A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Usus Vox Tractus]

FYI - from the peanut gallery, I'm enjoying reading your posts. I like the fresh perspective and look forward to more details.

Thanks for the encouragement! I will continue. Nice to know it's going somewhere and someone is enjoying it.

I'll post more details in a few hours.


Thanks again!

 

[morse86]

Many christians seem to disregard the bible when it seems "too embarrassing" in the modern "false science" world (how about they be "too embarrased" of the adultry/fornication rates instead?? They need to grow a backbone and read the bible):

1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.


So many verses in the bible show that it is a geocentric system (if not at least a flat earth). The earth is fixed..it does not revolve...the stars/planets/etc revolve around the earth....it doesn't matter how many new fake planets or photoshops NASA comes out with every week.

Todays scientists are parrots..not scientists.

 

[bhsmte]

Many christians seem to disregard the bible when it seems "too embarrassing" in the modern "false science" world (how about they be "too embarrased" of the adultry/fornication rates instead?? They need to grow a backbone and read the bible):

1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.


So many verses in the bible show that it is a geocentric system (if not at least a flat earth). The earth is fixed..it does not revolve...the stars/planets/etc revolve around the earth....it doesn't matter how many new fake planets or photoshops NASA comes out with every week.

You're a funny guy.

 

[RichardT]

This thread has been a fascinating read for me. OP is obviously a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. I used to be satisfied with multi-verse anthropic arguments but I find myself more and more dissatisfied with these arguments because they seem like a bit of a cop-out and so I started to try to look at things from different angles to see what else I can learn about what it means to be conscious in this universe.

This thread reminds me of a paper I read by someone with an IQ in the range of 190-210. He claims to have solved the problem of "reality". Some may say that he is a crank but I don't doubt his intelligence. This is a topic that I think we should not make so many assumptions. Instead we should carefully place everything in front of us and see what is the only consistent answer to the problem. I was wondering if anyone has read this paper and what your thoughts are on it.

"The CTMU, being a logical theory, does not attempt to force such an interpretation down anyone’s throat; not all semantic permutations need affect theoretical structure. What it does do, however, is render any anti-theological interpretation a priori false, and ensures that whatever interpretation one chooses accommodates the existence of an “intelligent designer”…namely, reality itself. In light of the CTMU, this is now a matter more of logic than of taste. "

Here's a link to the paper: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

 

[Strathos]

This thread has been a fascinating read for me. OP is obviously a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. I used to be satisfied with multi-verse anthropic arguments but I find myself more and more dissatisfied with these arguments because they seem like a bit of a cop-out and so I started to try to look at things from different angles to see what else I can learn about what it means to be conscious in this universe.

This thread reminds me of a paper I read by someone with an IQ in the range of 190-210. He claims to have solved the problem of "reality". Some may say that he is a crank but I don't doubt his intelligence. This is a topic that I think we should not make so many assumptions. Instead we should carefully place everything in front of us and see what is the only consistent answer to the problem. I was wondering if anyone has read this paper and what your thoughts are on it.

"The CTMU, being a logical theory, does not attempt to force such an interpretation down anyone’s throat; not all semantic permutations need affect theoretical structure. What it does do, however, is render any anti-theological interpretation a priori false, and ensures that whatever interpretation one chooses accommodates the existence of an “intelligent designer”…namely, reality itself. In light of the CTMU, this is now a matter more of logic than of taste. "

Here's a link to the paper: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

What is this, pantheism?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Many christians seem to disregard the bible when it seems "too embarrassing" in the modern "false science" world (how about they be "too embarrased" of the adultry/fornication rates instead?? They need to grow a backbone and read the bible):

1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.


So many verses in the bible show that it is a geocentric system (if not at least a flat earth). The earth is fixed..it does not revolve...the stars/planets/etc revolve around the earth....it doesn't matter how many new fake planets or photoshops NASA comes out with every week.

Todays scientists are parrots..not scientists.

What about Isaiah 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.


Notice the "shall" future tense of both yours verses? Perhaps a future "world" established by God that is not moved? Not a planet, the state of civilization upon it.


There are no still planets. All is in motion.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

This thread has been a fascinating read for me. OP is obviously a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. I used to be satisfied with multi-verse anthropic arguments but I find myself more and more dissatisfied with these arguments because they seem like a bit of a cop-out and so I started to try to look at things from different angles to see what else I can learn about what it means to be conscious in this universe.

