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

[PsychoSarah]

Posting on a site like this is like thrusting my sword into a wall until it sticks and I and strong. Then I will be able to slay a powerful man. And I will have already slain myself over and over. Perhaps that is the most important accomplishment.

I am here for the practice before I think to step into official rings. I need to be as sharp a possible to do this whole thing any kind of justice.

I lead a very busy, pay check to pay check life taking care of several other people. I don't have the time or money to publish in esteemed journals.

I am doing what I can with what's in front of me....and that's you!


Might as well start somewhere with someone right?

This is not a place of scientific accuracy, you will not be able to judge how people will take your views as well on here as you might on other places, there are forums dedicated to what you seek.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

It's nice that you're referring to statements you've already made, and I am sorry to ask you to retread old ground....but let's pretend I didn't read any of that and I'm not gonna pour through your posts looking for it.

I am starting to sense though that your answer is that he didn't breathe in anything or something along those lines...

I'll try to make shorter posts in the future.


Correct. GOD did not inhale anything to be able to animate the space of the universe. The animating principle came from within the body of God. Remember, there is no space outside the body of GOD in this example. The only new space of void is the newly opened mouth. The entire universe is contained by GOD's mouth.

This is why I then leave that particular metaphor behind when you ask about the causal mechanics like "where did the air come from".

The "open mouth" metaphor is for a single universe. If I wanted to describe the sphere stack of infinite universes I could say "We are within the body of the Goddess, in one of Her infinite wombs below her infinite breasts anointed with milk and honey."

Or I could say the before the beginning God rests on a serpent of infinite size that was all coiled up upon itself and it in turn rests in an eternal sea. When the serpent uncoils the infinite universes are created. When the serpent coils back up, the universes are destroyed.

I could also describe the infinite universes as grapes on a vine or pearls on a string, or as a cloud of disappearing musk grains compared to the Creation above all the universes.


As you hopefully know, I'm not the first to describe these things these ways. But I do claim to originate the Swiss Cheese metaphor!

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

This is not a place of scientific accuracy, you will not be able to judge how people will take your views as well on here as you might on other places, there are forums dedicated to what you seek.

Would you say majority of the people in the world are scientifically accurate?

I have already received much in the manner of scientific direction in this thread alone. Special thanks to Gracchus and VProud.


If you have other forums more open to what I am talking about, I am all ears.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll try to make shorter posts in the future.


Correct. GOD did not inhale anything to be able to animate the space of the universe. The animating principle came from within the body of God. Remember, there is no space outside the body of GOD in this example. The only new space of void is the newly opened mouth. The entire universe is contained by GOD's mouth.

This is why I then leave that particular metaphor behind when you ask about the causal mechanics like "where did the air come from".

The "open mouth" metaphor is for a single universe. If I wanted to describe the sphere stack of infinite universes I could say "We are within the body of the Goddess, in one of Her infinite wombs below her infinite breasts anointed with milk and honey."

Or I could say the before the beginning God rests on a serpent of infinite size that was all coiled up upon itself and it in turn rests in an eternal sea. When the serpent uncoils the infinite universes are created. When the serpent coils back up, the universes are destroyed.

I could also describe the infinite universes as grapes on a vine or pearls on a string, or as a cloud of disappearing musk grains compared to the Creation above all the universes.


As you hopefully know, I'm not the first to describe these things these ways. But I do claim to originate the Swiss Cheese metaphor!

Well that sort of clears things up...except for the time.thing I mentioned earlier.

So to be sure, you're saying that time existed prior to the "beginning" of the universe?

 

[lesliedellow]

I'll get to my "qualifications" for asserting what I do in a moment...

Quoting a physicist speaking at a book launch doesn't altogether equate with doctorates in both physics and theology, plus the IQ of Einstein.

I think you should know that we already have ultra intelligent machines - or at least we would have if a confident prediction made by a scientist thirty odd years ago had been anything like accurate:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Mighty-Micro-Microchip-Revolution/dp/0340259752

Instead of which computers are still electronic dish washers.

Anyway, what has computer technology got to do with God?

 

[Ana the Ist]

All I can do is refine it as much as I am capable of and "sacrifice" it to the minds of humanity. I will find out where I am weak and in need of pruning or retraining to become stronger. This is active growth. A pressing of my face to the polishing wheel.

