God in quantum universe?

[Alexander]

In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?
And yet it seems the higher the "intelligence factor," the less likely things are apt to occur by chance. In other words you seem to have put the "cart before the horse."

Whereas if I see a car driving down the road, and I know that road only goes one place, say to the end of town, then I could fairly reasonably "predict" the car is going to the end of town.

How much more difficult do you think it would be for God to do, if in fact He understood "the principle" to all things?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Iacchus32


Whereas if I see a car driving down the road, and I know that road only goes one place, say to the end of town, then I could fairly reasonably "predict" the car is going to the end of town.



Only with some probability (car may ran out of gas or oil, or skid into trench at turn, tire may blow, driver may get important call, or realize that this is dead end, etc etc). That is exactly what our world seems to be - uncertainty and probability. Thus no way of knowing exact future - it is not set yet.

Thus, uncompartibility of such "knowing-it-all" God with our universe.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Only with some probability (car may ran out of gas or oil, or skid into trench at turn, tire may blow, driver may get important call, or realize that this is dead end, etc etc). That is exactly what our world seems to be - uncertainty and probability. Thus no way of knowing exact future - it is not set yet.

Thus, uncompartibility of such "knowing-it-all" God with our universe.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that things which are governed by "higher principles" (on evolutionary scale if nothing else) are less subject to chance? If so, doesn't that make them "more predictable?"

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?
Because God is the source of the quantum-universe, and we must presume that God knows where his own energy (body, so to speak) is going to 'act'.
I cannot predict what my next post shall be. But the words I use shall be of my own will. Get the drift?

[Alexander]

Once god made universe quantum, then he lost all control over its futher future.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Alexander
Once god made universe quantum, then he lost all control over its futher future.
That's like saying that once God made his own thoughts unpredictable, that he lost control over his own thoughts.
But even my thoughts are unpredictable. Yet I know what I shall say when I want to say it.
Your thread is defunct.

[FZ+]

If you can control your thoughts, then your thoughts are simply not unpredictable for you...

(Newsflash: recent experiment shows that there is a change in brain impulses about 100 miliseconds before an action is consciously considered. Is this evidence of a mind before a mind? Or a subconcious puppet master?)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?
You can create a calculator that doesn't make mistakes can't you? It would just be a matter of understanding the "principles" that go into creating it. Therefore, if God understands the principles that go into all things, why can't He also understand how everything turns out in the end?

[plus]

Quantum is only unpredictable to us. It may not be to any God, if one existed.

[jackle]

I think atheists want it both ways. We seem to be damned if it is and damned if it isn't. Are you now saying the world is *unpredictable*, but still there is no place for God? As I remember it, in the 19th centuary you proclaimed that the universe was purely mechanical and *predictable* with no place left for God.

[FZ+]

So we are damned if it is and damned if it isn't.
Pretty much... [;)]

There a different problem, depending on which way you look at it.

Absolute determinism -> no free will -> morality etc do not make sense -> irrelevance of God

No determinism -> no predictability -> contradiction with omniscience clause -> God is irrational

Or so it seems....

EDIT: ie. it isn't a matter of there being no place for God now, but that he is inconsistent with the things we observe. The laws of quantum uncertainty, for example....

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Pretty much... [;)]

There a different problem, depending on which way you look at it.

Absolute determinism -> no free will -> morality etc do not make sense -> irrelevance of God

No determinism -> no predictability -> contradiction with omniscience clause -> God is irrational

Or so it seems....

EDIT: ie. it isn't a matter of there being no place for God now, but that he is inconsistent with the things we observe. The laws of quantum uncertainty, for example....
And yet the higher the "faculty of reason," the less one is likely to make mistakes ... albeit there was probably an "initial choice" to be reasonable in the first place.

You see if perfection existed then that would be determinism, for there would be "nothing" to determine. And yet in order to achieve perfection (or, allow for its potential), then you have to have free will.

[HazZy]

programmers add randomness to games to make them more interesting, yet they still control every aspect of the game and can add and subtract from it as they wish [;)]. saying god cant exist in a random universe is like saying "this game has randomness, therefore it could not have been programmed by a programmer." we know the programmer exist outside of the computer therefore he could have created randomness in the game from the beginning. so if god can exist outside of our universe why couldnt he create a random universe and then meddle around with it as he sees fit?

[Alexander]

To make my point more clear let's consider the following example. Suppose, we have a quantum wavetrain of 1 mile long (say, a red He-Ne laser photon). Does God know exact position of this wave?

Even math does not know that (simply because it is not defined), how God can?

On the other hand, if God does not indeed know position of wave better than "somwhere within the mile" then He does not know where a photon will be absorbed (triggering some alternative events depending on location) thus what is the outcome of absorbtion.

Because our universe is a bunch of wavetrains, it is inherently unpredictable (better say, only predictable down to uncertainty principle limits), thus its future too is only predictable statistically.

The "light cone" of unpredictability (so to speak) makes future events exponentially less and less predictable with time down into future.

That is what I mean by "future in not set yet".

So, no God can "know all what comes" in quantum universe.

[jackle]

I think a God who is no more than mathematics would be no God at all. If God has escaped your perception until now, is it reasonable to assume anything about him?

[megashawn]

Regardless of which dimension/universe god resides in, if he expects me to believe him without any proof of his existance, and will punish me after I die if I do not believe, then I, as a decent person, would gladly except that punishment and smile in his face.

