Logic model for quantizing a real infinity: Proof of the universe by God.

[VProud]

Science needs a better PR department. It seems most of the labels that get delivered to the public do not at all mean what they imply.

That video has a good alternative name for it: 'The Everywhere Stretch."

Indeed. It's very hard to communicate these things to the public, most media outlets simply want things that will give them ratings.
E.g. playing 'The Big Bang' as this all evil affront to Religion so that they can start a 'debate' to get more views, when it is no such thing.


A similar thing happens with evolution: It has nothing to do with the creation or origin of life, that's Abiogenesis, which has limited evidence at best. But, unfortunately, educating people does not get ratings if it's not controversial...

That and a lot of the topics don't follow what most people believe or think is logical, so they simply disregard them.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

That video has a good alternative name for it: 'The Everywhere Stretch."

Indeed. It's very hard to communicate these things to the public, most media outlets simply want things that will give them ratings.
E.g. playing 'The Big Bang' as this all evil affront to Religion so that they can start a 'debate' to get more views, when it is no such thing.


A similar thing happens with evolution: It has nothing to do with the creation or origin of life, that's Abiogenesis, which has limited evidence at best. But, unfortunately, educating people does not get ratings if it's not controversial...

That and a lot of the topics don't follow what most people believe or think is logical, so they simply disregard them.

lmao! Perfect name!

IRL: are you really 19 years old?

 

[VProud]

lmao! Perfect name!

IRL: are you really 19 years old?

Yes, I am! I developed a keen interest for science at a young age, got a degree two years early with the Open University in natural sciences and currently I'm a Bio-medical scientist at a hospital in North Wales! (I work a lot with blood and whatnot.)

Currently I'm working on another degree in theoretical physics though!

I might not be a normal 19 year old, but I wouldn't trade my passion for the world!

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Yes, I am! I developed a keen interest for science at a young age, got a degree two years early with the Open University in natural sciences and currently I'm a Bio-medical scientist at a hospital in North Wales! (I work a lot with blood and whatnot.)

Currently I'm working on another degree in theoretical physics though!

I might not be a normal 19 year old, but I wouldn't trade my passion for the world!

Very impressive VPRoud, very impressive! Keep up the inertia!

I'm 35 and these things have been a passion of mine for about 17 years. I arrived at the understanding I'm presenting here only 2 years ago. It is still in refinement but the predictability of this model is very wide and very specific and so far nailing real evidence left and right center.

I come from a visual/kinesthetic place of understanding. I am still learning to express these functions in 2d languages....all kinds.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It seems few can summon a Zen/childlike mind to consider an idea on it's own merits. Most are quickly sacked into ignorance by their own preconceive notions and paradigms. Such is the current state of humanity.

Careful! There are other likely possibilities:

1) Your ideas don't have as much merit as you think.
2) You are not communicating the merit of your ideas well.
3) Other people see more clearly than you do about how to construct an argument.

Those issues too are part of the state of humanity!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Careful! There are other likely possibilities:

1) Your ideas don't have as much merit as you think.
2) You are not communicating the merit of your ideas well.
3) Other people see more clearly than you do about how to construct an argument.

Those issues too are part of the state of humanity!


eudaimonia,

Mark

2 and 3 for sure.

 

[Pachomius]

Hope you are up for an adventure!




Operational definitions:

Universe: The space-time we find ourselves and all observable matter and phnomenon within. Includes un-obsevable matter and unknown phenomenon.

God: Producer and sustainer of a universe.

Real infinity: A borderless spatial expanse of a homgenous substance.

As the universe is "finely tuned" for physical life and atomic stability to exist, then God, if he exists, must be a physical force or forces upon the universe so that it's phenomenons and structures are regular and capable of long term centropic processes or "life". We are the life questioning our origins.

Centropic action or Centropy: The increasing of total order over time. As exemplified by the existance of the DNA molecle, capable of organizing physical matter into a self propagating, centropic information set (living body) through time. As evidenced by the existance of the plethora of life on this planet.


So God, if God exits, must provide the matter, be the patterner and provide for the pattern of physical life to exist. God then must be a physical Being and have some kind of real substancial existance.


Expanded definition of God: The Living Physical Being who provides for the substance and patterns in the universe at all scales. Including all living beings known and uknown.




If this is acceptable, next is a description of physical matter by the way it is patterned.




P.S. I am green. I do not know your format or language. Teach me so that I may become clearer and put things in poper order. My living nature is to over-grow, don't hesitated to prune the crossing branches you see. I will prune too, and retrain, and regrow, and we both shall benefit.


