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

[Deidre32]

What is even most interesting to me, is how anyone can actually claim to know the qualities they attribute to a God, are legit.

All you hear is; God is this, God is that and when asked to support their position, they basically say; because he is God.

Because when you are a Christian, you 'proof' resides in the Bible. When you look at it all objectively, the whole picture changes. Why am I following what a group of people supposedly witnessed over 2000 years ago? How many other religions and myths have come and gone over the centuries? Many. When I was a Christian, all I can say is that when you have faith, you are very much into that way of thinking. You don't require evidence, or you convince yourself that the evidence is the Bible. That other people have gone before you and have paved the way, and that is your evidence. Their stories are your evidence.

But, again, objectively...it looks very different. There is no evidence, which is why it's called faith. But, like you say, how can one 'know' a god? It would seem it's all the qualities man wishes he had...to be a super hero of sorts. The story of Jesus paints him to be a humble man, yet...he too is a super hero of sorts...never sinning, born without original sin, resurrected, etc.

God is everything man wishes he could be, but never will be. Thus, worshipping a god makes sense, I suppose, on some level.

 

[VProud]

When I look at the universe I don't see disorder or chaos, I see an aggregate that is ordered by unwavering physical laws, "finely tuned" at all interacting levels.

<Redacted Since I Cannot Post Links>

Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.

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.

Examples of such “fine-tuning” abound. Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such physical parameters are what they are.

With all due respect, I do not think you know what order or chaos mean in this context.
Say I have a bunch of numbers, an I arrange them into the sequence of natural numbers, these are NOT ordered in terms of physics, nor are they chaotic if they are jumbled.
In-fact, wether in a squence or randomly jumbled, in terms of physics, they both have equal Entropy.

Entropy is the measure of chaos.
Chaos is the total number of combinations particles and their properties can be in within a closed system.

It's easily demonstrable with gas particles. If I have a container filled with a gas, and then I open that container into a larger one (say a room) the gas spreads out to fill the room, the gas moves from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration, this increases it's Entropy or Disorder/Chaos until all parts of the room have an equal gas-air density.
This is said to be Equilibrium or Maximum Entropy/Disorder/Chaos.
Since the gas has moved to fill a large space, it's particles can be in more combinations, thus Disorder/Chaos has increased.
The gas will never then suddenly get back into the container, it will never decrease Entropy and become more ordered, that is simply absurd.

You seem to be confusing structure with Chaos.
Also, consider this: Why do you think natural laws are finely tuned for life, as opposed to life being finely tuned for natural laws?

Consider the alternative argument: Abiogenesis and evolution occurred on this planet in this universe, because it was the place most suited for it. It would have 'attempted' to happen elsewhere, but failed, simply because the conditions elsewhere are not suited for it.

Why do you believe that argument is less likely than yours?

Also, the universe is not well suited for life. Out of all the planets, only a fraction of a fraction can support life, and only a fraction of those (such are ours) actually do support life and only on a fraction of their surface.

Now, natural laws do bring about the stable proton and other essential things, but, again, consider that this may not be the result of it being 'made that way for it' but simply a case of we came to be here BECAUSE all the factors were right for it, as opposed to all the factors being right SO that we could come to be.

There's no reason other universes wouldn't exist, ones where natural laws are not the same as here, ones where matter cannot exist or where C is different, etc.
Life never had the opportunity to start there. But here it did. And while that being 'random' chance may seem far fetched or astronomically unlikely, think of the time scales: If the conditions just happened to be right for life on just a few billions planets in one of the many universes that could exist, it is very highly likely that it would occur.

Why does the idea of God seem more likely to you than that?

Also, there's nothing to say that if the laws of nature were somewhat different, we wouldn't just be a fundamentally different kind of life.
Surely it makes more sense to think of us as 'right for this universe' than to think of the universe as 'right for us'?

 

[Gracchus]

Gracchus I have more questions for you before trying to put all this into set theory language, and that has to do with angle of approach...

As I have pointed out, before we even begin the discussion, we must agree on definitions of terms and rules of inference. But what are your questions?

One approach is to use observations and scientific evidence to build upwards in scale and peer backwards in time. But the actual direction of causation is forwards in time and possibly downwards in scale.

Cause arises from states of disequilibrium. Similar precursor states give rise to similar resultant states. Since different causal events cannot be identical, the results also cannot be identical.

There is also the limit to scientific observations backwards in time as shown by the cosmological background radiation "curtain" that surrounds the observable universe.

It's is widely accepted that there is polygalatic cosmological space similar to ours beyond our temporal light curtain.

I had not heard that! Who accepts that?

I call it the Humpty Dumpty enigma: Can we put the original state back together by the piece we have? Do we have all the pieces?

We don't have all the pieces and never will have all the pieces. But as time goes on we relate the pieces to each other and reasoning from what we know, we can infer with some degree of certainty, which pieces are missing and what the natures of the missing pieces must be.