If god is mathematics, then I'd say god is not a concious being. If he is quantum, then obviously he is in a world which we shall not meet with him. Hey, maybe someday we will. Untill that day, I'll take the high road and appreciate life for what it is, not worrying about what happens when I die. One thing is for certain, I'll have an infinite amount of time to do so.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?


Alex. Your question is easily answerable. The god of whatever religious mythology you speak of can know ONLY and EXACTLY what the mythology says that God knows. If the mythology does not address a certain piece of information that this god knows, the only answer is you cannot know weather this god knows it or not.

The answer is undefined.

Again, please see my sig. Don't superimpose (religious) mythology on to reality.

[Alexander]

Yeah, of course. I think that most here understand that religions (=widely spread system beliefs WITHOUT factual/logical background) are just kind of moxture of superstition and mythology - whether it is about Santa or Jahove or Jesus, or about flat Earth or even about real persons like Elvis.

What I try to analyse here - is there ANY room for god(s) in physical world, or by its very definition God is outside of it. By other words, which laws of Nature we have to "cancel" by assuming existence of God?

It seems to me that most of them.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Even math does not know that (simply because it is not defined), how God can?

The "light cone" of unpredictability (so to speak) makes future events exponentially less and less predictable with time down into future. Do you know the true reason for that unpredictability? your answer is no, and you can't use that argument.

What I try to analyse here - is there ANY room for god(s) in physical world, or by its very definition God is outside of it. By other words, which laws of Nature we have to "cancel" by assuming existence of God? Lets face it, god is undisprovable. Thus its axiom, assumption that can be either true or false. Its probability of being either is exactly 50%, no less, no more. How we define god is factually irrelevant. Sad part of most religions is that they've been used as weapon against human mind, to lock it. Those who lock onto concept of god, are lost to progress of civilization and are stuck in vegetative indulging. Luckily there are not too many. Healthy amount of doubt and independance of any mantras allows one to have open mind for any possibility. To argue about definitions of god is completely fruitless, and attempt to convert people is aggression. Given our childish state of understanding of god, colored by only myriad of idiotic religions, it can be only very very personal matter, very bland discussions.

Any room? There's always room. As long as there exists one single axiom, there is room. Maybe logic of universe and time are not quite that, but they're as close as you can get to common part of all definitions of god, trinity. They are literally everywhere.

[FZ+]

Its probability of being either is exactly 50%, no less, no more.
No. The probability varies from observer to observer, depending on experience, genetics etc. To have an unified probability that is true for everyone kinda defeats the point of having probabilities in the first place....

[wimms]

Originally posted by FZ+
No. The probability varies from observer to observer, depending on experience, genetics etc. To have an unified probability that is true for everyone kinda defeats the point of having probabilities in the first place.... wow, thats kinda deep. Probability of encountering god after death varies from observer to observer, location, etc.. [t)]
Quantum god in universe?

[FZ+]

And hence, gentlemen, is the proof for the wave-particle duality of Divine Entities. [:D]

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Do you know the true reason for that unpredictability? your answer is no, and you can't use that argument.




Of course, I do. The reason is that many systems obey specific kind of differential equations which solution is exponent (of time). And exponent is DIVERGING (with time) function. Thus very small (subatomic) change in some initial condition today may result in completely different behavior of such system tomorrow.




Lets face it, god is undisprovable.



Incorrect. God is undefinable simply because it does not exist. Define Him, and I'll prove to you that He does not exist. Make sure you definition is acceptable (=complies with Bible or at least with major dogmas of religion).

Now, if God is undefinable, then He does not exist by definition. There is NO god(s) yet unless you define it (them).

So, God does not exist simply because He is undefinable. No object (or subject) yet. Nothing to discuss existence of therefore.



Any room? There's always room. As long as there exists one single axiom, there is room. Maybe logic of universe and time are not quite that, but they're as close as you can get to common part of all definitions of god, trinity. They are literally everywhere.

Any fact to substantiate your "observation" of everywhereness? I think you have too rich imagination which does not let you to separate facts from illusions.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by FZ+
And hence, gentlemen, is the proof for the wave-particle duality of Divine Entities. [:D]

Indeed. And it vanishes every time observer takes a look. Collapse of Divine wave fuction, you know.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms


Its probability of being either is exactly 50%, no less, no more.

It depends on tools you use to analyse existence of God(s). If you use a tool called logic, this probability asymptotically reaches zero.

[HazZy]

Now, if God is undefinable, then He does not exist by definition. There is NO god(s) yet unless you define it (them).infinity is undefinable, so therefore by your logic infinity doesn't exist? that parallel universe article seems to disagree.

[Alexander]

Incorrect. Infinity is clearly defined: more than anything.

[HazZy]

well my dictionary (it's old, that might be be the problem) defines "define" -- To determine or clearly exhibit the boundaries of; to mark the limits of. infinity as i know it is boundless, therefore, how do you define it?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
It depends on tools you use to analyse existence of God(s). If you use a tool called logic, this probability asymptotically reaches zero.
I think if we are to "experience" God, then it should be from the standpoint of "wholeness." The use of "logic" by itself -- i.e., without "intuition" -- won't do.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by HazZy
well my dictionary (it's old, that might be be the problem) defines "define" -- To determine or clearly exhibit the boundaries of; to mark the limits of. infinity as i know it is boundless, therefore, how do you define it?

