It must have a beginning, for if not, we would see chaos only. — Hillary

What does beginning have to do with chaos?

According to the second law of thermodynamics, if time had no beginning, the state of the universe would be thermal equilibrium. As we see an orderly world, past time is finite.

Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven.
— chiknsld

Why would that be? — Jackson

When I figure that one out, I shall let you know. :)

Probably the hardest question in the world.

past time is finite. — Hillary

Finite or infinite do not seem the same as saying there is no beginning.

When I figure that one out, I shall let you know. :)

Probably the hardest question in the world. — chiknsld

A very astute observation. Why would, should, or could gods be proven in a "scientifically rigorous" way? It's not hard to answer though...

A very astute observation. Why would, should, or could gods be proven in a "scientifically rigorous" way? — Hillary

Again, I said nothing about science.

Finite or infinite do not seem the same as saying there is no beginning. — Jackson

Doesn't finite say there is a beginning?

A very astute observation. Why would, should, or could gods be proven in a "scientifically rigorous" way? It's not hard to answer though... — Hillary

Thank you sir, but it is beyond the proof...the issue is that it may be that God is punishing us. :scream:

But then we would have to ask, do you see life as a gift or as a punishment? If punishment, what on earth did we do wrong?

Doesn't finite say there is a beginning? — Hillary

No.

I think the issue is that most atheists see life as a punishment, therefore unless we can discover what our crimes were, it is logically more feasible to say there is no punishment and there is no God that commanded the punishment, rather life is a random anomaly. Sure, it's an emotional point of view devoid of cold logic, but we are human beings and we do have emotions sometimes. :)

Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven — chiknsld

Yep that works too!

Why would that be? — Jackson

Because it's in the concept itself ;)

Well, on a cylinder the cylindrical length and circumference coordinate lines are locally perpendicular. If you approach the SoL in the length direction, the circle òn the perpendicular dimension doesn't Lorenz contract. — Hillary

And the mystery deepens. No cigar.

And the mystery deepens. No cigar. — jgill

The mystery deepens but the Planck length is made Lorenz invariant! :nerd:

Lorenz invariance of the Planck length

The mystery deepens but the Planck length is made Lorenz invariant! :nerd: — Hillary

My spine tingles at this revelation! I can carry out my experiments on Mars.

Still stumped at "perpendicular" eh? :cool:

On a cylinder, aren't the length direction and the circumference direction perpendicular? :cool:

My spine tingles at this revelation! I can carry out my experiments on Mars. — jgill

:lol:

If the particles are circles on a cylinder, how close can they approach. Whats the distance between two circles?

If the particles are circles on a cylinder, how close can they approach. Whats the distance between two circles? — Hillary

I'm getting dizzy going around in circles. What's the distance? An infinitesimal. Do you really think of particles as circles on cylinders? A reference would help.

I'm getting dizzy going around in circles. What's the distance? An infinitesimal. Do you really think of particles as circles on cylinders? A reference would help — jgill

The circles on cylinders are the 2D case to visualize. The 6D case contains perpendicular 3D closed planck spheres, like the 1D circle. If this is oerpendicular to 3D the particles look like points from afar. If they are on top of each other their distance is the Planck length, more or less. Closer they cant get!

If this is perpendicular to 3D . . . — Hillary

There you go again.

Yes. On a cylinder all angles between the circle and the length are 90 degrees. Perpendicular!

Perpendicularity doesnt mean straight lines. Its my impression you're very good in the complex plane but reak space confuses you... :chin:

Back in Euclidean 3-space I see. I want "perpendicular" to refer to an object in 5D relative to an object in 3D.

. I want "perpendicular" to refer to an object in 5D relative to an object in 3D. — jgill

You lost me... Why you want that?

Like the perpendicular circle can move in one perpendicular direction, so can the 3d closed perpendicular structure move in 3 perpendicular directions. Like a particle!

It depends on what God.

You lost me... Why you want that? — Hillary

(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

You need to brush up on what "perpendicular" might mean in higher dimensions, minus the hand waving. How can we understand the notion in our human context.

What if God is not a being, and is thought of as more being(in a sense of 'to be')-ness, is that provable?

Per se, God, the cohesive energy(not the God I believe in but...).

You need to brush up on what "perpendicular" might mean in higher dimensions — jgill

It means the same as a circle around a cylinder being perpendicular to the length of the cylinder. Every tangent on the circle is perpendicular to the length direction. What's so difficult to understand?

How can we understand the notion in our human context. — jgill

Take a long plastic pipe. Put a string around it. Move the string over the pipe. The structure is 2d but if the pipe is thin enough it looks like 1D. What more human context do you need. It's impoosible to understand how you put a 3d elastique around a 6d cylinder.

The mathematical description is not too difficult.

(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

Are "dimensions" perpendicular to one another? Is two dimension perpendicular to one dimension? What is a "large" dimension in this context?

The mathematical description is not too difficult. — Hillary

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3175854/finding-perpendicular-vector-to-an-arbitrary-n-dimensional-vector

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/733264/can-four-lines-be-perpendicular

Orthogonality is a generalization of perpendicularity. When one goes up in dimensions usually one speaks of manifolds, most frequently differentiable or Riemannian manifolds. Inner products arise in connection with orthogonality.