.

Yes I understand the idea of this concept.

@Walter

Does that all make sense? I hope so.

More to follow later.

Thanks,

Walter.

Thanks for taking the time to post that. Sorry you may find my crack pot ideas off putting. I’m listening to what you are saying, but I have formed so uneducated ideas well before this conversation. I think I’m understanding some of the science concepts but maybe not all.

[Stevil]

@Get_off_my_lawn

No, that is a misconception. The singularity at the event horizon is due to the coordinate system used. Change to another coordinate system and the singularity disappears. I am on vacation now and write on a small tablet, so doing links etc is a total pain. Do a search for e.g. black hole event horizon coordinate system (just guessing, because doing more than one thing at the time on this tablet is painful) or similar, and you will find sources. As an observer progresses in towards the centre of the BH, several other horizons will be found. In a non rotating BH (which is not very likely), gr gives you a point singularity, but once you introduce rotation, it will expand to a disk-like singularity. And here, where density is infinite, is probably where gr solutions break down.

OK, I’m going to look this up. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I would like to understand this stuff better.

[Stevil]

@Get_off_my_lawn

Yes, it is absurd, because you confuse mass with mass density. If you remove 1 g form the point density, it will be 10 g, but it is still confined in a zero volume space, so mass density is still infinite. If you remove the last 10 g, there is no more mass there, so the singularity will cease to be.

There is more I could comment, but not from a tablet.

Yeah, but infinite density is absurd, you cannot un-dense infinite density, it will always remain infinitely dense won’t it?
I think things tend towards infinite density as you approach the EH, but never gets there. I think infinites show that the mathematical model is no longer working nor reliable at that point. But of course, what do I know?

[Walter]

@Stevil

Is a singularity of infinite density considered to be NOTHING?

A very good question, Stevil. Let’s look at the opposite of nothing to give us a start.

By definition ‘something’ must have physical dimensions (height, length, width and a volume) that occupy space. This ‘something’ must also exist in time, having a past a present and a future. So this is how we can tackle the problem. By asking ourselves if a singularity has any of these features associated with space or time.

The answer is No. A singularity has no physical dimensions whatsoever. No height, length, width or volume. Nor does it have a past, a present or a future. Because GR requires space and time to be fused into space-time, the absence of any spatial dimension means the absence of any temporal dimension. In Gr you can’t have one without the other.

But as Goml has just pointed out, choosing the coordinate system by which you calculate these things is another factor. Also, you have already pointed out that in extreme scenarios GR itself breaks down and cannot be relied upon to give sensible results.

So what I’ve described above make sense in the GR coordinate system but that system itself cannot be relied upon in the extreme scenario of infinite space-time curvature theorised to exist in singularities.

Hawking and Penrose themselves are on record as saying as much. They qualify their singularity theorem by declaring up front that it uses only GR and doesn’t factor in any quantum effects at all. Hawking also says in his A Brief History of Time that quantum effects cause a GR-based singularity to disappear.

So the singularities that are theorised to exist in black hole singularities and at the initial singularity at the beginning of the universe may well be a result of faults and flaws in our mathematical approach to describing these things. But the jury is still out on the matter.

Thanks,

Walter.

[Stevil]

@Walter

For a deeper dive into the math behind this paradox, check out the Wikipedia: Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel page or explore the Plus Maths Hilbert’s Hotel Explanation. [1, 2]

I suppose the take home message here Stevil is that once again we are in that grey zone of theorisation without real world testing. Conceptually and mathematically infinity works just fine. But are there infinities in nature? Perhaps we will never know.

Thanks,

Walter.

Thanks Walter, I would never have known to even look up Hilbert’s paradox.
I think intuitively, things like infinites don’t seem like they can be real, just as time travel into the past in order to change the future events also seems like it can’t be real.
So to me, the problem of infinites and the problem of time slowing down so much that Earth can’t have experienced viewing anything crossing any EH, means to me that there just can’t be anything inside the EH. But of course, I don’t think that is the common scientific view. The problem is probably my lack of understanding. LOL.

[Walter]

Quantum mechanics could be the answer Stevil.

Just as Newtonian gravity works perfectly well for moderate gravitational fields, when gravity ramps up and becomes super intense the Newtonian math fails. It’s possible that the same thing happens with GR. It works fine in macro-scale scenarios but in quantum-scale scenarios the quantum forces overwhelm it.

Which would mean that black hole singularities and the initial singularity could be better described by quantum mathematics. Leaving GR out of the picture at these sub-atomic scales neatly removes the infinities given by GR-based math.

Which can be no bad thing.

[Stevil]

@Walter

A very good question, Stevil. Let’s look at the opposite of nothing to give us a start.

By definition ‘something’ must have physical dimensions (height, length, width and a volume) that occupy space. This ‘something’ must also exist in time, having a past a present and a future. So this is how we can tackle the problem. By asking ourselves if a singularity has any of these features associated with space or time.