It is not boundless, it simply has LOWER bound instead of UPPER.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wimms
wow, thats kinda deep. Probability of encountering god after death varies from observer to observer, location, etc.. [t)]
Quantum god in universe?
Yes, especially if there is a heaven and a hell. Those who are in heaven turn towards God (which in heaven is portrayed as The Sun), while those who are in hell face away (from the encounter).

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
It is not boundless, it simply has LOWER bound instead of UPPER. well see again im thrown in between your definition and websters. Infinity: 1. Unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity; eternity; boundlessness; immensity.

anyways doesn't a lower bound specify it being equal to or less than another number in a set? and a upper bound a number equal to or greater than another number in a set? therefore since infinity^2=infinity there is no upper or lower bounds to inifinty (there both equal), it's boundless. am i missing something here?

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
-- Do you know the true reason for that unpredictability? (wimms)
Of course, I do. The reason is that many systems obey specific kind of differential equations which solution is exponent (of time). And exponent is DIVERGING (with time) function. Your mind is closed when discussing such subject, isnt it? What you know is:
1. that many systems obey specific kind of differential equations
2. that specific kind of differential equations which solution is exponent, etc.
3. that reality can be to a certain degree be approximated by these equations

What you DON'T know is reason why the hell reality you observe can be approximated by those specific equations.

But you don't want to consider difference..

Incorrect. God is undefinable simply because it does not exist. Define Him, and I'll prove to you that He does not exist. Make sure you definition is acceptable (=complies with Bible or at least with major dogmas of religion). I don't care a about definitions of any dogmas. Why you need stupid religions? Dogmas are brainwashing tools. I don't really care about god or its definition.
But I gave my take: god is 'logic that rules behaviour of universe'. Disprove that "definition".

Now, if God is undefinable, then He does not exist by definition. There is NO god(s) yet unless you define it (them). Only defined stuff exists, only what fits your mind? Oh well. Or what you mean by 'undefineable'? There is difference, whether its undefineable today or in principle.

Any fact to substantiate your "observation" of everywhereness? I think you have too rich imagination which does not let you to separate facts from illusions. So much of bland discussions.. It always ends right there.

Your remark is so off my sanity scale that I really don't know what you want to see as answer. Maybe you think I'm defending existence of god? No, I'm not a believer. What I said was not to 'proove' god or something. What I said, is that 'time' and 'behavioural logic' are everywhere. You say that I need to give a 'fact' to proove that???[8)]

[Alexander]

Originally posted by HazZy
well see again im thrown in between your definition and websters. Infinity: 1. Unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity; eternity; boundlessness; immensity.

anyways doesn't a lower bound specify it being equal to or less than another number in a set? and a upper bound a number equal to or greater than another number in a set? therefore since infinity^2=infinity there is no upper or lower bounds to inifinty (there both equal), it's boundless. am i missing something here?

Lower bound means "bigger than...", infinity is what bigger than any essential parameter of your particular problem. Say, you measure area of your runch. Because Earth radius is much bigger than your runch, you can neglect its curvature completely and use plane Earth geometry to calculate ranch area - much easier than to mess with Lobachevsky tensors.

Or for car, plane or Shuttle flight you can safely assume that speed of light is infinite - then Einstein SR turns into Newtonian mechanics which is a little easier to digest.

So, infinity is indeed very convenient and extremely useful for practical applications concept.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms

What you DON'T know is reason why the hell reality you observe can be approximated by those specific equations.



Of course, I do. I studied nature a lot. Can explain it to you. But it is no easy task (for you, not for me), you need to have certain background to understand many concepts here. (And, unfortunately, layman logic is quite useless here).

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Of course, I do. I studied nature a lot. Can explain it to you. But it is no easy task (for you, not for me), you need to have certain background to understand many concepts here. (And, unfortunately, layman logic is quite useless here). Wow, so we have answers to all questions? No more theoretical physics searches ever needed? Every postulate is reasoned? No more questions of challenge? Now thats something. Of course I would like to hear about it. I've so far lived with that stupid assumption that we're not quite there..

Lets start with trivial things. Explain please WHY is universe consistent, and explainable in terms of logic and math?

As you raise really interesting issue for me, I'm ready to update my background if needed.

[Alexander]

Quite easy. Basic premises of logic come from nature itself. Say, existence of something. It seems quite trivial that there is existence of something (in nature). But it makes interesting impact. We label this existence as "yes" or "+" or "true" or "1", and the lack (of this "something") - as "no", or "-", or "false", or "0". This is the foundation of logic (and math).

So mathematics (which is just advanced logic) correctly predicts behavior of things in nature - because foundation of both (of math and of nature) is same.

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
Lower bound means "bigger than..."i think you're confused...

and if you think by saying that since we approximate v/c=0 for slow speeds is in any way recognition that infinity is bounded, you're way off.

so go for it, show me the bounds of +-infinity.

[Alexander]

Then you simply don't understand infinity correctly. Infinity = much bigger than any important parameter. In some cases just a few times bigger is already infinity.

Say, solenoidal formulas (for magnetic field inside solenoid, as well as for inductance) are derived for INFINITELY long (compared to diameter) solenoid. But they work quite well for a solenoid which is only 5-10 times longer than its diameter. So, in this case 5-10 is already infinity.

