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

[Received]

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

He's theorizing in such a good way that I can find nothing wrong with it. The problem folks seem to have, IMO, is that his theorizing and logic leads to conclusions that people don't like. "How dare he try to fit in God with QM...and I can't find a refutation to him, ergo he's by definition CRAZY."

 

[bhsmte]

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.

He has his own hypothesis and I believe critiquing it is more than valid, if he wants others to take it seriously.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He's theorizing in such a good way that I can find nothing wrong with it. The problem folks seem to have, IMO, is that his theorizing and logic leads to conclusions that people don't like. "How dare he try to fit in God with QM...and I can't find a refutation to him, ergo he's by definition CRAZY."

Really? I always take doing "science" in the philosophy section as a sign that person knows their science is flimsy at best.

 

[Received]

Really? I always take doing "science" in the philosophy section as a sign that person knows their science is flimsy at best.

Yeah, but my point is that he's reached such a point in theorizing where he can't help but philosophize. When you get deeper and deeper with thinking scientifically, you can easily get to the point where you're theorizing more and more (as opposed to "just" getting the facts through experiments and data analysis). Eventually you can't help but reach the point where you're theorizing to the point where you're philosophizing: trying to put all this data together into a coherent narrative or conceptualization. That's where Usus is, and I can't find a thing wrong with his conceptualization of QM, or how he's tying God to this. If you're finding a problem with it because he's not strictly doing science, I don't think this is his fault, given that the road of scientifically thinking leads inexorably to theorizing and then to philosophizing.

He just might be opening up God for you. Finally a theist who makes a ridiculous amount of sense! But if you're assuming he can't be making sense because he's necessarily philosophizing more than he's doing "just science," that isn't fair to him, and you're missing the chance to make God actually relevant.

IMO.

Which is all why we should remember this important point: science is a type of philosophy. It's just reached such a point of success and specialization that people distinguish the two intrinsically, when they've always been one and the same: science is a type of philosophizing, which means that thinking scientifically to the point of philosophizing explicitly is actually being honest with the spirit of science.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Really? I always take doing "science" in the philosophy section as a sign that person knows their science is flimsy at best.

Or that I am deal with things beyond the scope of machine science, like what is beyond the CMB and before universal inflation. But I am using known physics, and scientific evidence to back up where science cannot go.


But back to predictability, that's one of my favorites!


As I explained before, the triple contraction of the Original Substance creates a spherical ceiling, a central point, and a space wide matrix. If these are the vibrating container borders of the universe...then I expect the fundamental standing wave building block of the universe to be exactly the same.


Behold the atom: A spherical border wave shell of electron travel that also blips through an internal probability field non linearly. There is also a central point nucleus.
More subatomic members can be added to the atom to travel up the periodic chart but every single one is a wave sphere, with an internal probability field, and a nucleus.


Prediction nailed.



If I were to simplify this first tier of universal unfolding as a drawing; I would draw a circle around a central dot. I'm not the only one...

It's called the circumpunct: Circled dot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solar system##Solar symbol used to represent the Sun
##Solar mass (astronomy)
##The sun / Gold (Alchemical symbols)
##The sun / Ra (Egyptian hieroglyphs)
##The sun / a day (Chinese oracle script, the modern character being &#26085

Religion and philosophy##Keter, Crown (Kabbalah)
##Spirit, (Ojibwa)


Circle with a Dot or Circumpunct – Excommunicate.Net

This simple symbol has many meanings, often spiritual. The Stanford Solar Center says the circle with a point is the common astrological and now astronomical symbol for the Sun, as well as the ancient alchemical symbol for gold, the perfect metal. This is because the sphere is a perfect shape, representing wholeness, oneness, unity and spirituality.

In her bookLife Symbols as Related to Sex Symbolism, Elizabeth E. Goldsmith writes that the dot within the circle dates to ancient times and may have typified the seed within the egg. "This is the 'Orphic egg', a symbol of the universe whose yolk in the middle of a liquid surrounded an encompassing vault, represented the globe of the sun floating in ether and surrounded by the vault of heaven," she writes. How apt then that Ra – worshipped as the great father who created gods and men – should be represented by this symbol.

In Hinduism the midpoint in the circle is called a "bindu" – meaning point or dot – and it's said to signify the spark of male life, the point at which creation begins within the cosmic womb and one becomes many. According to the book Yantra: The Tantric Symbol Of Cosmic Unitythe bindu is the "the sacred symbol of the cosmos in its unmanifested state".

The circumpunct is indeed profound with its meaning ranging from an explanation of deity, to an explanation of the self. These two points in addition to its ancient meaning of the sun earn the circumpunct the rank of most symbolic of all symbols.



Circle with a Dot or Circumpunct – Excommunicate.Net

Perhaps the most profound meaning for the circle with a dot in it is that of God. I had a professor once who had asked the class to draw the best representation of God. There were some students who drew Christ, others an old man in a chair, and then there were some that drew the Hindu gods. In the end all he did was draw a circle on the board with a dot in the center.


