TED Conversations

Carlos Marquez

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How can God exist beyond space and time?


"You're everywhere and no where, baby
That's where you're at"
Hi Ho Silver Lining


Closing Statement from Carlos Marquez



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 28 2013: It seems to me you're trying to explain something in terms that do not apply. "Existing yet not existing" is a self-contradictory statement. Something either exists or it doesn't. But our models may be insufficient to describe it.

    So, what we can't describe comes under another model we call God. There are many interpretations of what God is and we bring much to the table in describing attributes, but the one thing upon which I think we agree is that God is Spirit.

    There is no accounting for Spirit in the Standard Model. But the way in which it operates might be explained by entanglement. My layman's understanding is that particles having once been in contact may act as if they are still in contact even when separated by great distances. The influence of one to the other is not limited by the speed of light.

    If all particles were one at the BB, then they may all still be in contact today, influencing one another in ways that are not predictable because our model is insufficient. Spirit. "Supernatural" simply means outside our understanding. So, we apply a different model. We don't know as much about this one yet as we do our more familiar ones, but if it accurately describes the phenomena, why not investigate further. Even if it means rewriting the familiar.

    B.F. Skinner and Timothy Leary both did research at Harvard in the 50's on behavior modification. Skinner's ideas were accepted and Leary's rejected because Skinner used traditional methods and Leary's were non-traditional. But 60 years later, Leary's methodology (not the method of LSD, but the method of evaluating conditions and responses) is widely accepted. It's not Aristotelian, but it does describe phenomena usefully. It augments Skinner in ways his traditional methods could not predict.

    A variety of models might be necessary to describe what a single model cannot. We can know velocity or position, not both. That might be because we're using just one model.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Why not call what we can,t describe stuff we can not describe.

      Why personify it, or use the loaded word god that has billions of different interpretations.

      Other word god is almost useless for discussion.

      Ask people on ted to describe god and you get so many different interpretations becasuse there is nothing we can point to as evidence of their existence let alone their nature and desires.

      Ask people to define or explain spirit, whats it is and how it works and you are in the same mess becasuse its usually a mix of real stuff and magic with no evidence so people can speculate whatever.
      • Jul 28 2013: " its usually a mix of real stuff and magic with no evidence so people can speculate whatever."

        That's right. I'm just naming the model in a common way. Not trying to give it any particular attributes beyond those necessary to describe the phenomenon. There are endless interpretations, but the only ones that matter in physics are those observed to be physical in nature. Hence the "God" particle. It names the boson in a way that describes a heretofore predicted but unobserved physical phenomenon with characteristics that explain qualities we could only comprehend by using the term "God". Using that term does not seem to have interfered either with our quest to understand it or unduly influenced our conclusions about it based on observed behavior.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Kirk,
      I am trying to make sense of how can anything- let alone anyone- is right now beyond space and time. It may be either unknowable or impossible yet many of our friends do state it as a matter of fact. And that to me is where the crux lies.
      I do not agree that God is spirit for we have not defined neither.Just stating their existence like stating a realm beyond reality as a matter of fact does not make it true.

      Entanglement (IMO) does not explain spirits, nor I can find it in a Feynman diagram or as you say in the Standard model.

      Is a metaphysical question that some claim is real as apple pie, How do someone arrives to that conclusion?

      • Jul 28 2013: Carlos,

        We can't discount the possibility of things outside our space and time because our comprehension is limited. If at one time, the entire universe were contained in a single elementary particle, in what space did that particle exist? The question is framed this way because that's how we understand things. We cannot conceive (at least I can't) of all the universe reduced infinitesimally to a singularity without picturing it inside a space. I think we must adapt our thinking to the model insofar as it is reliable. But so far it has yet to explain how we must adapt to meet the requirements it places on us. Until we know how to adapt to this concept, that next step will be elusive.

        I'm not looking for entanglement to justify the existence of spirits, simply offering that this concept explains phenomena otherwise attributed to them. See my reply to Obey about the "God" particle.

        Accepting something as beyond space and time is useful for explaining our current results and providing new directions to explore even if it they are beyond our comprehension. Only by getting results from these postulates will we have comprehension.

        It seems you would like to be at this point. Can't say I blame you. But for me, different models explain different things. What works in one may not work in another. There's one choice when you work in physics and another when you work in social services. What makes the world go 'round? Money or Newton? The answer depends on how the question is asked. And if you don't know enough to ask the right question, you can expect a confusing answer.

        Please don't take that last statement as critical of you, Carlos. I think you have great questions. I've had them, too.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.