[plus]

Originally posted by Alexander

Make sure you definition is acceptable (=complies with Bible or at least with major dogmas of religion).


There is nothing to say that if there were a God, it would comply with any major religion.

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
Then you simply don't understand infinity correctly. Infinity = much bigger than any important parameter. In some cases just a few times bigger is already infinity.

Say, solenoidal formulas (for magnetic field inside solenoid, as well as for inductance) are derived for INFINITELY long (compared to diameter) solenoid. But they work quite well for a solenoid which is only 5-10 times longer than its diameter. So, in this case 5-10 is already infinity.you can't say infinity is simply "a few times bigger", that denotes infinity as actually being a finite number, which it is not.

a solenoid may work well when it is long with a small diameter, but it will ALWAYS work better if it's longer. the solenoid is never perfect until it reaches infinity, which it can never reach. you're trying to set some finite number to infinity, it's ridiculous.

first you tell me infinity is a lower bound, now you say infinity is finite, what's next?

[Alexander]

Ok, once again: infinity = much bigger than biggest important thing in your system. How much bigger? Big enough to not notice any difference if you futher increase it. Sometimes only few times is enough, like in many cases in physics.

{I am trying to explain to you the concept of infinity EXACTLY how mathematicians and scientists understand it and how they use it.

How laymans understand (or don't understand) it, or how philosophers complicate/fog it, or what they mean by it, I don' know and am not responsible for.)

Originally posted by HazZy


a solenoid may work well when it is long with a small diameter, but it will ALWAYS work better if it's longer.



Nope, it won't. Because you always limited in resolution/accuracy of your measurement, you won't be able to notice any difference.

[HazZy]

Originally posted by Alexander
Ok, once again: infinity = much bigger than biggest important thing in your system. How much bigger? Big enough to not notice any difference if you futher increase it. Sometimes only few times is enough, like in many cases in physics.i simply can't accept something as infinite just because it's much bigger than something else. that's like calling the universe infinite just because it's "much bigger than biggest important thing in your system", that's just not logical.


Nope, it won't. Because you always limited in resolution/accuracy of your measurement, you won't be able to notice any difference. [/B]just because we cant measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. whenever you make the solenoid longer it has less error, no matter how miniscule. the error is never zero until the solenoids length is infinity, that's how physics uses the concept of infinity. the error dimishes with distance, therefore at infinite distance there is no error.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by HazZy
just because we cant measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. whenever you make the solenoid longer it has less error, no matter how miniscule.

That is exactly what matters in the concept of infinity - various limits and constrains. You always have either instrumental errors, or something else starts messing around as you make solenoid longer (say, wire size is not fine enough or wires are slightly bent, or atoms of wire are too big, etc), or inherent natural mathematical limitations like Heizenberg uncertainty principle, etc. You simply can't then distinguish between, say, magnetic field in 1"x10" solenoid and in 1"x20" one.

Infinity is NOT an object. It is an approach in measurements and calculations, nothing else.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Quite easy. Basic premises of logic come from nature itself. Say, existence of something. It seems quite trivial that there is existence of something (in nature). But it makes interesting impact. We label this existence as "yes" or "+" or "true" or "1", and the lack (of this "something") - as "no", or "-", or "false", or "0". This is the foundation of logic (and math).

So mathematics (which is just advanced logic) correctly predicts behavior of things in nature - because foundation of both (of math and of nature) is same. Of course you didn't understand the question. What you described is identification and counting, not logic or any foundation. If you say that aristoteles logic comes direct from nature, then thats bs.
And yet, even if it was true, question was not IF we can describe nature in terms of logic and math, but why it is at all describable, consistent and reliable, predictable. It IS, thats not an issue. Question is why it follows any consistent logic AT ALL? And why this particular one? You said you know the reason. And all you said is that it IS because it IS.
So, by you, we use logic of nature to describe nature. Q: where does this logic come from in first place?

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Ok, once again: infinity = much bigger than biggest important thing in your system. How much bigger? Big enough to not notice any difference if you futher increase it. Sometimes only few times is enough, like in many cases in physics.

{I am trying to explain to you the concept of infinity EXACTLY how mathematicians and scientists understand it and how they use it.
Geez, Alexander, is it that hard to point out that you make huge distinction between infinity vs infinite.
What they mean by infinity is largest meaningful thing. For eg, north pole is North infinity, there is no more point north from north pole. Largest value your calculator can show is infinity. Gees, even point at circle radius is at infinity. So you can actually get there. But you can't get to infinite distance.

I'd bet that this stupid usage of infinity is causing quite abit of confusion in scientific community aswell.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

Simple answer: because God does not exist, so there is no need to know.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Question is why it [universe] follows any consistent logic AT ALL?




Because, as I have shown above, logic IS universe itself (anything existing is logic by definition of logic).



So, by you, we use logic of nature to describe nature. Q: where does this logic come from in first place?

Once again: from the fact that something (like any object, or any phenomenon) exists (we then label this "something" as "yes", or "+", or "1" or "true").

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Geez, Alexander, is it that hard to point out that you make huge distinction between infinity vs infinite.


What is the difference?