The answer is No. A singularity has no physical dimensions whatsoever. No height, length, width or volume.

But if a singularity is deemed to be Nothing, then isn’t Nothing everywhere? Like, wouldn’t that mean that singularities are everywhere, not just inside black holes?

Myself, I kinda think of things that are lacking real world attributes, like size, weight, colour, volume etc, to be abstract conceptual ideas, rather than existent things. like a square, a circle, a number, a god, a singularity. Just abstract conceptual ideas. Things that “exist” outside of space and time, because they are conceptual rather than real. Conceptual ideas are omnipresent, indestructible, all powerful, made of nothing, outside of space and time.

[Stevil]

@Get_off_my_lawn

Do a search for e.g. black hole event horizon coordinate system (just guessing, because doing more than one thing at the time on this tablet is painful) or similar, and you will find sources.

OMG, I feel so very dumb trying to read this page

Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates

I wonder if there is a book called Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates For Dummies

This in particular is really interesting
“Similarly, objects falling into a black hole remain outside the event horizon in Schwarzschild coordinates, but cross it in Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates.”

[Walter]

As far as I understand it Stevil, the idea that Nothing is everywhere is countered by what is known as the Arrow of Time in physics.

Google AI to the rescue again.
.
.
.
AI Overview

*The “arrow of time” is a concept positing that time has an irreversible, one-way direction flowing from the past, through the present, and into the future. Coined by British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington, it attempts to explain why macroscopic physical events can only happen in one direction (e.g., a dropped cup shattering, but never reassembling). *

*Several interconnected phenomena explain this one-way flow across physics and philosophy: *

1. The Thermodynamic Arrow (Entropy)

*The primary driver of time’s direction is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which dictates that the entropy (disorder or randomness) of an isolated system always increases over time. A physical system naturally degrades from a highly ordered state into a disordered one. *

2. The Cosmological Arrow

*Why did the universe begin in a state of high order (low entropy)? Cosmologists tie the arrow of time to the expansion of the universe. The universe originated in a uniquely dense, highly ordered state (the Big Bang) and is continuously expanding and moving toward a less-ordered state, defining a clear temporal direction. *

3. The Psychological Arrow

Our conscious experience dictates that we can remember the past but not the future. Philosophers and physicists attribute this to the thermodynamic arrow of time; our brains operate as physical systems that process and store information, meaning we can only record memories as entropy increases.

The Time-Reversibility Paradox

Interestingly, at the microscopic level—such as in quantum mechanics or classical equations of motion—fundamental physical laws do not distinguish between the past and the future. The equations work exactly the same if time runs backward. The arrow of time only emerges when you look at the macro-world, driven by increasing entropy and specific initial conditions of the universe.
.
.
.
So, if these concepts hold good, time moves forward, from the past through the present and into the future at all locations within the universe EXCEPT where space and time cease to exist, i.e. at a black hole singularity or at the initial singularity. But only if GR holds good. If quantum mechanics takes over from GR at extremely small scales then all bets are off.

But in macroscopic terms this explains why there isn’t Nothing at all locations in the universe. Time and space constitute ‘something’ and not Nothing.

Clear as mud? I hope not.

Walter.

[Walter]

Myself, I kinda think of things that are lacking real world attributes, like size, weight, colour, volume etc, to be abstract conceptual ideas, rather than existent things. like a square, a circle, a number, a god, a singularity. Just abstract conceptual ideas. Things that “exist” outside of space and time, because they are conceptual rather than real. Conceptual ideas are omnipresent, indestructible, all powerful, made of nothing, outside of space and time.

This loops back to the ground we covered looking at Smr’s arguments.

I pointed out that philosophical arguments can run the risk of becoming detached from reality. Their internal logic might be fine but if their premises are untestable then how can we know if they properly describe something ‘real’?

Which chimes with your point about abstract conceptual ideas. They can be detached from our reality of size, weight, colour, volume and time and so say nothing meaningful about physical reality. I’d even go so far as to say Smr’s definition of Allah is exactly this.

God (Allah) is a necessary, eternal, and self-sufficient being who is beyond matter, time, space, and any partner or equal. By definition, God is completely independent and in need of nothing, while everything else ultimately depends on Him for its existence.

By removing Allah from our reality he becomes nothing more than an abstract conceptual idea. And yet for many people these conceptual ‘gods’ are the true reality and the life they live here and now is not. Such is human folly.

[Stevil]

@Walter

By removing Allah from our reality he becomes nothing more than an abstract conceptual idea. And yet for many people these conceptual ‘gods’ are the true reality and the life they live here and now is not. Such is human folly.

What I find fascinating is that some people try to pick holes in the science, they scrutinise it, kick it’s tyres, lift up every mat, touch every surface, looking for inconsistencies or holes or simply something that doesn’t make sense to them.

