The Kolob Theorem

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Has anyone else read this?

Yup.

If so, what were your impressions?

[...]

It was definitely interesting (and different). I did learn a few things, which is always a bonus.

I don't know that I'd be particularly comfortable relegating the G-d of the Universe to just a single galaxy.

All-in-all, I donâ??t regret reading it, but itâ??s not exactly something I would recommend to someone.

[USU78]

A black hole cannot be a star, eh?

A star named "Unka Dale" reaches that critical stage in its long life that it begins the collapse upon itself. Can it still be called Unka Dale? Has it so changed its nature that it cannot be said to be the same beastie that it used to be before the collapse? Is it the same beastie both within and without its event horizon?

Sez who?

[Olavarria]

I for one like like idea that the astronomy in BoA follows an ancient geocentric model. So, Im not a kolob theorum fan.

[The Nehor]

A black hole cannot be a star, eh?

A star named "Unka Dale" reaches that critical stage in its long life that it begins the collapse upon itself. Can it still be called Unka Dale? Has it so changed its nature that it cannot be said to be the same beastie that it used to be before the collapse? Is it the same beastie both within and without its event horizon?

Sez who?

I do.

By this logic I can call you a child, an adolescent, a toddler, a baby, a senile old man, a fetus or a corpse or a glint in the milkman's eye.

[Connolly]

- ...that our sun and earth are now located in the outer or telestial ring of the Milky Way galaxy. (Now that one makes sense.)

What I want to know is how any educated rational person can put the slightest credence in this fantastical, anti-science nonsense.

How can anyone who adheres to this fantasy, or even considers this kind of thinking as reflective of Mormon doctrine in any way, claim that Mormonism and science are not diametrically opposed?

It might make sense if our sun and Earth were located in the outer ring of the Milky Way Galaxy, except that is not the case. Our Sun is aporoximately 20,000 light years from the center of our Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy has a radius of about 60,000 light years. 20,000 / 60,000 is 1/3. We are in (barely) the inner third of our galaxy. There is some uncertainty about the edge of the Milky Way so the ratio could be argued to be larger than 1/3, but even if we take the larger estimates of our distance from Sag. A. and the smaller galactic size estimates, we are still well inside the inner half of the galaxy.

There is also quite a bit of significance to our location in the Galaxy at about 1/3 of the way out. This is the region of the galaxy that is known as the galactic habitable zone. It is far enough out from the core of the galaxy that solar systems in the zone are not constantly bathed in radiation that would be lethal to life. But it is also close enough in to the regions of large scale star formation that the heavy elements exist, elements that are essential to life. Stars on the galactic fringes are devoid of the heavier elements necessary for planetary formation and life. The issue of heavy element content within our sun and solar system can be countered by arguing that the sun was moved to this location, however that still doesn't address the criticism of the Kolob theorem that our galactic location simply does not jive with the theorem.

[mfbukowski]

hagoth7,

RE: "The Kolob Theorem: A Mormon's View of God's Starry Universe",

If you feel blown away after five pages, wait till you get to the passages where:

- We learn that God resides at the center of the galaxy. (In point of fact, there is a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy from which no light or matter can escape. So, if God needs light or matter to get his work done, he is apparently out of luck.)

- We learn that thoughts travel faster than light (Oh, really?)

- We are assured that, "The terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are located in successive concentric, doughnut-shaped rings, round about the celestial kingdom or central hub of the galaxy; that our sun and earth are now located in the outer or telestial ring of the Milky Way galaxy. (Now that one makes sense.)

What I want to know is how any educated rational person can put the slightest credence in this fantastical, anti-science nonsense.

How can anyone who adheres to this fantasy, or even considers this kind of thinking as reflective of Mormon doctrine in any way, claim that Mormonism and science are not diametrically opposed?

For the first time in known history I think I actually agree with most of what you say. I will not specify what I disagree about because that will derail the thread, but it has to do with the speed of light.

Incidentally, I know he is a rogue, but what do you think of Rupert Sheldrake? I would be interested in what you think about his evidence for knowing about when people are looking at you. I am in a hurry, or I would supply a link, but the subject is extremely "googleable". Maybe another thread would be appropriate.

There are many many things that science cannot in principle prove, but this guy has put himself into a scientific framework to argue theology. Not a great position to put yourself into. He appears to make the same mistake that scientists do when they think they can disprove religion. As I have said however, I have not read the book so I am going on total hearsay.