[wimms]

-- Question is why it [universe] follows any consistent logic AT ALL? (wimms)
posted by Alexander
Because, as I have shown above, logic IS universe itself Amazing. I'd never expect scientist to say that out so clearly. We don't disagree here. But this is unexpected you said that, to me at least. You realise that this claim has enormous implications?
But, its not science, its fundamental claim and thus belongs to philosophy/religion domain.
So, logic IS universe. Fine. Then all material stuff is in fact logical concepts, and all interactions logical operators, time is concept of order, and entropy iterative differentiation, reason for inflation.
But question creeps in - is logic destructible in principle? bet not. Its abstract idea. Actually, all that exists is abstract ideas. There is no difference between mathmatical concepts we imagine and logical concepts that exist. Then, even your wildest imagination is actually real. And so on..

And it [logic] creates ALL that there is, it controls all that there is, it is allpervasive and eternal.
Pretty much definition of god, if you scrap all that personification attached to it by dogmatic egomaniac mortals.

-- Q: where does this logic come from in first place? (wimms)
Once again: from the fact that something (like any object, or any phenomenon) exists (we then label this "something" as "yes", or "+", or "1" or "true"). This is not answer, this is selfreferential and repeating yourself. We map out logic of universe by observing it, noticing patterns and assigning labels. Then we go ahead and use those labels with assumption that those patterns are universal. As we've not observed contradictions, we call it fact. But how on earth can you say that logic of universe comes from our labels, our observation? It exists without our presence.

Our human logic we use to describe universe is inherently boolean. Logic of universe isn't necessarily boolean at all. To describe it by our boolean logic, it's enough that its logic (any kind) is merely internally consistent, thats THE common property of any logic system. That allows us to describe universe, however difficult it might be for our boolean logic. Maybe in some other internally consistent logic system it might be described much more simply.

Still, whatever the universe logic is like, we can only observe its expression, but can never know the reason why it is this way. Why is logic of universe even internally consistent at all. There is no reason for that, it could be equally completely acausal without any capacity to create objects. Yes we are here, but that doesn't answer why. At best we could describe 'how', but not the reason 'why'.

Can you see my point? Logic is god of science. Religions being unable to reason or not even wanting to, attach all kinds of suitable labels to it, and call that monstrum a god. Its hope and wishful thinking that if they pray to logic, it'll listen to them and grant them heaven. Whats a point in arguing about 'properties' of religious god?

While religious people would say that logic itself is creation of god, scientists will simply stop here and say that reasons for internally consistent logic of universe is unanswerable question in principle, and science doesn't deal with that, science only uses it. And thats it: science stops here, and religion takes over beyond that point.
There's always room for god.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
What is the difference? [infinity vs infinite]
From dictionary:
infinity:
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.
4. Mathematics. The limit that a function f is said to approach at x = a when f(x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.

infinite:
adj.
1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
. a. - Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
. b. - Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
. c. - Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

n.
Something infinite.

[HazZy]

is there any distinct difference between "unbounded" and "boundless"? they seem one in the same to me; i've always thought of both infinite and infinity as boundless ideas anyway.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by wimms
Amazing. I'd never expect scientist to say that out so clearly. We don't disagree here. But this is unexpected you said that, to me at least. You realise that this claim has enormous implications?
But, its not science, its fundamental claim and thus belongs to philosophy/religion domain.
So, logic IS universe. Fine. Then all material stuff is in fact logical concepts, and all interactions logical operators, time is concept of order, and entropy iterative differentiation, reason for inflation.
But question creeps in - is logic destructible in principle? bet not. Its abstract idea. Actually, all that exists is abstract ideas. There is no difference between mathmatical concepts we imagine and logical concepts that exist. Then, even your wildest imagination is actually real. And so on..

And it [logic] creates ALL that there is, it controls all that there is, it is allpervasive and eternal.
Pretty much definition of god, if you scrap all that personification attached to it by dogmatic egomaniac mortals.

This is not answer, this is selfreferential and repeating yourself. We map out logic of universe by observing it, noticing patterns and assigning labels. Then we go ahead and use those labels with assumption that those patterns are universal. As we've not observed contradictions, we call it fact. But how on earth can you say that logic of universe comes from our labels, our observation? It exists without our presence.

Our human logic we use to describe universe is inherently boolean. Logic of universe isn't necessarily boolean at all. To describe it by our boolean logic, it's enough that its logic (any kind) is merely internally consistent, thats THE common property of any logic system. That allows us to describe universe, however difficult it might be for our boolean logic. Maybe in some other internally consistent logic system it might be described much more simply.

Still, whatever the universe logic is like, we can only observe its expression, but can never know the reason why it is this way. Why is logic of universe even internally consistent at all. There is no reason for that, it could be equally completely acausal without any capacity to create objects. Yes we are here, but that doesn't answer why. At best we could describe 'how', but not the reason 'why'.

Can you see my point? Logic is god of science. Religions being unable to reason or not even wanting to, attach all kinds of suitable labels to it, and call that monstrum a god. Its hope and wishful thinking that if they pray to logic, it'll listen to them and grant them heaven. Whats a point in arguing about 'properties' of religious god?

While religious people would say that logic itself is creation of god, scientists will simply stop here and say that reasons for internally consistent logic of universe is unanswerable question in principle, and science doesn't deal with that, science only uses it. And thats it: science stops here, and religion takes over beyond that point.
There's always room for god.

