TOE incomplete without God

[phoenixthoth]

ready?

ok.

here we go.

me = God = you.

that's it. no more, no less.

what does that equation MEAN?? excellent question. i've been asking myself that question my whole life. and i think i've known the answer before i've known the question.

of course, you have to define what "me" is. this is HARD. it requires self examination. not easy.

then you have to define what "=" means. this is HARD. VERY hard to put in three dimensional terms. i'm gonna have fun with this one. it’s like a double chemical bond or something.

then you have to definte what "God" means. this is HARD. again, self examination and examination of God and the nature of God.

then i have to define what "you" means. this is HARD. i want to examine you.

the definitions will NEVER be complete in any sense. the question is will the definitions be complete enough for you to be satisfied. you may think your levels of dissatisfaction are limitless, and belive me, i know the feeling, but you can still your ego when you choose to. remember, you can choose to do anything you want. do, or do not. there is no try.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

[selfAdjoint]

God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace).

[wuliheron]

Nice quote.

What's so special about TOE's, nothing. There is no more need for a God in a TOE than there is for an explanation of automechanics. Still, no accounting for taste. If you insist on using God or the Easter Bunny to explain automechanics have fun.

[phoenixthoth]

"God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace)."

are you sure? no TOE has proven itself experimentally as correct as far as i know. perhaps this is because things exist in the universe that are not taken into account.

kaku feels that the one inch equation will allow us to read the mind of God. i think this can be done without the TOE. it's not that hard.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

[wuliheron]

Often when physicists such as Einstein have referred to God, it is a euphamism for the laws of nature, a poetic statement, rather than a reference to some divine being. For all I know Kaku is an atheist. [g)]

[KitNyx]

The fact that no TOE has been proven to absolutely fit the bill is not evidence for the existance of God. It is only a testiment to how much we really do NOT know about how the universe runs. The fact that no TOE has been proven complete, only proves that no theory to date is complete, not that God is the missing variable.

- KitNyx

[phoenixthoth]

"Often when physicists such as Einstein have referred to God, it is a euphamism for the laws of nature, a poetic statement, rather than a reference to some divine being. For all I know Kaku is an atheist. "

then they choose their euphemisms in a very interesting manner, in a manner in alighment with some religions. why are you in denial about the fact that einstein and kaku (and hawking) all believe in God?

i'm not saying one should believe in God just because those "great" men do, but i do find it interesting that they do. i find it particularly interesting that kaku thinks the one-inch equation will enable us to read the mind of God, not something i've heard hawking say.

cheers,
phoenix

[phoenixthoth]

"The fact that no TOE has been proven to absolutely fit the bill is not evidence for the existance of God. It is only a testiment to how much we really do NOT know about how the universe runs. The fact that no TOE has been proven complete, only proves that no theory to date is complete, not that God is the missing variable.

- KitNyx"

true. God is definitely not neccessarily the missing variable, nor are the spirit/higher dimensions. but i wonder what is missing. i would have to examine the supposed TOEs first before learning that...

cheers,
phoenix

[radagast]

Believe in god or not, but if you put the moniker 'theory' on something, in the context of scientific theory, then it requires a great deal of evidence. God has no (objective) evidence which cannot be explained better by physical means. By 'better', I mean either fits the observations better, or fits Occam's definitions of a more rational choice.

[phoenixthoth]

i agree that there is skant, circumstantial physical evidence that God exists.

why not permit ourselves to allow ourselves to consider spiritual feelings as evidence?

just a thought.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

[selfAdjoint]

One problem with that is that language is a very poor instrument for describing our inner feelings. It is notoriously unable to do anything with qualia (the "immediate redness" of red, for example), and spiritual experiences are likely to be heavily if not entirely of the qualia kind.

"I felt a oneness with the universe" is a joke as a description to anyone who has actually experienced that.

So while scientists can come to agree what a quark is, even if they will never see one, we cannot come to reliable agreement about each other's inner experiences.

