Hi Sam and all,
What I love about this forum is that everything gets questioned, and I find
myself repeatedly called upon to reconsider and clarify my position, often
with unexpected rewards.
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> > Marco, in energetic terms, "closed" means that their is no input our
> output of
> > energy. There is no reason the system can't go on expanding in space.
> >
>
What I left out of my previous post was a dictionary definition of Universe.
Here's what Webster's on-line says:
UNIVERSE
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni-
+ versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more at
WORTH
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as
a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct
intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the
entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars
comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed
system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or
problem
5 : a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks... to choose
from -- G. B. Clairmont>
SAM
> What I would like to find out is *why* it is considered that there is no
> input of energy; or, to be more precise, why such a possibility is
> precluded. My suspicion is that this is a basic axiom of the physical
> understanding of the cosmos (and completely reasonable in those terms) but
> not necessarily one that is possible to be argued for (what would count as
> evidence for it?). Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
The reason I gave the above dictionary definitions is that Sam is right: The
universe is complete (UNI) * BY DEFINITION *. i.e. it IS an axiom. As soon as
the universe starts to look incomplete, then what we are looking at is
something less than the whole universe.
I can go on repeating this till I am blue in the face, but the context of this
discussion (Religion/God) is interesting. There are two commonly held views of
"God".
1. God as a power working WITHIN the physical Universe (i.e. NATURAL).
2. God as a power working from outside the physical Universe (i.e.
supernatural).
Any rigorous scientific view goes best with the first definition. The second
raises all sorts of contradictions.
As I said at the start, there are often rewards that come out of these
discussions. My own reward came in looking at the terms natural and
supernatural and realising that the word NATURE is another word for QUALITY.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is an expression of the NATURE of the Universe.
All things and patterns behave according to nature.
We can use all these words interchangeably:
NATURE = QUALITY = GOOD = GOD = RTA = KARMA = TAO
It all seems to fit:
The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all things.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