I know, and I am not at all looking forwards to it. It's going to make my life much more noisy, complex and precarious to navigate

Only slightly more hazardous than my current job climbing/trimming trees. Only more so because more than just my own life is put at risk. I know well the gauntlet I will face if I am correct. I have a family to look after and the feelings of over 6 billion people to be very mindful and compassionate with.

"Science" is used to tearing each others stuff apart or finding it to be solid. So who else am I going to seek for intelligent reworkability?




Here's the other side of this coin. If I am correct, what kind of responsibility do I then bare towards my fellow man? What If choose not to publish? What am I then accountable for in front of God when I die? What if I have something good and I do nothing? What If I hide my talent?

What then?

If you don't mind some friendly advice, I'd be glad to offer my honest opinion. Obviously, I don't know anything about you except your posts here, but you seem genuinely convinced of whatever it is you believe. If you want to be a messiah, to start...

1. Drop the science angle. You want your message to appeal to the broadest possible audience... then it shouldn't require a physics degree to understand. Few people have the patience for the hard sciences....they will give up on your message before they're halfway through the intro. Also the scientific community will likely rip it to shreds. There is a science section of this forum where some very knowledgeable people post. If you doubt this, float your ideas past them.

2. Don't concern yourself with the truth. People tell themselves they want to know the truth, but they really want to hear what they want to believe. Figure that out, then feed it to them in a manner that gets them to think it was all your idea. Phrases like "the meek shall inherit the earth" go a long way and have broad appeal. Has it ever happened? No...but people like to believe it would.

3. Everyone is special. Concern yourself with convincing people they are special in some way. It's not just about telling people they are great....it's about convincing them they are better than those who don't believe in you. In fact, convince them that rewards and special powers await those who have more faith in you than others and they will come in flocks.

4. Keep the message vague. Let it be described in such a vague way that it can be interpreted to fit multiple situations...even contradictory ones. The last thing you want is your message to go out of style...this keeps it fresh.

5. Allow no questions. Mockery, insults, and general ridicule should await those who don't believe or dare to question. It creates an "inside vs outside" mentality that goes a long way to strengthening the bond between members.

There's obviously more to it than this....but this is a good place to start. Master these things in your message then get back to me.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Well that sort of clears things up...except for the time.thing I mentioned earlier.

So to be sure, you're saying that time existed prior to the "beginning" of the universe?

Yes, in the form of an eternal now. There is no angular momentum in the infinite quark ocean before the movement that creates universes. The beginning of all cyclical, finite, beginning/end, duration of change "time" started with the space for it to occur in.

Time as we commonly measure it is absolutely dependent and inextricable from space.

Outside the universe is eternal time in infinite space taken up by God. (besides the other universes)

Inside the universe is aionic time (composed of ages of development) within a finite patterned space.

 

[lesliedellow]

1. Drop the science angle. You want your message to appeal to the broadest possible audience... then it shouldn't require a physics degree to understand.

That's Okay, he hasn't got a physics degree either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, in the form of an eternal now. There is no angular momentum in the infinite quark ocean before the movement that creates universes. The beginning of all cyclical, finite, beginning/end, duration of change "time" started with the space for it to occur in.

Time as we commonly measure it is absolutely dependent and inextricable from space.

Outside the universe is eternal time in infinite space taken up by God. (besides the other universes)

Inside the universe is aionic time (composed of ages of development) within a finite patterned space.

This is what I'm talking about when I say drop the science. Eternal now? I'm no physics major and I can find problems in that. Namely, you've got god doing stuff...like creating universes. So even with just that one change/event....we can describe a linear time movement starting before he created the universe, going to when he created the universe, and ending after he created the universe. They can't all be the same "now".

 

[lesliedellow]

This is what I'm talking about when I say drop the science. Eternal now? I'm no physics major and I can find problems in that. Namely, you've got god doing stuff...like creating universes. So even with just that one change/event....we can describe a linear time movement starting before he created the universe, going to when he created the universe, and ending after he created the universe. They can't all be the same "now".

You can get away with theology-speak in theology, and with science-speak in science. What you can't get away with is theology-speak in science, or science-speak in theology.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'll get back to you both first thing tomorrow, thank you for the shaking! Goodnight!

 

[Gracchus]

“What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?"