[phoenixthoth]

""I felt a oneness with the universe" is a joke as a description to anyone who has actually experienced that."

you have an odd sense of humor if you think that's a joke.

i think it's a joke to say we shouldn't even try to use language to articulate spiritual feelings.

i find both poetry and abstract mathematics as vehicles.

cheers,
phoenix

[Perspectives]

If we are being literal then the EVERYTHING in TOE must include GOD and not GOD. Yet, to reply as in "God, is a euphamism for the laws of nature" is to infer and conclude without licence. We are not in a position, yet, to address GOD as an answer to why the Universe is.

The Universe and it's mechanisms will be proven without addressing GOD as an explaination. It is said that to fully embrace something is to know it all. If that is true then should we ever fully understand the Universe we will know.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets try simple, Plato asked; "What is God?", milenia later I (by God's Grace) respond; "The 'Truth'"

So if we start there, then the Entirety of the universe is representative of God in all of the Manners in which that presentation of the universe, to us, is truthfull.

So, as for a T.O.E. we have none yet, as we already know that there is no one theory that yet encapsulates the "Truth of the Universe" completely enough, for any of us to accede to it.

If God is the Truth, (as I say) then any T.O.E. will, wittingly, or unwittingly, be a description of that God, yet it will still remain incomplete of the Fullest knowledge of God, inasmuch as, that God is greater still then all of this Universe.

If in doubt of that assertion, well, try figuring out just where in the Universe "Ideologies" come from, as they are clearly non-existent "things", insubstantive, and cereberal in all of there derivations, and yet have arisen in people from the beginning as best as we can tell.

To know exactly how the Universe is comprised, operates and functions, is to know still only a partiallity of the truth about God's Mind (so to speak) inasmuch as, if spiritualism is explored, we find the idea of "Lies", and that is clearly NOT a presentation of the/A God which "Is the Truth" hence, we can know that there is more to all of this then meets the eyes, literally...................quite literally.

If there is an infinity, that would be God, but Infinity is unprovable, in either direction, (for or against) so to disprove the existence of God you would first need to prove that there was NO inifinite, to Prove the existence of God you would need to prove that there is an infinite, hence the best we are ever going to get, sorta, is a T.O.E. which helps us to know more simply about our collective physical surroundings.

Does that help??

[LURCH]

I agree that definitions become somewhat sticky on this point, but I voted "no". Not because of the difficulties in defining "God", but because of the definition of "TOE". In nearly every context I've observed, the TOE is only used as a refference to a theory that integrates the three forces EM, Strong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear, with gravity. I think this could be done quite handily without an understanding of God, just as automechanics can be understood without believing in the existence of auto makers.

A complete cosmological model, well that would be a different story.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Lurch
I think this could be done quite handily without an understanding of God, just as automechanics can be understood without believing in the existence of auto makers.
In having learned a little bit about "auto mechanics", I would tell you that it helps. enourmously. if you believe in "automakers", if for only the reason that it helps you to find the 'thinking patterns' of the "originator", hence enables both, learning, and understanding, of design. (Therefore purpose/use too)

[Pyrite]

Strange, i was always of the opinion that a Theory of Everything was a complete cosmological model.

First off, you likely cannot properly describe to me your spiritual feelings, and not having felt them, I cannot understand what they are, or more importantly, what they might mean. The same goes with my spiritual feelings. Also, there is no real proof that a feeling in the human brain that leads people to spiritual thinking is in any way connected to an actual spiritual world. (or whatever.)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Pyrite
Strange, i was always of the opinion that a Theory of Everything was a complete cosmological model. YUP! and as explained in my previous posting, that is only a part of the whole of spirituallity/God
First off, you likely cannot properly describe to me your spiritual feelings, and not having felt them, I cannot understand what they are, or more importantly, what they might mean. The same goes with my spiritual feelings. Also, there is no real proof that a feeling in the human brain that leads people to spiritual thinking is in any way connected to an actual spiritual world. (or whatever.)
For the emboldened, O.K. try thinking that every 'thought' is actually a spiritual 'feeling', as opposed to what you have otherwise 'thought' it was, a 'thought'.
Does that help?

