The universe of all entities is the name given to the collection of all entities contingent and non contingent. The term physical universe is the name given to contingent physical entities and they’re interactions as covered by the laws of physics.
You can give it a name, but that doesn't mean that it exists. You still need to demonstrate a reason to think that there is some set of 'non-physical' entities. And the use of 'universe' here is potentially confusing given that the physical universe may not represent all the physical contingent entities - I'm thinking of a 'set' of physical entities, which includes the physical universe and all its constituent parts, but might or might not include anything outside of that.
Is the necessary entity covered by the laws of physics?I’m not so sure.
You've demonstrated neither a necessary entity nor anything outside of the laws of physics, I think it's early to think about the interactions between the two.
My choice of The Trinity is probably Analogous to my preferred choice of 3 in 1 oil for my bicycle. One oil, three functions.
Notwithstanding the sophistric point that lubricating oils are complex hydrocarbons, and therefore a combination of multiple substances.... So Jesus was wholly God, then? That sort of undermines the sacrifice notion, I feel.
God is not caused, so I can’t see how closed loops of causality are pertinent here
Isn't it? That's a little bit of special pleading, I think.
energy and anti energy are two things aren’t they?
Are light and dark? Hot and cold? Are they different things, different representations of the same thing, different parts of the same whole? They are nothing, split into parts...
Or are you now saying two things can be one thing? In which case you’ve undercut arguments against a trinity.
I'm saying that how we perceive things isn't necessarily definitive - we can look at the universe being made up of innumerable tiny bits and pieces (the reductionism that was one of your pet bugbears not so long ago), or we can look at the universe as an holistic entity in four dimensional space - it could be the necessary, and the fact that at certain times it's in one state rather than another says more about our perception than it does about the nature of the universe. That could, absolutely, apply to the Trinity, but there are implications to that, as I've indicated above which change the understanding of what that Trinity might mean.
So we are back to the question why energy and anti energy and why in those amounts?
Only if you can show in what way 'why' makes any sense in that context. We could look at 'how' - we probably don't have a sufficient understanding of the science to do very much on that right now - but 'why' presumes a conscious background that you'd need to establish, first.
The answers to and reasons for those issues logically preceed energy and anti energy.
Do they? Energy is, energy flows, energy interacts - in what way can 'why' be said to apply to that without presuming something about precursors, if indeed there are any precursors. Within the universe it appears that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so energy may be eternal and we are just the latest iteration of that ebb and flow that is reality.
On a related issue.What about entropy? We are told at the beginning there was maximum order.
Within the universe, yes. We don't know if that's all the energy, though, we're guessing about what extra-universal 'physics' might be like.
The term order implies multiple entities.
It can be interpreted as that, yes, but is the fundamental unit the smallest element or the largest? Is everything we see a local snapshot of the current state of the universe as a whole, or is the universe the composite of all those smaller parts?
At your start then the physical universe seems truly composite.
I don't know that it works like that; it can be seen like that, it can certainly be useful in some circumstances to operate as though that's how it works, but that's a perspective, it's not a definition.
As an intellectual, though, you are required to be dispassionate and look through accretion or baggage......but if it helps, give it another name although necessary entity seems as much of a trigger to some.
Without the baggage it just becomes 'the necessary entity' that you've yet to establish we need to consider at all in the first place.
O.
