Where did God come from?

God = i

Just one bit of information and one bit of entropy. Can’t get less complex than one bit.

1 Like

Universe at beginning of time had lowest entrophy, entrophy has been expanding ever since. Can’t get much simpler than that.

What do you mean it had the lowest entropy? What do you need to have entropy? Are the laws of physics required? Is mattered required?

3 Likes

The universe had lowest entropy at the beginning of time. Entropy is the log of the number of possible states that universe can be in at time t. At t=0, S=logW was the lowest it has ever been. The laws of physics aren’t required but are observation on how the universe works. No matter isn’t required but came about a few femtoseconds after the beginning of everything (the universe). It is quite a simple story.

We can arbitrarily reduce anything to a simple story if the story is a partial explanation. This is what you are forced to do to make your story simple.

The existence of a low entropy state at t=0 requires and explanation. What you are saying is that all the information in the universe was highly organized. Who did that :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think we have gone down this path before…

2 Likes

I don’t know. Maybe no one. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Despite my dislike of any cosmological argument for god(s), this paragraph is wrong in so many ways.

It is not. Entropy is the log of number of microstates if each microstates are equally probable. Further, here you already assume a time-slicing (i.e. a frame of reference). There is no guarantee that this can be done, or that there is no entropy associated with the time direction.

What t=0? There is no guarantee that the time axis survives up to arbitrarily high energies. Further, even if it did, there is no guarantee that there is a t=0 (i.e. a time-boundary of the Universe); this was one of Hawking’s claim to fame. This is also deep in the quantum regime, so S=logW should instead be S= -\rm{tr}[\rho \; \rm{ln} \; \rho], with \rho the quantum density matrix.

This misses the point. The point of @colewd is that there is no reason the Universe should work a certain way.
This is a metaphysical claim, and cannot really be answered by physics. In my opinion, this is perhaps the only interesting point in a cosmological argument.

I don’t know where you get this femtosecond figure from - every estimate for the epoch of matter production is extremely uncertain and poorly constrained. Nevertheless, the mechanism of matter production is very poorly known, so this statement actually misrepresents that we actually know this “simple story”.

I hope, given that after your first sentence, every single sentence you made is either wrong or scientifically unjustified, you will be convinced that this is far from a “simple story”.

6 Likes

Ok thank you. It is great to have freshly minted Physics PhDs here to set me straight . I will revise my simple understanding of the Big Bang accordingly. Thanks.

2 Likes

Note that I also do not like cosmological arguments for god(s). However, please understand that the myth that “we have essentially understand the cosmology of our Universe, and all that is left to do is to fill in the details” adversely affect funding for cosmological sciences.

I am not a cosmologist, but many of my friends are, so I take this issue personally.

4 Likes

Try substituting Zeus or Marduk in that question and see what you think.

1 Like

Can you quote the article here so I don’t have to do any research on my own? I deplore having to look things up or think for myself.

1 Like

As an amateur cosmologist, I have been following the advances in cosmological sciences since 1978. My first day at Bells Labs was the day they announced the Nobel Prize in Physics to Penzias and Wilson. When I read their paper as a newly minted electrical engineer, I was convinced that I could have gotten rid of that noise with just a capacitor shunting the noise to ground. :rofl: I remember Alan Guth inflation paper in 1980. In the intervening decades, I have studied the ever advancing results as best I could. I read every paper published by Planck. To me in the 40 years I have been doing this I can say “we do essentially understand the cosmology of our universe, and there is so more amazing details to find out.”

Was that a reply to something other than my comment? If not, I don’t understand it.

This statement does not cheapen past achievements while still allowing for excitement in the future. I like it. However, I would still argue that the story is anything but simple.

Yes, statements like “he exists and his name is Marduk” are complicated…
However the statement “he exists” is not the same.

Nice story by the way…

1 Like

I am unable to interpret these exceedingly cryptic statements. If they are statements.

Nothing cryptic about it… the claim God exists is different from the claim that God exists and his name is Marduk.
The former is a much simpler claim than the latter…

Don’t be disingenuous. “God” in context means YHWH and nothing else. Marduk and Zeus are different entities. And they’re entities that I presume you would agree are fictional.

I am not being disingenuous.
I am a person who moved from being an athiest to a theist based on the conviction that a designer/creator exists. I didn’t even know the name YHWH when I first came to the conclusion that God exists.
There are several examples of people that conclude just from observing nature that God exists. Antony flew is a good example. Such a conclusion does not lead to the conclusion that God is YHWH… or Marduk.

It’s just a conclusion that God exists and some inferences about his nature from the same.

1 Like