[Nereid]

If one applies the scientific method to 'the meaning of god' (and, since it's the scientific method, you can see/check/do the work too), one might conclude as follows:
-> 'god' is a highly culture-specific concept (caveat: lots and lots of difficulties being certain that expressions in different languages - several thousand - have been adequately addressed)
-> many people in many (but not all) cultures - sometimes a large majority - appear to believe that their 'god(s)' is (are) unique, universal, and ubiquitous (and much else besides)
-> (for the avoidance of doubt) the christian culture (or any one of its sub-cultures) in the USA in the early 21st century is not different, in any significant way, from any other culture (wrt 'the meaning of god').

Question for phoenixthoth: what do you think about these conclusions?

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Nereid
If one applies the scientific method to 'the meaning of god' (and, since it's the scientific method, you can see/check/do the work too), one might conclude as follows:
-> 'god' is a highly culture-specific concept (caveat: lots and lots of difficulties being certain that expressions in different languages - several thousand - have been adequately addressed)
-> many people in many (but not all) cultures - sometimes a large majority - appear to believe that their 'god(s)' is (are) unique, universal, and ubiquitous (and much else besides)
-> (for the avoidance of doubt) the christian culture (or any one of its sub-cultures) in the USA in the early 21st century is not different, in any significant way, from any other culture (wrt 'the meaning of god').

Question for phoenixthoth: what do you think about these conclusions?

All of this is irrelevant to the original question, isn't it? All cultures' thoughts (or feelings) about God have at least this much in common, that "God" is creator. A scientific theory (or feeling[;)] ) that integrates all of the four natural forces can be arrived at without taking into account whether or not such a creator exists.

However, a model of the event of creation itself would necessarily have to be incomplete without accounting for the existence or non-existence of a creator.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Why not try applieing the "Scientific Method" to determine "The Idea of God" upon the simplistic basis that God = the Truth.

Try that.

[Jeebus]

"He wanted to read the mind of God. Ultimately, Einstein failed in his mission. In fact, he was shunned by many of his younger compatriots, who would taunt him with the ditty, “What God has torn asunder, no man can put together.” But perhaps Einstein is now having his revenge. For the past decade, there has been furious research on merging the four fundamental forces into a single theory, especially one that can meld general relativity (which explains gravity) with the quantum theory (which can explain the two nuclear forces and electro- magnetism)." --Kaku

[Nereid]

All of this is irrelevant to the original question, isn't it?
Actually, it's quite relevant. If 'god' is a cultural artifact, peculiar to some odd blobs of a rare substance called baryons, in one extremely tiny part of the universe, then the answer to the question ("TOE incomplete without God?") is 'what a quaint idea; of course not!'

All cultures' thoughts (or feelings) about God have at least this much in common, that "God" is creator.
Er, no. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of cultures have many gods, and there may be some whose creation myths do not involve gods.

A scientific theory (or feeling ) that integrates all of the four natural forces can be arrived at without taking into account whether or not such a creator exists.
You mean, there are people who think otherwise?

a model of the event of creation itself would necessarily have to be incomplete without accounting for the existence or non-existence of a creator
Shades of the set of all sets.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Probably the title of the thread is actually backwards, "(Understanding of) God left incomplete by T.O.E."............because the Universe we now know, is contiguous, and that is required to be in occupation of space, within some far greater space that is/remains unobservable. (unless "Dark Energy" is actually just a rip in the continum of this contiguous space, then we would have, sorta, observed the 'other' space)

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Jeebus
"He wanted to read the mind of God. Ultimately, Einstein failed in his mission. In fact, he was shunned by many of his younger compatriots, who would taunt him with the ditty, “What God has torn asunder, no man can put together.” But perhaps Einstein is now having his revenge. For the past decade, there has been furious research on merging the four fundamental forces into a single theory, especially one that can meld general relativity (which explains gravity) with the quantum theory (which can explain the two nuclear forces and electro- magnetism)." --Kaku
Thanks Jeebus.