At your service.

I have not read all the posts here, but right away with your OP I say that I agree with you on what is God in concept:

God: Producer and sustainer of a universe.

My own concept of God is creator of the universe that includes of course it goes without saying, that God is also operator of the universe.

For me it does not matter whether Go is natural or supernatural, physical or spiritual, as long as He exists and is the creator of the universe; then as we exist and the universe exists, man can and does prove the existence of God from the evidence of the existence of ourselves who are parts of the universe which universe of course also exists.

What do you think of my idea?

Suppose you give your argument in a 100 words or less that God as per your concept: Producer and sustainer of a universe exists, and I will also give my argument in 100 words or less that God creator and operator of the universe exists.

What do you say, shouldn't we both indicate what is the evidence for your certainty and my certainty of the existence of God?

That brings in two terms we have to work on together to reach agreement on their meanings, namely, what is evidence and what is certainty.

My idea is that protagonists in the debate on whether God exists or not, must first and before anything else work to concur on concepts and principles by which the issue is to be resolved by both camps; so that at the end with the employment of their concurred on concepts and principles, it becomes evidently certain that God in your concept of God and God in my concept of God exists as we and the universe exist, insofar as existence is concerned.

And yes! I love adventures.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I have not read all the posts here, but right away with your OP I say that I agree with you on what is God in concept:

God: Producer and sustainer of a universe.

My own concept of God is creator of the universe that includes of course it goes without saying, that God is also operator of the universe.

For me it does not matter whether Go is natural or supernatural, physical or spiritual, as long as He exists and is the creator of the universe; then as we exist and the universe exists, man can and does prove the existence of God from the evidence of the existence of ourselves who are parts of the universe which universe of course also exists.

What do you think of my idea?

Suppose you give your argument in a 100 words or less that God as per your concept: Producer and sustainer of a universe exists, and I will also give my argument in 100 words or less that God creator and operator of the universe exists.

What do you say, shouldn't we both indicate what is the evidence for your certainty and my certainty of the existence of God?

That brings in two terms we have to work on together to reach agreement on their meanings, namely, what is evidence and what is certainty.

My idea is that protagonists in the debate on whether God exists or not, must first and before anything else work to concur on concepts and principles by which the issue is to be resolved by both camps; so that at the end with the employment of their concurred on concepts and principles, it becomes evidently certain that God in your concept of God and God in my concept of God exists as we and the universe exist, insofar as existence is concerned.

And yes! I love adventures.

Excellent! Always looking for fellow explores of Spirit to share treasure map notes with!

I like your definition! I go a little further in mine to state it takes a real God (physical and spiritual) to produce, sustain, and ultimately harvest a real universe...physically and spiritually. A lawful and fully natural God produces a lawful and fully natural universe. Nothing is "super-natural", there are simply many natural operations of the universe beyond human perception and current understanding.

Here's an obstacle I've run into going about this: There are two approaches, one is backwards, gathering all current evidence and working backwards towards a first cause. There are inherent impossibilities here. Science cannot test the beginning of a universe. The other approach is to work forwards from a correct "God point" and let the simplicity, aesthetic quality, and predictive nature of the unfolding order speak for the volumes of material creation and forces found within.

I have posted this before highlighting the enigma, it's from the physics department of the university of Oregon. unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.


I find evidence for God in all the whole structures I look at from DNA, to the human body, to galaxies and more. but I know what I am looking for as I have an Image of God to compare it all with. I unfolded that from the correct forwards direction "God Point".

The evidence I use to point backwards is from across the sciences and religions ancient and new. The science evidence is mostly anatomical structures of real objects found a differing scales. The religious evidence is commonalities between creation stories.

The forwards directional navigation is pure logic and cascading shape forms. That is the easiest for me because I have a 3d visual imagination.....to map a 3d visual (visible and invisible) reality. I have much substance and evidence of things hoped for and unseen.


How would you like to proceed?

 

[Pachomius]

What do you say, shouldn't we both indicate what is the evidence for your certainty and my certainty of the existence of God?

That brings in two terms we have to work on together to reach agreement on their meanings, namely, what is evidence and what is certainty.

My idea is that protagonists in the debate on whether God exists or not, must first and before anything else work to concur on concepts and principles by which the issue is to be resolved by both camps; so that at the end with the employment of their concurred on concepts and principles, it becomes evidently certain that God in your concept of God and God in my concept of God exists as we and the universe exist, insofar as existence is concerned.