I'll answer for Alexander here, though I don't really agree with him.

What is is implying is that the universe is in fact a network of rules. These rules do not create the universe as a god may, but ARE the universe. What we see as matter is the physical action of these rules, and these rules are completely real and non-abstract.
If we say the universe is real, and logic is the universe, we get the idea that all true logic are represented in reality. They are independently real. They are not the same as ideas. So we are not saying there is a creator, but a fundamental material of which all things are made, which contains the information of these rules. Like DNA does for life, perhaps.

At the same time, we through knowledge have gained an understanding of these rules, which form all our knowledge. So, while it is true that everything we think of came from maths or logic, it is not true that everything we think is real. We say that absolute rules exist in the universe, and the imperfect way we understand them creates the "ideas".



What Alexander is saying is that a true set of physical rules exist, and they are absolutely universal. Our understanding of these come from our labels, but they are based in what is real.


Why is the universe internally consistent? Because internal consistency is automatic. Where does our analysis of consistency come from? The real logic. So, the universal logic just cannot be internally inconsistent as if then, the inconsistency would be the new consistency. Our idea of what is consistent would simply be different.


Speaking as myself:

No, logic is not the God of science. Do religions shackle their gods, wierd them in a hand and use them to detect things? Logic is a tool. God is an entity. While religions discourage selfish prayer, and say that the point is to work for god, not expect god to work for you, science uses logic only because it is useful. Do you consider your car a God, since you use it?
And since your own knowledge of mechanics does not give you the working of how that car works, do you delegate to religion?

But you have a point. Science describes the laws, not always how they are made. But then, does religion do anything different? Can an explanation using God hold any superiority to an explanation holding no god, when there is no evidence for both. There may be a niche for God, but it would appear to be hiding within the margins of uncertainty...

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
While religious people would say that logic itself is creation of god, scientists will simply stop here and say that reasons for internally consistent logic of universe is unanswerable question in principle, and science doesn't deal with that, science only uses it. And thats it: science stops here, and religion takes over beyond that point.
There's always room for god.

No, science does not stop here. It goes one step futher.

Notice that logic comes from the fact that something EXISTS (anything, it does not matter exactly what - a phenomenon, an object, a human, a rock, a space, a time, etc). So, if ANYTHING (say, a rock) exists, then we immediately can label it as "1", or "+", ot "true", or "yes", etc. The LACK of this rock is labeled as "0", or "-", or "false", or "no", etc. We have (binary) logic. So, foundation of logic is just the fact of EXISTENCE of anything.

Therefore, if anything exists it shall then obey logic by the very definition of logic. Math is just advanced form of logic, that is why it is so correct in not only describing but also in PREDICTING behavior of existing things.

Is not this obvious and well known fact from materialism?

[wimms]

Originally posted by FZ+
If we say the universe is real, and logic is the universe, we get the idea that all true logic are represented in reality. They are independently real. They are not the same as ideas. So we are not saying there is a creator, but a fundamental material of which all things are made, which contains the information of these rules. Like DNA does for life, perhaps.Here you make step backwards. You say there is material which then interacts. You just moved the fundamental question elsewhere. Question where does it come from creeps in immediately. While its possible to construct all from logic alone.

check out this 'mad' scientist: http://ebtx.com/ntxtoc.htm
Alex, you might find it interesting too.

Why is the universe internally consistent? Because internal consistency is automatic. Where does our analysis of consistency come from? The real logic. So, the universal logic just cannot be internally inconsistent as if then, the inconsistency would be the new consistency. Our idea of what is consistent would simply be different. Yes it would. This is interesting matter in itself - consistently inconsistent logic is .. consistent. But then our whole math would be different. Have you thought about any other possible kind of logic? Try. imo, human mind simply doesn't bend enough to come up with something. Mainly because our only tool to evaluate consistency of other logic, is our logic. We can only evaluate it in context of our logic that may be unable to see internal consistency of other, in context of other logic itself. To really construct some other internally consistent logic, you'd need to THINK in context of other logic. And thats the real difficulty, we can't escape our own logic, to do that you'd need to go frankly nuts.

Yet, where from comes restriction to real logic, what rejects possible acausal disappearance of sun? I mean, in terms of deep logic of universe - why it stays the same, everywhere? What holds it in piece? Why it doesn't change randomly like in worst LSD dreams?

Originally posted by Alexander
Notice that logic comes from the fact that something EXISTS. So, foundation of logic is just the fact of EXISTENCE of anything.

Therefore, if anything exists it shall then obey logic by the very definition of logic. Imo, you are abit too excited about definitions. There is myriad of assumptions and observations in simple term EXISTS, as is also claim that 'it shall then obey logic'. What you repeatedly try to put into me, is just source of our human logic, based on observation of macro world. I don't object that, I simply don't agree that its universal simply by our definition. You can ponder about term 'exists', because you can imagine and define nonexistent. But how on earth must universe evaluate term 'not exist'? In universe, everything can only exist, for that which doesn't, is outside of universe and doesn't participate in 'logic'.
All that exists necessarily interacts, or, infact, to exist is to interact. Then logic of reality is not in fact of existence, but in kind of interactions.

Think about photon. Does it EXIST in yes/no and stationary form? No, it can exist only at speed of light, only via interaction, and only through probabilities. If our macro world behaved like that, our 'foundation of logic' would be completely different. So, we are trying to apply our logic to QM world that doesn't actually follow our logic exactly, yet we are successful in describing it.