Perhaps the coffee I had this morning wasn't strong enough (I've learned from bitter experience not to trust anything I say or think before that first cup of coffee!); are you saying:
a) Kaku says any ToE is incomplete without god?
b) Kaku says any ToE is NOT incomplete without god?
c) Kaku says it's indeterminate?
d) you say any ToE is incomplete without god?
e) you say any ToE is NOT incomplete without god?
f) you say it's indeterminate?
g) none of the above; rather ....?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Why not try applieing the "Scientific Method" to determine "The Idea of God" upon the simplistic basis that God = the Truth.

Try that.
Thanks Mr Parsons.

How well does this fit the bill?
Draft high level research plan:
1) determine, among the 10x distinct cultures for which sufficiently reliable data is available (x > 4?), the extent to which:
. a) well-constrained concepts of "the Truth" are observed (subset "A")
. b) in A, the equality "God = the Truth" exists (subset "AB")
. c) in AB, it is in use, accepted, contentious, etc
2) (in parallel) devise a protocol for assessing/analysing the data gathered in step 1), to include (e.g.)
. a) cross-cultural influences
. b) hypothesis schemas
. c) statistical measures
3) crunch the numbers.

[Nereid]

Mr. Robin Parsons Probably the title of the thread is actually backwards, "(Understanding of) God left incomplete by T.O.E."
So phoenixthoth's Poll question should really read something like: "Is spirituality in some kind of 'superset' of the ToE?"?

Let's ask phoenixthoth.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nereid
So phoenixthoth's Poll question should really read something like: "Is spirituality in some kind of 'superset' of the ToE?"?
Let's ask phoenixthoth.
Perhaps more like "The ToE is a subset of spirituallity."

[jeff]

Hmmm. Note to self: Don't post while stoned.[a)]

[Nereid]

Which posts did you make while stoned? [;)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by jeff
Hmmm. Note to self: Don't post while stoned.[a)]
Hummmmm why such an inane comment?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Just as a 'notation', Uhmm, the reason why the phrasing "Spirituality would be a superset of a ToE" is NOT the prefered "method of statement", is because the word "Superset" implies Ultimate, and sprituality is not "The Ultimate Set".

God/The-Truth/Infinity is The "Ultimate set" but even then, only as a suggestion, as a set is 'closed', and infinity, isn't!

That is the reason why I changed it, from the original persons posting, (Nereid's post) phrasing it 'the other way round' with the "ToE being a subset of spirituality", as spirituality is a subset of God.

Perhaps you can forgive me for wanting to keep the house in order, as I understand it, for myself, only.

As for this comment.......

Originally posted by jeff
Hmmm. Note to self: Don't post while stoned

Well, might I suggest that, this person seems to recognize that they, themselves, should not be "posting stoned", the "Respectfully Suggested" Idea, for them that, they NOT endevour to even so little as READ these postings while in that state, either, as clearly they cannot see past their own nose/nothing.

[jeff]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Well, might I suggest that, this person seems to recognize that they, themselves, should not be "posting stoned", the "Respectfully Suggested" Idea, for them that, they NOT endevour to even so little as READ these postings while in that state, either, as clearly they cannot see past their own nose/nothing.

That wasn't directed at you or anyone else. I was just kidding. Maybe I should've posted "Note to self: only lurk while stoned"?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by jeff
That wasn't directed at you or anyone else. I was just kidding. Maybe I should've posted "Note to self: only lurk while stoned"?
Humm, posted directly under my having posted a statement that seemed to be in useless opposition/juxtaposition to the previous statment of the superceding poster, even though it was clearly NOT, so you can see how your comment would easily be interpreted as Having BEEN directed.

Sooo, lets not waste server space...............

[LURCH]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A scientific theory (or feeling ) that integrates all of the four natural forces can be arrived at without taking into account whether or not such a creator exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You mean, there are people who think otherwise?

I think there must be, or the pole would read 100% "yes" answers, wouldn't it?

[Nereid]

[:D]
Well, maybe not. "ToE" and "integration of the four natural forces" may not be the same, for some folk; "God" (or "spirituality") and "a creator" may be different; then there's "incomplete" ....