Here is what the online Merriam-Webster has to say about evidence, certain, and certainty:

evidence : something which shows that something else exists or is true.
[...]


certain : not having any doubt about something : convinced or sure.
[...]


certainty : the state of being or feeling certain about something, something that is certain, a fact about which there is no doubt.

​

So, I want to show atheists that we humans and the universe of which we are parts and in which we are existing, living in, are the evidence bringing us to certainty that God the cause of the universe exists.

How does evidence: namely, we ourselves existing and the universe existing, achieves for us the state in us of certainty of the existence of God, in concept the creator of the universe, or for you, in concept Producer and sustainer of a universe?

Let us get we two and also seek to get atheists to work together with us to concur on what is evidence, what is certainty, how evidence works certainty in us of the existence of God existing or not existing.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Here is what the online Merriam-Webster has to say about evidence, certain, and certainty:

evidence : something which shows that something else exists or is true.
[...]


certain : not having any doubt about something : convinced or sure.
[...]


certainty : the state of being or feeling certain about something, something that is certain, a fact about which there is no doubt.

​

So, I want to show atheists that we humans and the universe of which we are parts and in which we are existing, living in, are the evidence bringing us to certainty that God the cause of the universe exists.

How does evidence: namely, we ourselves existing and the universe existing, achieves for us the state in us of certainty of the existence of God, in concept the creator of the universe, or for you, in concept Producer and sustainer of a universe?

Let us get we two and also seek to get atheists to work together with us to concur on what is evidence, what is certainty, how evidence works certainty in us of the existence of God existing or not existing.

Some of the evidence that convinces me God produced and sustains the universe is that it is finely tuned all over to allow even the existence of atomic matter let alone life and consciousness. If one of the fundamental constants was off by a scale of a hair, molecular existence would not form.






Example: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - The Nature of Reality

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.


Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."


What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos


Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.3

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html#jCp

Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.

 

[Pachomius]

Let us see what atheists say about the evidence you have presented of a finely tuned universe that explains why life could and did arise.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:


"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Pachomius, I think we'll have better luck with this line of approach in the Physics and Life Sciences forum. I'll reopen this finely tuned universe conversation there. =)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pachomius, I think we'll have better luck with this line of approach in the Physics and Life Sciences forum. I'll reopen this finely tuned universe conversation there. =)

Honestly, I didn't bother with it because it's ground that's been retread so many times it's a bit boring. I can't speak for other atheists of course, but you get tired of squashing the same ideas so many times....it loses its luster. Especially when the other party doesn't even acknowledge the points you're making...they just move onto their next point and you have to squash that. I suspect you're right in thinking the science posters will respond more quickly...and thoroughly. I've seen them destroy more fine-tuning arguments than I knew existed.

Still i don't want you two to feel cheated. Would you like me to start with the super hot stars that burn too fast? Or just explain why the premise of a fine tuned universe his wrong?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Honestly, I didn't bother with it because it's ground that's been retread so many times it's a bit boring. I can't speak for other atheists of course, but you get tired of squashing the same ideas so many times....it loses its luster. Especially when the other party doesn't even acknowledge the points you're making...they just move onto their next point and you have to squash that. I suspect you're right in thinking the science posters will respond more quickly...and thoroughly. I've seen them destroy more fine-tuning arguments than I knew existed.

Still i don't want you two to feel cheated. Would you like me to start with the super hot stars that burn too fast? Or just explain why the premise of a fine tuned universe his wrong?

Then I will get all the practice I can or can't handle!


If you don't mind, would you slay me in the science forum thread? This subject is technically not philosophy and I have been "advised" to post things in their appropriate section.

 

[Pachomius]

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:


"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Watch out now, when exchange with atheists here grounded on logic and facts and God looms next in the waiting line, atheists will be generous to offer us a compromise, "We don't know what comes beyond the Big Bang," meaning of course, "Let us stop thinking."

Or they will offer the gambit, "We cannot disprove God creator of the universe existing, and neither can you prove God creator of the universe existing."

Or they will just repeat forever and ever, "That is not evidence, there is no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence..."

 

[Belk]

Watch out now, when exchange with atheists here grounded on logic and facts and God looms next in the waiting line, atheists will be generous to offer us a compromise, "We don't know what comes beyond the Big Bang," meaning of course, "Let us stop thinking."

Or they will offer the gambit, "We cannot disprove God creator of the universe existing, and neither can you prove God creator of the universe existing."

Or they will just repeat forever and ever, "That is not evidence, there is no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence..."

Somebody's poisoned the waterhole! - YouTube