[volgadon]

I for one like like idea that the astronomy in BoA follows an ancient geocentric model. So, Im not a kolob theorum fan.

That, IMHO, is the strongest strike against the theory.

The author tries to use the hypocephalus as one would a modern star chart, without considering that it is geocentric and symbolic. We don't even know if it is an accurate copy of Abraham's chart or if Abraham used modern astronomical techniques.

[USU78]

I do.

By this logic I can call you a child, an adolescent, a toddler, a baby, a senile old man, a fetus or a corpse or a glint in the milkman's eye.

Yet I remain myself, whether I'm swimming with a million or so competitors or . . . what was I saying? Dang! Keep forgetting.

USU "The very model of . . . something or other" 78

[semisonic]

Yet I remain myself, whether I'm swimming with a million or so competitors or . . . what was I saying? Dang! Keep forgetting.

USU "The very model of . . . something or other" 78

I just wanted to point out that the black hole in the center of the galaxy is a "theory"...not that the Kolob Theorem is accurate but that the black hole theory is in fact ...that.

[Olavarria]

That, IMHO, is the strongest strike against the theory.

The author tries to use the hypocephalus as one would a modern star chart, without considering that it is geocentric and symbolic. We don't even know if it is an accurate copy of Abraham's chart or if Abraham used modern astronomical techniques.

That and the hypocephalus was NOT made or used by Abraham. It is too young.

[Connolly]

I just wanted to point out that the black hole in the center of the galaxy is a "theory"...not that the Kolob Theorem is accurate but that the black hole theory is in fact ...that.

The object there has a mass equal to 4.31 million times the mass of our sun. At that mass, it cannot be anything else except a black hole. We can measure the angular velocity of the stars and the disk of matter that orbits it. We know what it is.

In every other galaxy where we can look at its center, we find a black hole.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I read it, thought it was some what interesting, too many assumptions though. After all it is just a "therom" it's not like LDS try to make it a "fact" like some other people do with other such theories.

[Jason]

The object there has a mass equal to 4.31 million times the mass of our sun. At that mass, it cannot be anything else except a black hole. We can measure the angular velocity of the stars and the disk of matter that orbits it. We know what it is.

In every other galaxy where we can look at its center, we find a black hole.

When it comes to black holes it's the density that is important, not the total mass.

And we don't know it's a black hole - it would be more accurate to say that the evidence we have matches what we think a black hole would be like.

[The Nehor]

The object there has a mass equal to 4.31 million times the mass of our sun. At that mass, it cannot be anything else except a black hole.

Must resist temptation to make 'yo mama' joke.

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, I find it one that really doesn't have any underpinnings other than some kind of hunch. Perhaps you might share what you mean by "multiple universes"?

Well first of all we have this approach which deals with parallel universes and dimensions

Then we have the work of Andrei Linde of Stanford concerning inflation and how universes get created.

Thus, inflation was a part of the big bang theory. Gradually, however, the big bang theory became a part of inflationary cosmology. Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being a single, expanding ball of fire described by the big bang theory, the universe looks like a huge growing fractal. It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more new balls, ad infinitum. Therefore the evolution of the universe has no end and may have no beginning. After inflation the universe becomes divided into different exponentially large domains inside which properties of elementary particles and even dimension of space-time may be different. Thus the universe looks like a multiverse consisting of many universes with different laws of low-energy physics operating in each of them.

I think there are some interesting theological implications here for the notion that God as we know him is the God of this universe, and yet leaving an open possibility that there could be other universes. Of course, none of this is really provable yet. But I am not making this stuff up! I think studying science can be more interesting theologically than reading theology sometimes!

[Connolly]

When it comes to black holes it's the density that is important, not the total mass.

And we don't know it's a black hole - it would be more accurate to say that the evidence we have matches what we think a black hole would be like.

Sag. A's observable size is 37 micro arc seconds, making it somewhat smaller than the size of the orbit of Mercury. If there is that much non-black hole matter an area that size it will inevitably shrink to a black hole in a short time, the density is right for it to be a black hole. So if by chance by some feat of cosmic engineering capable of defying the laws of physics it wasn't a black hole when the radio waves we observe from it today left it 20,000 years ago, it certainly is one now. Its far more likely that its been there for billions of years and that it is much older than our sun.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to assume that it is anything else except a black hole, one very much like what we can see at the center of any other galaxy oriented such that we can observe its center. I think its safe to say we know what it is because it could not be something else.