As Mr. Robin Parsons said, perhaps phoenixthoth got the question round the wrong way (we haven't heard from phoenixthoth yet, so we don't know).

[jeff]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, posted directly under my having posted a statement that seemed to be in useless opposition/juxtaposition to the previous statment of the superceding poster, even though it was clearly NOT, so you can see how your comment would easily be interpreted as Having BEEN directed.

Sooo, lets not waste server space...............

Yes, you're of course right. I appologize.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by jeff
Yes, you're of course right. I appologize.
Me too, to you, thanks, and please sorta note it is the truth that is 'right', me I'm just some guy who makes mistakes errors, faults and all that kinda stuff, like everyone else, (sorta, I supposed quantity/frequency kinda counts, for and against, sooooooo...........) Human I think we are called, and all of what that really means.

Once again, Thanks!

[phoenixthoth]

i'm not suggesting the unfication of the four forces will require consideration of God.

i am suggesting that the theory of EVERYTHING will.

[selfAdjoint]

I will go this far with you. A true theory of everything should settle the question. Otherwise it isn't a theory of everything, as you imply.

But I think physicists use TOE as shorthand for the unification of forces (and maybe settling of the nature of spacetime).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Both, Science, and Religion, run into the same wall of ignorance, at about the same place, jsut that religion answers it as being God's will, Science just says "We don't know!" (if they are honest about it)
A ToE doesn't require the consideration of God, but it is there as one of the 'alternate' unprovable responces.

[phoenixthoth]

it makes me wonder if a theory of everything will have to incorperate the tools of science and theology.

[selfAdjoint]

I have looked into some theology, and I don't think any of it since Thomas Aquinas can really couple to physics, any more than Kant or Hegel can, really. The last serious attempt to do something like that was dialectical materialism, and I am not aware of any productive work in that. Everything I have seen of it is retrospective, designed to explain some existing body of scientific thought. Since science only really exists on the productive interface, that doesn't do the job.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Funny, as it was/is a line from the Bible that explained something, very important to me, concerning the nature, and makeup, of the cosmos.
But that's life.............

[Perspectives]

There is no argument that will placate the believer or non-believer. When one crosses the realm between mysticism and empiricism, reason is not the tool of choice. At some level belief is entered into the argument and this is a subjective choice of position. Belief is a choice of position and belief deigns the empirical tools of reason. One who believes without the empirical tools of reason chooses a position that cannot be quantified or proven.

If everything in the known universe that exists today does, so because of rational thought then God cannot be a part of it. We did not design our understanding of the universe with God in the objective rational. We have never included God in scientific methodology because there is no symbol, no known way to manipulate God in a formula to predict or prove anything. The test of objectivity requires mastery of the object and the ability to manipulate. We do try to master God and manipulate his power to our ends on the subjective side of our lives. I suppose TOE means to some “everything” and to others it means all power therefore God must be added and to others it means everything empirical and demonstrable. In the final analysis and that is the word, God will need to be proven to exist empirically before he may be added to the proof.

[selfAdjoint]

I really like this presentation of the issues.

There is a much hyped effort now to promote the "convergence" of science and religion. They get a few scientists who are personally religious, and some religious figures with a line that sounds plausible, and hold conferences. But as you have laid out, there just is no real convergence. All the concepts of science are basically finite, even when they use infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces! And the God concept is a complete unknown. If you had God on one side of the equals sign, what could you possibly put on the other?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I really like this presentation of the issues.
There is a much hyped effort now to promote the "convergence" of science and religion. They get a few scientists who are personally religious, and some religious figures with a line that sounds plausible, and hold conferences. But as you have laid out, there just is no real convergence. All the concepts of science are basically finite, even when they use infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces! And the God concept is a complete unknown. <- the falicy If you had God on one side of the equals sign, what could you possibly put on the other?
A mere reflection, of that God, a partiallity of that Truth, and enough of them that it does seem that the 'equality = simply of expression of (all of) characteristics of God' are always held, and represented. (but never in completion..........to us!)