This thread reminds me of a paper I read by someone with an IQ in the range of 190-210. He claims to have solved the problem of "reality". Some may say that he is a crank but I don't doubt his intelligence. This is a topic that I think we should not make so many assumptions. Instead we should carefully place everything in front of us and see what is the only consistent answer to the problem. I was wondering if anyone has read this paper and what your thoughts are on it.

"The CTMU, being a logical theory, does not attempt to force such an interpretation down anyone’s throat; not all semantic permutations need affect theoretical structure. What it does do, however, is render any anti-theological interpretation a priori false, and ensures that whatever interpretation one chooses accommodates the existence of an “intelligent designer”…namely, reality itself. In light of the CTMU, this is now a matter more of logic than of taste. "

Here's a link to the paper: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Checking it out....

That is one heck of an opening abstract!


For those interested, here's the intro to the concept on the guy's website: http://www.ctmu.net/

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

What is this, pantheism?

Don't know....but have you ever heard of panentheism?

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and Θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force[1]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[2] Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world.[3]

 

[Strathos]

Don't know....but have you ever heard of panentheism?

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and Θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force[1]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[2] Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world.[3]

I'm not sure I fully grasp the difference.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'm not sure I fully grasp the difference.

I understand it like; the universe and all it's perfect laws are like the colors of the rainbow. God is white light, found no where in the rainbow but is the origin of it's perfect harmony.

Like wise, the universe is a spread out perfect harmony of interrelated individuated parts from an original union. And the Union (God) still surrounds and holds all the individuated parts, undiminished in the act of creation.


God in the Highest/The Father is holy whole outside of creation. Inside creation is the Kingdom of Heaven ruled in perfect Law by the Son of God.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanentheismIn panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the concept of Tzimtzum.

 

[Strathos]

I understand it like; the universe and all it's perfect laws are like the colors of the rainbow. God is white light, found no where in the rainbow but is the origin of it's perfect harmony.

Like wise, the universe is a spread out perfect harmony of interrelated individuated parts from an original union. And the Union (God) still surrounds and holds all the individuated parts, undiminished in the act of creation.


God in the Highest/The Father is holy whole outside of creation. Inside creation is the Kingdom of Heaven ruled in perfect Law by the Son of God.

Interesting

 

[DogmaHunter]

Working to get there while getting some practice before hand.

Then perhaps you should be working on it instead of presenting it as truth on an irrelevant internet forum.

I have found several better approaches thanks to the quality of posters here.

That doesn't really add much credibility to your ideas.

I'm not that excited about being a massive "celebrity"

But I get excited about evidence, credibility and credentials.

You don't seem to have any of those. Sorry, but I have a hard time taking people seriously who spend their time writing their wild ideas on internet forums while pretending that those ideas tackle and solve problems that the brightest of the brightest (like Einstein, Hawking, Krauss, Kaku, etc etc etc etc) have made their life's work without success.

You get that, right?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Then perhaps you should be working on it instead of presenting it as truth on an irrelevant internet forum.



That doesn't really add much credibility to your ideas.



But I get excited about evidence, credibility and credentials.

You don't seem to have any of those. Sorry, but I have a hard time taking people seriously who spend their time writing their wild ideas on internet forums while pretending that those ideas tackle and solve problems that the brightest of the brightest (like Einstein, Hawking, Krauss, Kaku, etc etc etc etc) have made their life's work without success.

You get that, right?

I totally get that, DogmaHunter and a sincere thanks for the kick in the shorts.

You are quite correct. I have no official credentials. I have not gone to college. I have lived a great deal of my life alone, thinking and reading.

I write here because it's all I currently have in the limited time I have to apply. I get practice with both religionists and scientists which I will have to navigate fluently IRL. I am a new father and the full time foreman of a tree company. I do all the estimates, I upkeep and round up all the equipment and employees, including the 82 year old ailing boss....up top of all that, I am the lead climber. I have little to no time to get into concentrated writing.

I have been professionally climbing/trimming trees for over 13 years, I have played in them since a child.

My brain has been firing and wiring for perfect balance in respect to unwavering gravity and an unpredictable wind. I navigate a living fractal from the inside out while having to accurately imagine it from the outside in. I think in terms of super symmetry and mirror inversion as a background mental process. I estimate quantum divisions and free fall rotations as a constant. I have been practicing life and death, hands on physics for a long time now.