I don’t have a problem with this behaviour, I do this myself.

But then when it comes to their own god, they don’t do any of this search or assessment.
With regards to the Cosmological Argument, they find a gap and insert God into it. Oh, we don’t know where the universe came from, well, ok, God did it then. Because how could something so vast and complex come from nothing?

But then when an atheist brings up “This God you speak of, this seems vast and complex, where did that come from? how did it become complex? how did it become knowledgeable before anything existed?”
Some tumble weeds blow by, awkward silence, the person blinks a few times, a bit more awkward silence. Then, well God is a necessary being, one whose existence is intrinsic to its own nature and is not dependent on anything outside itself.

Sounds intelligent, sounds like a well thought out answer. But really is a non answer with no substance, showing no interest in being inquisitive, in assessing the attributes of god and how they came to be. Just asserts, God did it, God is great and amazing.

Well Hallelujah! Blessed be the fruit!

[Walter]

But what else would you expect from human beings Stevil, when the system of thought in question (religion) has no requirement to be objective or to think objectively?

Unlike another system of thought (science) where its practitioners are required to strive for maximum objectivity.

The difference speaks for itself?

[Sheldon]

@Walter

(religion) has no requirement to be objective or to think objectively?

Unlike another system of thought (science) where its practitioners are required to strive for maximum objectivity.

The difference speaks for itself?

You’d like to think so, but it’s astonishing how many apologists don’t see it, even when it’s carefully explained.

[Sheldon]

@Stevil

With regards to the Cosmological Argument, they find a gap and insert God into it. Oh, we don’t know where the universe came from, well, ok, God did it then. Because how could something so vast and complex come from nothing?

Unlike the vastly more complex creator they imagine, which requires no creator, special pleading anyone? The real irony is they claim the origin of the universe must be explained, yet fail to notice that the claim a deity did it has no explanatory powers, it’s an appeal to mystery / magic.

@Stevil

Then, well God is a necessary being, one whose existence is intrinsic to its own nature and is not dependent on anything outside itself.

Then they fail to notice that their definition is as much in need of supporting evidence as the claim a deity exists.

[mordant]

@Sheldon

@Walter

(religion) has no requirement to be objective or to think objectively?

Unlike another system of thought (science) where its practitioners are required to strive for maximum objectivity.

The difference speaks for itself?

You’d like to think so, but it’s astonishing how many apologists don’t see it, even when it’s carefully explained.

It is no accident that the Bible (and, I’m sure, in its own way, the Quran) goes to great lengths to say at every possible opportunity that religious faith is a virtue, that being “child like” is a good thing, and then in various ways to denigrate “mere human wisdom” as a vice, a thing you must never rely upon, as deceptive and misleading and a great danger to faith as it produces the cardinal sin of doubt.

The way I experienced it back in the day was as a self-evident foundational assumption. I had been taught to disregard any references to science or research, and to see the “answers” in the holy book, so I would mentally hand-wave away scientific observations as clearly wrong to whatever extent they contradicted the dogma. I would literally put it in some arm’s length separate category.

It took me the better part of a decade to fully overcome the reflexive distrust and incredulity around science, particularly where it grapples with large scale observations in terms of distance or time. This, despite the fact that I make my living as a software developer, and literally nothing I do can happen without the same science I had been distrustful of.

[Sheldon]

@mordant

the cardinal sin of doubt.

Doubt is at the very centre of the definition of an open mind.

It is not, as many apologists assert, a suggestible state where one absorbs a particular religious doctrine, uncritically.

[Stevil]

@mordant

This, despite the fact that I make my living as a software developer, and literally nothing I do can happen without the same science I had been distrustful of.

That’s also something I struggle to get my head around.

Especially scientists and software testers whom make a living being sceptical and pushing and testing things to the n’th degree to ensure it does what is claimed.
The guys that have these jobs and are still religious themselves. Like what rigour, what testing have you done regarding these beliefs that you live your life by? You think it applies at work, but not at all to your life?

[mordant]

@Stevil

You think it applies at work, but not at all to your life?

Ah yes – the magic of compartmentalization.

[mordant]

@Sheldon

(Doubt) is not, as many apologists assert, a suggestible state where one absorbs a particular religious doctrine, uncritically.

I was taught that doubt is being critical of dogma or holy writ. It did have a secondary meaning of being enticed away by some competing dogma, as you suggest, but for some reason we were less concerned with / threatened by other religions than by areligion in general and science in particular. Probably because that strikes right at the core of religious faith itself.

We did have some concern with what we called “error” which would be taking the “wrong” position on something still within the scope of Christianity, like Biblical inerrancy or splitting hairs differently about free will vs grace. We considered that sort of thing “divisive” but we were less concerned that Christians would fight over these things than entertaining the possibility that our dogma could even be wrong. In other words the divisiveness was in having our pet dogmas questioned in the first place.