The 'Reflection' we are allowed to see, in simplicity, is life itself, Vegetable and Animal.

[Rybo]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I really like this presentation of the issues.

There is a much hyped effort now to promote the "convergence" of science and religion. They get a few scientists who are personally religious, and some religious figures with a line that sounds plausible, and hold conferences. But as you have laid out, there just is no real convergence. All the concepts of science are basically finite, even when they use infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces! And the God concept is a complete unknown. If you had God on one side of the equals sign, what could you possibly put on the other?

For some of us it may be that our scientific inquiry is practiced religously and fufills, to some degree, our metaphysical/spiritual needs and indreictly our physical/spiritual needs.

There may very well be convergence but no two matter particles may occupy the same space --or quatum state-- but rather only motionally reside near each other.

The concepts are finite in their expression via our use of language and infinite their existence as a metaphysical absolute truth as an eternal principle/cosmic law.

God is on boths sides of the equation because God --as "The Whole" i.e. The Whole Sha-bang/ Universe Great Spirit/ God{des}/ Allah/ Krishna/ Almighty/ All/ Cosmos etc.-- represents oneness ergo God/Universe = Universe/God.

To place this concept into 3 or more dimensions --in order to define GOD/Universe-- we may say that on one side of the equation or coin is the metaphysical and on the other side of equation is the physical with an quasi(semi)-physical edge in-between acting as a buffer zone. However, this model only considers the surface of our 3-D coin-like model.

If we the consider the physical quantum somethingness to be the the concave insideness reflecting back to us --who are also on the inside of GOD-- and the metaphysical infinite space of nothingness outside of GOD that leaves the little bit of convex gravitational quasi(semi)-physical stuff just beyond the speed-of-radiation as the buffer zone between the metaphysical and the physical.

My thanks to Bucky Fuller for some but not all of the aspects ive put foraward here.

Rybo

[phoenixthoth]

phoenix: it makes me wonder if a theory of everything will have to incorperate the tools of science and theology.

in the reply, there was a mention of physics.

when i say everything, i mean everything whereas when someone else says everything they might just mean the four known forces.

so what i said amounts to saying that a theory of everything might require tools of science and theology among other tools.

someone asked what might go on the other side of an equation like God= ? some people would say that God=all that is.

i'm not sure how to evaluate a statements that have appeared here in the form X is a subset of Y when the word spirituality is involved. words like spirit and spirituality have different definitions.

i have heard of three "paths to God": mind, heart, and action. i suppose you could call spirituality the study of those paths but for some people, spirituality has nothing to do with God.

i don't think we'll ever be able to give a proof of God's existence with logic, starting with a definition of God, or observation/empirical data.

some people think that God is all that is. the author that thinks God is all that is also defines knowledge to mean that A knows B if A=B. the "argument" is that i can know about a cat but to know a cat i have to be a cat. if God is all that is, then it's clear that God is omnipresent. also, being all that is, with this definition of knowingness, God knows everything and is omniscient. i don't see how omnipotence follows from this definition...

other people may start with an assumption about God being omnipresent which would entail, at least, that God is within all that is. but then, if there were something in "all that is" that God isn't a part of, God wouldn't be omnipresent; so God is all that is.

if God is all that is, then God exists if and only if "all that is" exists. in other words, if at least one thing exists, then God exists. however, if nothing exists, then, of course, God doesn't exist. it was an "if and only if" statement.

i don't think one will ever prove the existence of God from definition alone. something else is required, perhaps observation though people don't always take observation to constitute absolute proof due to it's possible (or assured) subjectivity. for example, the following statement is considered by the rules of logic to be "true": if x is an element of the empty set then x is a purple goat controlling my thoughts. in some sense, you might call vacuous truth kinda weak, but it's basically saying that if x doesn't exist then you can say anything you like about x. what i'm trying to say is that arguments based on definitions of God and logic alone don't prove God exists. i could construct a mathematical example where i define something and even discuss its properties but that doesn't even prove it mathematically exists, which is probably easier than proving that it really exists (unless you consider mathematical existence to imply existence).