What I came here to see, Usus Vox Tractus, was a proof that the universe was created by God. That was what you invited me to come see. I have seen no proof, only metaphors and unsupported assertions. What I have seen, is indeed, a reed shaken by the wind.

You claim both science and religion, but you post in the philosophy forum, and you seem to be unfamiliar with all three of those fields.

You can't profitably prune this tree, just pull the stump and re-plant.

 

[bhsmte]

First line, second sentence (expanded): "God breathed into (the new open space of) His own mouth."

And how is it again you have come to know this as fact?

 

[bhsmte]

I described the start of the universe as God exhaling.

And your conundrum is exactly why I switched models to explain the same action. Best represented in sono-luminescence: The water is pulled apart by sound and a mostly vacuum vapor state is left in it's wake.

The Breathe of God is left in the wake of the "opening" of God to make the universal void space.

So if you must stick with the anthropic example: The Breathe of God was made inside the body of God and He exhaled a vapor of His own blood plasma. But it's a messy metaphor .


You could also think of the body of God like an infinite block of Swiss Cheese, it has no external boundary. God says "Holy Cheese!" and infinite holes appear in the cheese. Cheese vapor is left in the holes.

We are patterned clouds of cheese vapor whizzing by each other, surrounded above and below and all about by The Big Cheese.

Wow!!

You should be writing science fiction books.

 

[bhsmte]

Posting on a site like this is like thrusting my sword into a wall until it sticks and I and strong. Then I will be able to slay a powerful man. And I will have already slain myself over and over. Perhaps that is the most important accomplishment.

I am here for the practice before I think to step into official rings. I need to be as sharp a possible to do this whole thing any kind of justice.

I lead a very busy, pay check to pay check life taking care of several other people. I don't have the time or money to publish in esteemed journals.

I am doing what I can with what's in front of me....and that's you!


Might as well start somewhere with someone right?

Well, I wish you luck.

Everything, of course, will come down to you being able to support your positions with verifiable objective evidence, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of yourself.

You do remind me of the electric universe crowd, which supports their position by selectively focusing on certain information, while conveniently ignoring a whole host of facts, that basically destroys their position.

Obviously, your personal hypothesis is very important to you and you likely thought long and hard about this because you were struggling to believe the traditional explanations of God and needed something that was convincing to you.

 

[lesliedellow]

And how is it again you have come to know this as fact?

He wants to merge science and religion, but it doesn't seem to occur to him that they deal in two different kinds of language. Metaphor might be fine for religion, but mathematics is the language of physics.

 

[Received]

Well, I wish you luck.

Everything, of course, will come down to you being able to support your positions with verifiable objective evidence, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of yourself.

bhsmte, he's theorizing, which is pretty much the only thing QM folks can do with their knowledge of this screwy microworld. I don't see how anyone shouldn't take him seriously. He does sound WAY out there, but I'm not finding anything inconsistent with his theory, and if he's right he would be successful in the almost impossible task of unifying theology with QM and making God super duper relevant.

I don't see your critique as valid, I guess.

 

[lesliedellow]

bhsmte, he's theorizing, which is pretty much the only thing QM folks can do with their knowledge of this screwy microworld.

As with any other scientific theory its practitioners use it to make predictions about what will happen in the real world. Something no amount of hot air from Usus Vox can do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As with any other scientific theory its practitioners use it to make predictions about what will happen in the real world.

True, internal consistency is hardly the most significant feature of any argument for the existence of something. Losing socks while doing laundry is consistent with the existence of house-gnomes, but doesn't make for a compelling case for their existence.

I have no reason to regard his speculations as presenting a case at all. It's more like a set of loosely associated ideas glommed together. It reminds me of "conspiracy theorizing", which may be highly internally consistent, but not something to be taken seriously as a competitor for truth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

As with any other scientific theory its practitioners use it to make predictions about what will happen in the real world. Something no amount of hot air from Usus Vox can do.

Which is a problem inherent with getting too deep with science at an abstract level, not Usus per se. Lack of predictability just means he's theorizing and philosophizing, but the road can't help but go down this way given the nature of the road. The same applies with fancy cosmological explanations of how the the universe came to be: scientists theorizing scientifically to the point to where, inexorably, they end up going beyond science because of lack of predictability, as you say. There's nothing wrong with making this leap if there's no other way to go.