[ldsquest]

Perhaps it's very testable.

He cites D&C 121:28-29, which says there would be:

"A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God, or many gods, they shall be manifest.

The Bible has spoken already. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me".

Regards,

Pete

[Nofear]

Well first of all we have this approach which deals with parallel universes and dimensions

Well acquainted with the various models. I was curious which one you were biased towards. That way I could bring up all of its theological problems instead of writing a whole essay on all the various models.

Then we have the work of Andrei Linde of Stanford concerning inflation and how universes get created. I think there are some interesting theological implications here for the notion that God as we know him is the God of this universe, and yet leaving an open possibility that there could be other universes.

This is a level II type multiverse resulting from only one type of inflationary model â?? chaotic inflation. Here we have a space where the energy state of the vacuum is not the ground state. Quantum field theory then allows the state to tunnel to a lower, true vacuum (which may or may not be the actual ground state but just another false vacuum). In doing so, a new bubble inside of the current bubble is created which expands.

The new bubble is typically assumed to carry different physical constants meaning that essentially all of the bubbles are uninhabitable and very, very likely would not even generate organized stuff like stars (this gives rise to the infamous and hotly contested anthropomorphic (edit: oops) anthropic argument). Additionally, the bubble of the truer vacuum forms a topological boundary with the older false vacuum and consumes and destroys the older vacuum. It just happens that the older vacuum is expanding faster than the new vacuum.

Anyway, I'll leave it to your imagine all the theological difficulties of having one's planet/galaxy/visible universe consumed by vacuum of a bubble "universe" which has no capacity of life in it.

Of course, none of this is really provable yet. But I am not making this stuff up! I think studying science can be more interesting theologically than reading theology sometimes!

I do agree that science can be very interesting. Unfortunately, for me, inflation really just isn't that interesting. It's a kludge to fix some of the ornery problems in a vanilla big bang model.

[mfbukowski]

Anyway, I'll leave it to your imagine all the theological difficulties of having one's planet/galaxy/visible universe consumed by vacuum of a bubble "universe" which has no capacity of life in it.

I am going to post a link to a real live plain English discussion to some of these issues for duffers like me

Well I am the first to admit I am not qualified to pass judgement on the physics, but I have some understanding of the philosophical issues, so if you know the physics, it could be an interesting discussion.

I think the anthropic principle is usually taken to be anti-theistic position for precisely the reasons you bring up, that virtually all possible universes would not be adopted to life, or if there are mutiple universes the chances of any of them being "livable" for human beings makes it clear that there is nothing like intelligent design (I am not arguing for "intelligent design" as we have known it in opposition to Darwinian evolution) possible and that life evolved to fit the physics of this universe and not the other way around.

Yet of course, allow me to point out that there is indeed at least one universe which is in fact habitable, a fact that I think is quite clear

And regardless of how low the probabilities, the problem becomes perfectly analogous to the problem of how many habitable planets there are in this particular universe. Astronomically small, admittedly. But we are talking about an infinite period of "time" here, if the concept of "time" even makes sense in this context. In this context, the period of time since the big bang is a drop in the possible bucket. We are talking REAL "eternity" here. And I think that the infinitely longer time period than this one universe has existed gives us an infinitely bigger set of possibilities than all the possible planets in this one universe.

If there have been a virtually infinite number of actual universes which have collapsed, could there be a several hundred thousand which have not? In the history of all the possible worlds God has organized, how many humans could possibly achieve exaltation? And suppose that the creation of these infintesimally small number of possible universes which are habitable can in fact be influenced by consciousness? In other words, I think no one here would say that God could not have done this if he wanted to. And we all know the critics could not prove it either way, just as we could not prove it either way. But we have faith on our side. If it is not impossible, it is possible.

Could it possibly have happened this way? No one can say it could not.

But since we are doing some crazy speculating here, and I know this is Star Trek stuff, but suppose one could live a human lifetime in a few nanoseconds in a universe with a different time continuum and different physical laws? A universe that we would not think for a minute would be habitable because it only existed for a few hours? Does that open up other possible universes for "human habitation" on terms that are totally different that our conception of what that means?