Logic as a tool is actually indifferent to how reality behaves, all it does it to evaluate validity of claims from given assumptions, in context of logic rules. It even handles okay claims such as photon partly exists, and partly doesn't, that it sometimes obeys logic and sometimes doesn't. If you as scientist restrict possibilities by postulates, then, you describe the world in context of those postulates, and instead of partly exists you get energy barriers, entanglement, probabilities, etc.

And still, again, you talk about FACT that its so and so, and that we use that fact as our basis. And you evaluate possibilities in context of our logic. You do not allow even possibility that there might be other logic, by which EXISTS might not necessarily mean obeying logic.

[Alexander]

I wonder, if logic (and thus math)is even more fundamental than anything. Indeed, even "nothingness" can be labeled by logical/mathematical symbol (say, as "0" or as "none" or "-").

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

From scratch I'll comment. Not gonna bother with anything said beyond this, as it's probably nothing that will ruin my points.

1. future is not set. I have a theory, a long one but simple, that proves the future is completely definied by the past (past being none future, considering no time as present). I have yet to post it here, as I feel it's something I wanna share only with physics gurus. Point being saying future is set might not be true

2. Why it might not be true theoretically (meaning not using my theory) is that QM and GR don't mix. from this I would say that on an ultimate level QM and GR might not work more than we think they don't work. While we know some things don't work in each outside of their element, perhaps in a much LARGER element, nothing in them works at all. Just a perhaps....

3. God is a mythological character. This is the superimposition error. When superimposing mythology onto reality, all bets are off. It's something to do after bong hits (and I don't smoke) because it has no "purpose".

4. God does know all that comes. That fact is made evident in any mythology which states "God knows all that comes". If the mythology says it it's true. But true only in that mythological system. NOT in reality. Superimposition.

[Alexander]

I agree that Santa the Clause knows about needs of each and every child in universe. Or that Draculas multiply by biting virgins. As long as this remains outside of reality.

Future can't be set even theoretically, because waves are mathematically blurry objects by definition (and everything in universe is wave).

[FZ+]

Here you make step backwards. You say there is material which then interacts. You just moved the fundamental question elsewhere. Question where does it come from creeps in immediately. While its possible to construct all from logic alone.
I was answering for Alexander... sort of. The point is that there is not material which they reacts, but that laws exist (or are randomly evolved) which force what we consider as material to come into existence.

Yet, where from comes restriction to real logic, what rejects possible acausal disappearance of sun? I mean, in terms of deep logic of universe - why it stays the same, everywhere? What holds it in piece? Why it doesn't change randomly like in worst LSD dreams?
What do you think happens when you take LSD? [;)] But now we enter into the realms of the truely pedantic. Why should the real logic change randomly? And if it does, how would we know? How do we know the deep logic stays the same, everywhere? We assume that, but I dare say it would be tough to confirm that...

[wimms]

Originally posted by FZ+
I was answering for Alexander... sort of. The point is that there is not material which they reacts, but that laws exist (or are randomly evolved) which force what we consider as material to come into existence. Well, still same problem. 'that laws exist' - those 'laws' are what we call logic of universe, 'truth table' if you like. Yes, they are here. WHY? -> "stupid question". They are searched, found and defined, but not explained.

And, that 'which force what we consider as material to come into existence', is what? god of quantum universe?

But now we enter into the realms of the truely pedantic. Why should the real logic change randomly? Equally valid question is 'Why should the real logic (laws) stay unchanged?'. Preference to either is given by our faith. We prefer that logic stays same, because it allows us to describe it with our consistent math. It happens to be more likely by observation, but there isn't any good reason why should there exist Any physics Law at All.

And if it does, how would we know? How do we know the deep logic stays the same, everywhere? We assume that, but I dare say it would be tough to confirm that... Well, we have telescopes, observable range of billions of lightyears, and what we see is that its same stuff everywhere. Thats pretty much enough for us. If laws changed randomly, it'd be immediately apparent in any proximity. There are too many possibilities that lead only to chaos, and only very few that lead to stable systems. If laws were randomly changing, it would take enormously long time to 'phase-lock' to something meaningful during periods with lack of any meaning. That is still possible, but then it would need to open whole new scale below planck physics, and QM would be like 'casual snapshot image' ontop of something completely uncomprehensible, that would escape any attempts of description in frame of any logic or math. That would be more or less deadend for science.

But even completely random laws and logic would make us ask 'Why is the real logic changing randomly?' Any attempt to describe all of existence will always step onto something that cannot be explained.

Without any specifics of religious properties attached, concept of god encodes that which cannot be explained in principle, ultimate axiom, reason behind it all. As Alex has been pointing out, history of god came from unexplained, and got unbelieveably crazy properties in imagination of man. Science has continuously moved realm of god further away. In my view, science hasn't disproved god, but instead heavily redefined it into extremely impersonal, logical, fair and indifferent to any single pion in this universe, that which creates world without actually creating anything. Religions have heavy inertia, thats why they are called dogmas.