all i've done above is say that if God is all that is then God exists if and only if all that is exists.

if you accept that God is all that is and if you accept that at least one thing exists, well then it follows that God exists. if you don't accept that definition of God, it doesn't automatically follow that God doesn't exist.

let's take this in a different direction and consider a proof not based on definition and logic but observation. let's not even consider God, let's just say i claim to be either immortal or omnipotent. i don't think i can ever prove that i am either immortal or omnipotent, though i might convince you that i am even if all the evidence i give you is circumstantial. let's just take immortality. how can i prove to you that i am immortal? think about it. i can't. the only thing i can do for you is disprove the claim by dying. however, i may outlive you. that just means i outlived you, it doesn't mean i'll live forever. suppose i live for a googleplex years. that still doesn't prove i will always live. (however, i have heard that some scientists think a claim is true if it is consistent with reality so far. if that is the case, it's already true that i am immortal because that is something that is consistent with reality so far. the flaw with this conception is that even time-independent claims may be true one day and not true the next.) you can do something similar with omnipotence. i may be able to lift a billion tons of rock but then you can always ask if i can lift 1,000,000,001 tons. nothing i can do will prove i am omnipotent. although thinking about it a bit more reveals that if i am omnipotent, i have the power to prove it to you.

let's just say that i can prove i am omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, the first cause, and all that jazz (which i think is highly unlikely though i may be able to convince you of it). then how would i prove that i am the christian God or G-d or Allah or The Great Spirit or blah blah blah? (hope you can excuse the reference to religion.)

thus, both logic and observation will not prove God exists.

what would?

well, if you were omniscient, you would be able to know if i were God. too bad we're not omniscient...

i personally think the statement "God exists" is undecidable but i can't prove that it is.

however, at least in certain situations, there are statements which are on some level true though they cannot be proven to be true in finite time. so, and this is just my opinion, "God exists" is a true statement but there is not nor will there ever be universally acceptable proof. that is unless God makes us all omniscient. then we would by definition know if there was a God.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Interesting, just that when I would mention that: "God is All" it is accepted by me that that truly means beyond my ability to know completely, now, and forever, as a corporealy ensconced metaphysical entity.

Ergo, that would mean "Greater then all of the knowable Universe" and "Greater then can be known by a Human".

[yanniru]

All TOEs be they LQGs or String Theories are necessarily high energy theories; and therefore restricted to creation events like the Big Bang. You may see evidence of a God there, but it would not be the God of our low energy Universe.

I recommend looking into Dark Matter and Dark Energy for evidence of a God or intelligence or information.

Of course we first have to detect the constituent particles. It's not likely that even they would be found in a TOE.

yanniru

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by yanniru
All TOEs be they LQGs or String Theories are necessarily high energy theories; and therefore restricted to creation events like the Big Bang. You may see evidence of a God there, but it would not be the God of our low energy Universe.
I recommend looking into Dark Matter and Dark Energy for evidence of a God or intelligence or information.
Of course we first have to detect the constituent particles. It's not likely that even they would be found in a TOE.
yanniru
Any ToE is a description of the physical matter and rules that that follows, the energy is simply a part of that, hence there can be no conclusive evidence of God in the Physical matter alone, (even though, it is clearly a part of the totality of evidence) you would need to include all of the rest of the "Un-knowable", How do you do that?

[MythioS]

God=Time

[:))]

MythioS [6)]

[Entheos]

I voted "yes" because I believe a theory of everything requires God, but I do not believe that Super String Theory requires God, however, it may but until it is proven/disproven we will not know.


Even if you are not a spiritual/religious person I think you have to consider that God exists in the context of a theory of everything, if nothing else consider yourself God. For what is God, but a creator? Do humans not create?

As PhoenixThoth's quote says: "love the world as yourself for, in truth, It Is."

Think of yourself as a piece of God, a single cell in the mind of God. Together we form the whole, but individually we are insignificant.

[Erck]

God the "whole"... is greater than the sum of it's parts "the universe."