With all these possibilities could God have once been a man in one of these possible universes? I for one am not about to say that it is impossible!

[Brade]

If there have been a virtually infinite number of actual universes which have collapsed, could there be a several hundred thousand which have not?

I'm going to set aside the word "virtually" for a moment. If, in whatever it is that universes are in, there has been or is an actual infinite number of universes which have collapsed, then I'm suspicious about why I should think the number of non-collapsing universes is so comparatively small. Why couldn't there be an infinite set of non-collapsing universes? Or habitable universes, or universes where I'm the present king of France?

[Nofear]

â?¦

Could it possibly have happened this way? No one can say it could not.

But since we are doing some crazy speculating hereâ?¦

All the playing with infinities doesn't easily remove the problem of destroying celestial worlds as it is consumed by a bubble universe. Anyway, if it were to come to options:

A) A single universe where exalted being cooperatively go about their works in various domains.

B) An infinite sequence of finite sized bubble universes of which an infinitesimal subset are suitable for intelligent activity and for which only a portion of the portion of the bubble universe will have an eternal future â?? each governed by its own exalted being.

One can, of course, do all kinds of crazy speculation, either scientific or theological â?? and both is done by scientists and lay alike. But, given the simplicity of option A and the complete absence of any observation (either scientific or theological) to indicate the reality of option B, I will side with option A. In my opinion, it is presently the vastly superior science and theology.

[Jason]

I don't see any reason whatsoever to assume that it is anything else except a black hole, one very much like what we can see at the center of any other galaxy oriented such that we can observe its center. I think its safe to say we know what it is because it could not be something else.

I don't see any reason to think it's something other than a black hole either, I'm just pointing out that we don't know it is, and I would not go so far as to say it can't be anything else. I think we know too little about the universe to make that determination so confidently.

[mfbukowski]

I'm going to set aside the word "virtually" for a moment. If, in whatever it is that universes are in, there has been or is an actual infinite number of universes which have collapsed, then I'm suspicious about why I should think the number of non-collapsing universes is so comparatively small. Why couldn't there be an infinite set of non-collapsing universes? Or habitable universes, or universes where I'm the present king of France?

I agree, your majesty! But unfortunately I think that we only get one life in one of those universes.

[mfbukowski]

An infinite sequence of finite sized bubble universes of which an infinitesimal subset are suitable for intelligent activity and for which only a portion of the portion of the bubble universe will have an eternal future – each governed by its own exalted being.

Well thank goodness our salvation depends on none of this, but I still like the odds of an "infinitesimal subset" of an infinite sequence if it gives God the ability to know things we could never in principle have a clue about. Resticting him to a portion of one universe is just a little too constraining for the transcendence I want to give him. Maybe that's a little of my Catholic upbringing hanging on but the idea that the Hubble (or some future Hubble) in principle could see outside his domain makes it just a little too parochial for my taste, pardon the pun!

But it also bugs me big time when a GA says "God knows your name!" like it's some achievement on God's part to remember all these names or something. If he can hear a silent prayer, I think he knows me a little bit better than just thinking-- "Oh yeah- that Bukowski guy-- I remember him! -- Now where did I put him? Oh yeah- near LA, wasn't it?"

The one thing that has always bugged me about the church is that I think LDS erroneously, culturally have a very small God. Doctrinally that's not true, but I think in the popular conception of the culture it is true. You see on all the anti sites how each of us is supposed to get our own planet which we all know is totally non- doctrinal, but I think the concept has something to it culturally.

And the idea that "God knows your name" as if that is all he knows about you is a symptom of that. He better know every thought and wish of my heart too, or to me, he is not God.

[mfbukowski]

A) A single universe where exalted being cooperatively go about their works in various domains.

An infinite sequence of finite sized bubble universes of which an infinitesimal subset are suitable for intelligent activity and for which only a portion of the portion of the bubble universe will have an eternal future – each governed by its own exalted being.

One can, of course, do all kinds of crazy speculation, either scientific or theological – and both is done by scientists and lay alike. But, given the simplicity of option A and the complete absence of any observation (either scientific or theological) to indicate the reality of option B, I will side with option A. In my opinion, it is presently the vastly superior science and theology.

Re-reading this, I am wondering what makes option A more observable than option B, theologically or otherwise? I am not seeing your point.

Edit: that smiley got in there somehow in the coding for option B??!