Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
Time was created, to God it does exist, for if it didnt neither would no time which you suggest God exists in, if God is not in time.
In the creation of of Here and there, That and this.. relativity was created ... the distance between the 2 is time
People perceive God is independant of all things, yet this disregards the space between One thing and another..
God is life and life is found even in death, God is the creator, the creation and that which we think God is not... the space between, which is not Nothing it is just a different form of something.
A look into the Observer participancy by Physicist John Wheeler provides a closer understanding of how this works.
Quantum physics explains that nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer, in other words the creator and the created are one, each creating the other
John Hagelin another Physicist is one of many scientists who proposes a theory of everything TOE this is that the idea that all of Life is a unified whole a whole system interconnected and interdependant and impossible to completel seperate into its individual parts even though it is perceived as seperate.
|
I should not have said that to God, time does not exist. What I really meant is God is not subjugated to time in the manner that we are.
I congratulate you on your research into QM and the many different theories being discussed out there today. All of it is extremely interesting.
I'm not completely sold on some theories such as observer participancy on a macro scale, because if observation leaves an imprint on the object, this should affect subsequent observations by others. I would expect this to be detectable and verifiable on the macro scale. Schrodinger's cat is a nice thought experiment, but it is based on the fact that we cannot know what things are doing when we are not looking at them. Newtonian physics on the other hand is based on the belief that we can know what things are doing even when we are not looking at them. On the quantum level, Newton seems to be wrong but QM is at best an extremely accurate estimation and not supported by valid acceptable mathematical procedures as its formula and equations are “normalized” to get rid of all those pesky infinities. Not that they are not onto something, it's just not very well understood.
In one sense, the observer participancy, if true on a macro scale would be a dart in science. Science is based on empirical evidence that can be duplicated and verified by more than one person or group.
The operative word here is EMPIRICAL.
If you were to look up the definition of empirical, it may bring back something similar to "that which is
observed or experienced; capable of being verified or disproved by
observation or experiment."
Here “observation” is the operative word.
On the other hand, I am a fan of Greek Pre-Socratic philosophy. They were mostly materialists, but eventually their arguments led Leucippus and Democritus to insist that there are two elements, atoms and the void. The atomists recognized that the best ontological explanation of the natural world would have to recognize that space is just as much a substance constituting the world as matter is. What they meant by the 'void' was something like a big three-dimensional container in which all the atoms had a location and could move. But modern science doesn't recognize that space is a substance in that sense. It's mainly just "the space between One thing and another.." in science.
The real questions I would ask are:
Does reality depend on our existence?
Does this observation participancy, if true, mean that God needs our existence?
Blessings