I don't care about proof or disproof of god, my mind is open for both. But I'll never write it with capitals, or call it 'him', or bang my head or pray to it. If it doesn't like that, it may go to hell itself. So, although I don't reject concept of god, I have no respect to any variant of religion (besides that of my own perhaps [;)])

Originally posted by Alexander
I wonder, if logic (and thus math)is even more fundamental than anything. Indeed, even "nothingness" can be labeled by logical/mathematical symbol (say, as "0" or as "none" or "-"). I believe so. But we can't mix all meanings with same short word logic. There is internal logic of interactions in universe - laws. There is logic of aristoteles, that we use to validate internal consistency, there is math as language to describe nature. They are all somewhat different.

I would not agree that math or aristoteles logic is fundamental to existence, they are our tools. Internal logic of universe is real, but isn't necessarily same as our human logic or math. It may be wildly different from boolean. What makes it possible to describe it by math then? Fact that its also internally consistent.

I assume that any internally consistent logical system is able to describe any other internally consistent physical system, somehow, despite that they might be based on absolutely different foundations. Internal consistency of both is like equation sign. Still, interpretations might differ enormously depending on logical system used, as well as complexity of descriptions.

What puzzles me at times, is that while we explain nature, we move towards more and more fundamental 'things'. But Fundamentals is supposed to be more basic simplicities. Instead, the deeper we delve into QM, the more complex it all gets. Isn't this a sign of using wrong tools against simple things? Or approaching uncomprehensible?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Well, still same problem. 'that laws exist' - those 'laws' are what we call logic of universe, 'truth table' if you like. Yes, they are here. WHY? -> "stupid question". They are searched, found and defined, but not explained.



I think they are explained. My understanding is that these laws follow from the way we define physical quantities. Notice that all quantities are related, or mathematically entangled - they can be reduced back to(=defined from) 3-4 basic quantities (space, time, mass, charge). Let's called derivative quantities (quantities which are defined via basic quantities) as "compound" quantities. So, what we have is a some object (universe) in which we can observe measurable quantities and they all are related to each other by big "truth table of mutual definitions".

Thus "compound" quantities simply can not behave in a way non-compliant with their definition (= reduction to basic quantities). When some quantity is "too compound" and relation to original basic quantities is too long (more than 2-3 definitions away), then we just too lazy to trace that and say "energy conserves by definition of energy in a symmetric time", but instead say that this is the "law of nature", or that "nature behaves this way" or simply "Gog made it this way" (pick any you like most).

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
I think they are explained. My understanding is that these laws follow from the way we define physical quantities. Notice that all quantities are related, or mathematically entangled - they can be reduced back to(=defined from) 3-4 basic quantities (space, time, mass, charge). Let's called derivative quantities (quantities which are defined via basic quantities) as "compound" quantities. So, what we have is a some object (universe) in which we can observe measurable quantities and they all are related to each other by big "truth table of mutual definitions". Again [:)], back-and-forth we jump, run in circles, etc. We either define properties of quantities (matter) and derive laws (logic), or we define laws and derive properties. In any case, we don't create anything by defining, we merely describe that which already IS. By jumping between these 'explanations', we are simply comforting from circular reasoning. Please don't assume I'm arguing with your facts, but please just notice how much you use constatation of facts, 'we define', 'are related', 'what we have'.. This is all nifty modelling, but doesn't anywhere explain why there is something instead of nothing at all, in terms of properties, relations, etc.

Now that you've pointed out "compound" quantities, let me clarify realm I'm talking about - its not that of 'compound', but that below - basic quantities, laws, entanglement, relations. We know they are here, we find and describe them, but we don't know why they are here or why they are related in this or that manner. Every attempt to explain them will hit either selfreferential or would require something more fundamental.

There exists no theory of existence that has NO axioms, implicit or hidden. It's what underlies reasons for those axioms (if true) that is perpetual vacancy for god. And science is constantly pushing that border down to ever more fundamental, but it'll never get quite there, for every step we make is colored by bunch of axioms we rely upon, "big truth table of mutual axioms"...

When science will someday get to the limits, there will be bunch of axioms, and mathmatical relations between them, that together are 'creating' all of the universe. And that would be precise scientific 'definition' of god. whatelse?

Thus "compound" quantities simply can not behave in a way non-compliant with their definition (= reduction to basic quantities). When some quantity is "too compound" and relation to original basic quantities is too long (more than 2-3 definitions away), then we just too lazy to trace that and say "energy conserves by definition of energy in a symmetric time", but instead say that this is the "law of nature", or that "nature behaves this way" or simply "Gog made it this way" (pick any you like most). Yes, I understand perfectly that there is no place for god to suddenly change properties of 'compound' quantitites, and that it doesn't govern how our everyday life goes. But something, that is behind "big truth table of mutual definitions" of basic quantities, can certainly screw it up real bad. We don't know why it doesn't. We define it doesn't.

[Alexander]

What we OBSERVE is that some quantities (time, space, angle, velocity, phase, and some others) are defined by US in such way that change in them does not affect anything. That is what we get from OBSERVATIONS. Mathematical consequences of this independence (=invariance) of universe on some quantities is interesting: all conservation laws, both relativities, quantum mechanics, existence of virtual particles and all known forces follow mathematically. And we call these mathematical consequences of basic symmetries as "natural laws" and "natural phenomena".

So, main premises to derive practically all we see is that that some quantities (like time, space, direction, velocity, phase, etc) are completely immaterial for universe, kinda "nonexistent" (or "non-physical") quantities.