“This is God, the circumpunct is perhaps the most perfect symbol to represent God. The circle,” His finger traced the circle on the board. “represents the all encompassing power and infinite limitlessness of God. While the dot,” He pointed to the center of the circle “Represents our place within God, we are part of God. The circumpunct represents the perfect union of the divine and the created. The dot can represent anything within the omnipotent divinity of God.” He walked around the room in a circle then stood in the center. “Or it can also represent the self. The circle can mean the body, or the conscious self, while the dot can represent our subconscious or super-conscious.”

The circumpunct is indeed profound with its meaning ranging from an explanation of deity, to an explanation of the self. These two points in addition to its ancient meaning of the sun earn the circumpunct the rank of most symbolic of all symbols.




It's also called the germ in the cosmic egg.



Do you know where the term "sin" comes from? It comes from archery. It means to miss the central golden bulls eye of the target. "Jesus" is the sinless center.


The circled dot was placed on grave stones before the cross. It is still used in trail marking today. It means "I'm going home."

As the central massive body of the universe is God the Son, yes we all get pulled unwaveringly home!

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, but my point is that he's reached such a point in theorizing where he can't help but philosophize. When you get deeper and deeper with thinking scientifically, you can easily get to the point where you're theorizing more and more (as opposed to "just" getting the facts through experiments and data analysis). Eventually you can't help but reach the point where you're theorizing to the point where you're philosophizing: trying to put all this data together into a coherent narrative or conceptualization. That's where Usus is, and I can't find a thing wrong with his conceptualization of QM, or how he's tying God to this. If you're finding a problem with it because he's not strictly doing science, I don't think this is his fault, given that the road of scientifically thinking leads inexorably to theorizing and then to philosophizing.

He just might be opening up God for you. Finally a theist who makes a ridiculous amount of sense! But if you're assuming he can't be making sense because he's necessarily philosophizing more than he's doing "just science," that isn't fair to him, and you're missing the chance to make God actually relevant.

IMO.

Which is all why we should remember this important point: science is a type of philosophy. It's just reached such a point of success and specialization that people distinguish the two intrinsically, when they've always been one and the same: science is a type of philosophizing, which means that thinking scientifically to the point of philosophizing explicitly is actually being honest with the spirit of science.

Maybe I missed it, but didn't he claim he could use science to show God existed? If he did, he needs to use science that can be shown to be verifiable, otherwise, he isn't using science, he is only making assumptions.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

He has his own hypothesis and I believe critiquing it is more than valid, if he wants others to take it seriously.

I believe that's why I have come here, and thank you for your honest critiques!

 

[Received]

Maybe I missed it, but didn't he claim he could use science to show God existed? If he did, he needs to use science that can be shown to be verifiable, otherwise, he isn't using science, he is only making assumptions.

Dunno, but even if he did this science leading to theorizing leading to philosophizing problem still applies, so I think it could be true that he's using science (in the more theoretical rather than fact-finding sense) to prove God. I'd say he isn't proving God so much as, in his view, correctly naming "just QM stuff" as God.

 

[bhsmte]

Dunno, but even if he did this science leading to theorizing leading to philosophizing problem still applies, so I think it could be true that he's using science (in the more theoretical rather than fact-finding sense) to prove God. I'd say he isn't proving God so much as, in his view, correctly naming "just QM stuff" as God.

It would appear, he is assuming QM stuff is God.

As I have said, if his personal hypothesis works for him, more power to him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or that I am deal with things beyond the scope of machine science, like what is beyond the CMB and before universal inflation. But I am using known physics, and scientific evidence to back up where science cannot go.

You know, I can totally relate. As for myself, I deal with things that go beyond the scope of spirituality and machine mythology. You could say I've transcended them long ago.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

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.

Here's a few predictions of what the "real world" is using the 3d holographic model I have worked out:

We are directly immersed within a quantum field, a gravitational field, an electromagnetic field, a weakly interactive field and a strongly interactive field.

It tells me that there are only 3 density levels of atomic matter possible in the universe. And then of course 3 of anti-matter.

It tells me that the constant expansive "dark energy" of the universe is a maximum 74% and no less than 61% and probably some where right in the middle.

It tells me that our type of matter is only 1 of 6, so I expect "dark matter" to be about 6 times more influential.

It tells me that our space-time has an ever so slight negative curve and would appear "saddle shaped".


It tells me our space is a nest of 6 super-strings.




I wonder if science has corroborated any of these predictions? *popcorn*


What it predicts as the internal reflective membranes and chambers of the human psyche, I find, much more interesting. I find what it tells me about life after death highly interesting too.

 

[Received]

It would appear, he is assuming QM stuff is God.

As I have said, if his personal hypothesis works for him, more power to him.

What's wrong with assuming God and QM are fundamentally one?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

“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.

Ah, my ever faithful task master, you are absolutely right! I have not yet proved the proof for God creating the universe. But both are quite large and complex subjects with rich histories yes? Might not several approaches from many angles be required to do them both justice?

If science cannot speak the tongue of religion, and religion cannot speak the tongue of science, then the only place I'd expect to find harmonious ground is in the place of the love of wisdom.