What if a picture of Humpty Dumpty can be arrived at by pure math and predicts the shapes of all the pieces that we have so far, and gives the predicted sizes of the pieces that are still "dark" to us?

That would seem to be the best we can hope for.

Your thoughts?

I repeat: If we are to examine your proof, we must first know what assumptions you start with, the definitions of your terms, and the rules of inference used in deducing your proof.

How does this prove god's existence? It only "proves" your idea of him.

To answer your question: If his idea of God was like unto Zeus, then he would only be obliged to proving the existence of Zeus. He need not trouble himself to prove the existence of Osiris, Yahweh, or Odin.
As to your point: He has not, at this point, proved anything. What he has presented is ... unclear to me.

 

[Received]

God as a physical being is heretical by anybody's standards.

But that's not quite what he's saying. He's saying, I think, that what we call "spiritual" is just physical at a very small quantum abstract level. The quantum world being physical is vastly different than the macro world being physical. That distinction alone is enough to save from the "heresy" of pantheism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God is everything man wishes he could be, but never will be. Thus, worshipping a god makes sense, I suppose, on some level.

Maybe in a very infantile way...upon some minor thought, the christian god sounds like a miserable existence. Never changing, never learning, never surprised, never growing....

The same bland existence in an unending string of moments.

I'd pass.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe in a very infantile way...upon some minor thought, the christian god sounds like a miserable existence. Never changing, never learning, never surprised, never growing....

The same bland existence in an unending string of moments.

I'd pass.

2000 years ago, they could have said the same about us.

• Not having to walk or ride a horse from here to there.
• Not having to go outside to go to the bathroom.
• Not having to draw water from a well or brook.
• Not having to gather sticks and such to cook our food.
• Having our clothes washed and dried almost instantly.
• Being able to communicate across town w/o leaving home.

They'd probably pass.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I had not heard that! Who accepts that?

Wanted to address this in the time I have...

The universe versus the observable universe: Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth, so these portions of the universe lie outside the observable universe. In the future, light from distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so additional regions will become observable. However, due to Hubble's law regions sufficiently distant from us are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light (special relativity prevents nearby objects in the same local region from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, but there is no such constraint for distant objects when the space between them is expanding; see uses of the proper distance for a discussion) and furthermore the expansion rate appears to be accelerating due to dark energy. Assuming dark energy remains constant (an unchanging cosmological constant), so that the expansion rate of the universe continues to accelerate, there is a "future visibility limit" beyond which objects will never enter our observable universe at any time in the infinite future, because light emitted by objects outside that limit would never reach us. (A subtlety is that, because the Hubble parameter is decreasing with time, there can be cases where a galaxy that is receding from us just a bit faster than light does emit a signal that reaches us eventually[6][7]). This future visibility limit is calculated at a co-moving distance of 19 billion parsecs (62 billion light years) assuming the universe will keep expanding forever, which implies the number of galaxies that we can ever theoretically observe in the infinite future (leaving aside the issue that some may be impossible to observe in practice due to redshift, as discussed in the following paragraph) is only larger than the number currently observable by a factor of 2.36.[1]




I'll get back to you another day on the rest. You have given me a great deal to think about and work on, thank you! Things are really starting to pick up here and the power is blown out on the other side of the Big Island. I'm going to shut everything down before it gets rip roaring.


On a positive note: I'm a tree trimmer...Hurricane Iselle is going to bring me lots of work! We may be out of power for days here. Just so you know I haven't abandoned ship if I'm not around!

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'll get back to you too when possible Vproud, I just don't want to get into a long reply and *poof*..candle time.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

But that's not quite what he's saying. He's saying, I think, that what we call "spiritual" is just physical at a very small quantum abstract level. The quantum world being physical is vastly different than the macro world being physical. That distinction alone is enough to save from the "heresy" of pantheism.

There is no "empty space", there is only quantum foam: Quantum Foam and Loop Quantum Gravity

Quantum Foam and Loop Quantum Gravity
By combining the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity, it is deduced that in a region the size of the Planck length (10-33 cm.), the vacuum fluctuations are so huge that space as we know it "boils" and becomes a froth of quantum foam.

Quantum Foam In such a scenario, the space appears completely smooth at the scale of 10-12 cm.; a certain roughness starts to show up at the scale of
10-30 cm.; and at the scale of the Planck length space becomes a froth of probabilistic quantum foam (as shown in the diagram) and the notion of a simple, continuous space becomes inconsistent. According to the latest idea in superstring theory, the space at such small scale cannot be described by the Cartesian coordinates, x, y and z; it should be replaced by "noncommutative geometry", where the coordinates are represented by non-diagonal matrix. This is essentially the expression of uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.





"and God's Spirit hovered over the waters."

The word for "hovered" is also translated as moved. Has the connotation of vibration like a mother bird fluttering over her nest.

 

[VProud]

I'll get back to you too when possible Vproud, I just don't want to get into a long reply and *poof*..candle time.