So if a surfer can consolidate the functions of string theory to a much more eloquent and workable set, I expect a professional arborist could tell you much about 4d entanglement, super-symmetry, multi-scalar self similarity of structure and dark matter hidden like branches behind the leaves of the visible world.

The most ubiquitous cultural symbol for all of life and the universe, is the majestic Tree.


I have one educate genius telling me my theory and model have profound ramifications for quantum gauge theory and he's going to pass my outline by his colleagues, some of the highest and most educated minds in the field of quantum mechanics.

And just yesterday a retired mathematics professor and enthusiastic friend unloaded thousands of dollars worth of books into my hands for free.

Titles include:
Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals by Feynman and Hibbs
Sidelight on Relativity by Einstein
Quantum lines of spectra by Bohr
Principle of Relativity by Einstein, Lorentz, Weyl, and Minkowski

....among 55 other books of similar caliber. Should be fun right?


While I don't yet know the full modern language of mathematics. I have been practicing modeling, comparing, weighing, and accurately dividing large real fractal data sets in nature where no hard numbers exist. My life, career and family depend on my accuracy. So far so good! *knock knock knock*

So while in college I could have learned some of these things mentally and linguistically. Instead I have been immersed in physics bodily, mentally and spiritually for hours at a time, swaying by myself in the crown of a gigantic, multi-scalar, living being.


Next step is on the ground, learning the language of academia...or making new language where needed! Some of the principles I operate with have yet to be imagined by modern science. They tend to avoid Infinity and have to "renormalize" for it...I account for it from before the beginning. The "Beginning" is the Infinite's self quantization into finite 3d integer structures of universal forces within a voided space universe. An infinite number of them at the same instant, and the next, and the next...

All I need to account for them are my ten fingers. Much simpler math and a different nature of Number than mathematicians are use to thinking in. They are structural and simultaneously arising/entangled to me, not a linear string of 2d symbols.


So obviously, I still have a lot to learn.

 

[RichardT]

Sorry, but I have a hard time taking people seriously who spend their time writing their wild ideas on internet forums while pretending that those ideas tackle and solve problems that the brightest of the brightest (like Einstein, Hawking, Krauss, Kaku, etc etc etc etc) have made their life's work without success.

I have read all of the above. So far Langan's solution answers the most questions for me. In Krauss' "universe from nothing" he doesn't attempt to find a solution to the problem of where the laws of physics come from. In my opinion, that's a big metaphysical mistake.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have read all of the above. So far Langan's solution answers the most questions for me. In Krauss' "universe from nothing" he doesn't attempt to find a solution to the problem of where the laws of physics come from. In my opinion, that's a big metaphysical mistake.

It is certainly interesting to see what some people consider solutions. In my experience, they tend to fall into two camps. The first camp looks for solutions that best fit their needs, a solution that is spiritually satisfying. The other camp looks for solutions that mesh with the physical reality around them and don't care if the solution is spiritually satisfying. In other words, some people are more concerned about the content than the accuracy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have one educate genius telling me my theory and model have profound ramifications for quantum gauge theory and he's going to pass my outline by his colleagues, some of the highest and most educated minds in the field of quantum mechanics.

And we have other working phd's on this forum telling you that you are engaging in word salad.

And frankly, both are just claims on an internet forum.

Some of the principles I operate with have yet to be imagined by modern science.

You are so smart and innovative. All professors should just ask you what they should be doing.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

And we have other working phd's on this forum telling you that you are engaging in word salad.

And frankly, both are just claims on an internet forum.

You are so smart and innovative. All professors should just ask you what they should be doing.

Just because you cannot make sense of it, does non-sense of it make. Word salads exist in the place where specific words do not exist because man has not invented the word yet. More important than consensus labeling is the explanation of the logistics and mechanics behind a thing.

And in your rush to ridicule and dismiss, you forget that every breakthrough in science was a new perspective/idea larger than the establishment of the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because you cannot make sense of it, does non-sense of it make.

No one can make sense of it, including those who are trained in the fields you claim to be discussing.

And in your rush to ridicule and dismiss, you forget that every breakthrough in science was a new perspective/idea larger than the establishment of the time.

Every breakthrough in science was communicated to the scientific community in an understandable manner, including real experimental observations to back them up.

 

[TheStraightener]

Ignore

Didn't read all the replies