You have already given me much to work with and incorporate. Thank you. It will take a fair amount of dedicated time to do so and I have very little to spare these days.

Mean while I'll keep sharing what I have found by the way I navigate. And I'll hone it as I'm able. Thanks for your participation!

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

It would appear, he is assuming QM stuff is God.

As I have said, if his personal hypothesis works for him, more power to him.

I am saying and demonstrating specifically that; the floor of vibration at the smallest possible scale, where all quantum action occurs is the domain and action of the Holy Spirit, the vibrating Breathe of God, that was spread evenly throughout the universe when the space for the universe was pulled apart.

Not God the Union before creation, not God the Father/Mother outside of all creations/universes/bubbles, not God the Son in the center of every universe...The Spirit of God/Holy Spirit/Ruah ha Kodesh.

It is the universe wide animating principle that supports the manifestation of real phenomenon physical or energetic.

Fermilab Today

Modern physics deals with some ridiculously non-intuitive stuff. Objects act as though they gain mass the faster they move. An electron can't decide if it's a particle, a wave or both. However, there is one statement that takes the cake on sounding like crazy talk: Empty space isn't empty.

On the face of it, empty space should be … well … empty. If you take a container, pump all the air out of it, shield it from electric fields and plop it in the deepest of intergalactic space to get it away from gravitational fields, that container should contain absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip.

However, that's not what happens. At the quantum scale, space is a writhing, frantic, ever-changing foam, with particles popping into existence and disappearing in the wink of an eye. This is not just a theoretical idea—it's confirmed. How can this bizarre idea be true?

Even though in classical physics we are taught that energy is conserved, which means it cannot change, one of the tenets of quantum mechanics says that energy doesn't have to be conserved if the change happens for a short enough time. So even if space had zero energy, it would be perfectly OK for a little energy to pop into existence for a tiny split second and then disappear—and that's what happens in empty space. And since energy and matter are the same (thank Einstein for teaching us that E=mc2 thing), matter can also appear and disappear.

And this appears everywhere. At the quantum level, matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into existence and popping back out, with an electron-positron pair here and a top quark-antiquark pair there. This behavior is the reason that scientists call these ephemeral particles "quantum foam": It's similar to how bubbles in foam form and then pop.

 

[bhsmte]

What's wrong with assuming God and QM are fundamentally one?

Nothing wrong with assuming anything, for your own personal consumption.

 

[bhsmte]

I am saying and demonstrating specifically that; the floor of vibration at the smallest possible scale, where all quantum action occurs is the domain and action of the Holy Spirit, the vibrating Breathe of God, that was spread evenly throughout the universe when the space for the universe was pulled apart.

Not God the Union before creation, not God the Father/Mother outside of all creations/universes/bubbles, not God the Son in the center of every universe...The Spirit of God/Holy Spirit/Ruah ha Kodesh.

It is the universe wide animating principle that supports the manifestation of real phenomenon physical or energetic.

Fermilab Today

Modern physics deals with some ridiculously non-intuitive stuff. Objects act as though they gain mass the faster they move. An electron can't decide if it's a particle, a wave or both. However, there is one statement that takes the cake on sounding like crazy talk: Empty space isn't empty.

On the face of it, empty space should be … well … empty. If you take a container, pump all the air out of it, shield it from electric fields and plop it in the deepest of intergalactic space to get it away from gravitational fields, that container should contain absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip.

However, that's not what happens. At the quantum scale, space is a writhing, frantic, ever-changing foam, with particles popping into existence and disappearing in the wink of an eye. This is not just a theoretical idea—it's confirmed. How can this bizarre idea be true?

Even though in classical physics we are taught that energy is conserved, which means it cannot change, one of the tenets of quantum mechanics says that energy doesn't have to be conserved if the change happens for a short enough time. So even if space had zero energy, it would be perfectly OK for a little energy to pop into existence for a tiny split second and then disappear—and that's what happens in empty space. And since energy and matter are the same (thank Einstein for teaching us that E=mc2 thing), matter can also appear and disappear.

And this appears everywhere. At the quantum level, matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into existence and popping back out, with an electron-positron pair here and a top quark-antiquark pair there. This behavior is the reason that scientists call these ephemeral particles "quantum foam": It's similar to how bubbles in foam form and then pop.

Where exactly, have you demonstrated, that QM is the holy spirit in action?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Here's a beautiful statement from the physics department at the University of Oregon: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

Birth of the Universe:

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.

 

[Received]

Nothing wrong with assuming anything, for your own personal consumption.

Let me try again.

What's wrong with equating God and QM objectively?

 

[Gracchus]

Let me try again. What's wrong with equating God and QM objectively?

Well, if God is quantum mechanics, then we don't need the word "God" since we already have the math in place for quantum mechanics.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me try again.

What's wrong with equating God and QM objectively?

Nothing, as long as he can show QM directly points to God and God directly points at QM.

If someone else can also assume, QM points at Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster or aliens, he hasn't really objectively shown anything, except assuming something.