No problem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

2000 years ago, they could have said the same about us.

• Not having to walk or ride a horse from here to there.
• Not having to go outside to go to the bathroom.
• Not having to draw water from a well or brook.
• Not having to gather sticks and such to cook our food.
• Having our clothes washed and dried almost instantly.
• Being able to communicate across town w/o leaving home.

They'd probably pass.

Somehow I doubt that....i don't hear many people clamoring to get rid of the internet. We may advance...but never towards perfection.

Perfection seems more akin to death...or being frozen in time.

 

[Deidre32]

As I have pointed out, before we even begin the discussion, we must agree on definitions of terms and rules of inference. But what are your questions?
Cause arises from states of disequilibrium. Similar precursor states give rise to similar resultant states. Since different causal events cannot be identical, the results also cannot be identical.
I had not heard that! Who accepts that?
We don't have all the pieces and never will have all the pieces. But as time goes on we relate the pieces to each other and reasoning from what we know, we can infer with some degree of certainty, which pieces are missing and what the natures of the missing pieces must be.
That would seem to be the best we can hope for.
I repeat: If we are to examine your proof, we must first know what assumptions you start with, the definitions of your terms, and the rules of inference used in deducing your proof.
To answer your question: If his idea of God was like unto Zeus, then he would only be obliged to proving the existence of Zeus. He need not trouble himself to prove the existence of Osiris, Yahweh, or Odin.
As to your point: He has not, at this point, proved anything. What he has presented is ... unclear to me.

Yes, true. lol But when most theists speak of science somehow "proving" the existence of a god, it is an objective god they speak. "One" god over us all.

 

[lesliedellow]

I am saying The God before creation is ALL SUBSTANTIAL and all that substance is patterned.

I am not saying that The God is a person like you and me. But I do say His self expressed finite generation within the universe is: God the Son.


The physical being of God in the Highest would be like an ocean of quark matter, billions of times denser and hotter than atomic wave from matter. All physical matter would be consumed in a blazing of glory if contacting the substance of God. All consuming fire. There is no room for anything else, no space between quarks.

Universes are bubbles in the infinite quark ocean body of The God. They are created by "sonic cavitation" by the Word.




I am positing an actual God, which an actual physical existence, with actual physical influence on the entire universe at once at all scales.

The God I purpose, actually physically exists. Thou who art actually "there" who name is "Hallowed" (set apart).

Gobbledygook. What you really mean is that you are trying to bring God down to a level you can comprehend. That, and you want to fool yourself that you can "prove" his existence.

I wouldn't trust either theology or science in your hands - or those of the Electric Universe nutters.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Gobbledygook. What you really mean is that you are trying to bring God down to a level you can comprehend. That, and you want to fool yourself that you can "prove" his existence.

I wouldn't trust either theology or science in your hands - or those of the Electric Universe nutters.

This^


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

But that's not quite what he's saying. He's saying, I think, that what we call "spiritual" is just physical at a very small quantum abstract level. The quantum world being physical is vastly different than the macro world being physical. That distinction alone is enough to save from the "heresy" of pantheism.

Physicality isn't intrinsically a "macro" way of looking at the world.

For instance, physical does not mean "solid" (a concept we form from a macro perspective), it means that the physical entity is part of what we may study with our senses, either directly or indirectly, and is therefore related to the field of physics.

The quantum perspective on quantum phenomena is a perspective on something physical. Calling that something "spiritual" is woo woo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

Physicality isn't intrinsically a "macro" way of looking at the world.

For instance, physical does not mean "solid" (a concept we form from a macro perspective), it means that the physical entity is part of what we may study with our senses, either directly or indirectly, and is therefore related to the field of physics.

The quantum perspective on quantum phenomena is a perspective on something physical. Calling that something "spiritual" is woo woo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Calling something "woo woo" is flim-flam.

 

[The-Doctor]

I've seen infinity...it was a sort of blue colour!

 

[Received]

Physicality isn't intrinsically a "macro" way of looking at the world.

For instance, physical does not mean "solid" (a concept we form from a macro perspective), it means that the physical entity is part of what we may study with our senses, either directly or indirectly, and is therefore related to the field of physics.

The quantum perspective on quantum phenomena is a perspective on something physical. Calling that something "spiritual" is woo woo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's woo woo only if you presuppose that "spiritual" means "non-physical". I'm just trying to make a distinction between macro- and micro- so that spiritual can still have some sense of meaning or application.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's woo woo only if you presuppose that "spiritual" means "non-physical". I'm just trying to make a distinction between macro- and micro- so that spiritual can still have some sense of meaning or application.

All of the pseudo science new agers come up with is woo woo, and they are scarcely deserving of the name Christian.

 

[Received]

All of the pseudo science new agers come up with is woo woo, and they are scarcely deserving of the name Christian.

Attempting to unify QM with theism is woo woo?