[JesseBonin]

sentience? sembiance? some giant sitting on a cloud looking down on us and making a list?

entheos i think is closest to the truth
"i am the god i am" part of the original text of the first comandment best guess translation..
GoD may not be more than the premiss of something larger than ourselves, maybe our existence is a neccessary ingredient to gods makeup.

maybe god is some adolecet who just lit a firecraker and we are the ultra-microscopic residents of the small explosion cought in the small rift in time/space created by the divergence of light..

[Erck]

maybe our existence is a neccessary ingredient to gods makeup.
I certainly agree with this statement.

God is always being all it can be.

[sol2]

God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace).

A lot of issues have been placed on this alter:)

Of course, a trail has been blazed in GR.

What value would dimension be, if we did not give it some consideration?

[JesseBonin]

there are 2 sides to every coin (action and reaction so on and so forth) so if there is a "god" is there not also an "anti-god"

humans by nature have a tendancy to put either too much or too little of themselves into any equation, but science, if it has shown us nothing, has shown us that everything exists in balance with itself.

as individuals we are almost insignificant to the whole, but as a race we are profundly affective (not a misuse, i mean affective not effective ) we are in essence the root of all we know and understand about GOD and the universe. OUR sembiant intelligence is far greater than our individual understanding.

that being said, it seems to me our "sembiant intelligence" could use a few lessons in things like "self preservation" and "conservation" """sorry, had to add that for some unknown reason"""

[sol2]

there are 2 sides to every coin (action and reaction so on and so forth) so if there is a "god" is there not also an "anti-god"

humans by nature have a tendancy to put either too much or too little of themselves into any equation, but science, if it has shown us nothing, has shown us that everything exists in balance with itself.

as individuals we are almost insignificant to the whole, but as a race we are profundly affective (not a misuse, i mean affective not effective ) we are in essence the root of all we know and understand about GOD and the universe. OUR sembiant intelligence is far greater than our individual understanding.

that being said, it seems to me our "sembiant intelligence" could use a few lessons in things like "self preservation" and "conservation" """sorry, had to add that for some unknown reason"""


In a evolutionary context, it appeases the Gods? :smile:

[Erck]

there are 2 sides to every coin (action and reaction so on and so forth) so if there is a "god" is there not also an "anti-god
Only if god is relative and not absolute.

[sol2]

Only if god is relative and not absolute.

A lot of people divest themselves of probabilibistic determinations. Yet we find, orbiting imaginations, have this same brilliance, to manifest constructive things :smile:

[Erck]

sol2... I'm sensing some substance there... any chance you could restate that?

[Jimbroni]

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs. God, Buddha, Christna, Satan, Ra, whatever all these have to be included in your definition of "everything" or else your definition is incomplete or perhaps theory of everything is really not what your after.
When you say everything, to me that means everything including all of our thoughts, dreams, beliefs, disbeliefs,math, science, well everything.
I personally like Grand Unification Theory as better more defined name.

[JesseBonin]

Only if god is relative and not absolute.

ahhh.. now we find the point at which religon and physics converge 8)

we call God "god" physics calls god "photon"

the priciple problem with relativity is the existance of something we cannot measure "light" more specifically "photon"
all things we deem "real" have motion, therefor energy and mass, perhaps photon does not move at all, and is absolute stationary, therefor is must transfer "energy" by some other means (dark energy) we percive light (and by default everything that exists) by passing through this photonic energy. so if we make the next "leap of faith" is not photon the same god, or at least the essence of god??

[sol2]

sol2... I'm sensing some substance there... any chance you could restate that?

Certainly there is Uncertainty when it comes to position and momentum, but in the instance of orbital patterns, one can get around this?

So the question then is place out there about uncertainty, and what can be determined and what can't be?

I would say, that if such an action is contemplated, that it definitely has consequences. I just have to prove it?

Regardless of the nesessicity of having to prove it, life still goes on:)

Does this sound logical?

[Erck]

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs. God, Buddha, Christna, Satan, Ra, whatever all these have to be included in your definition of "everything" or else your definition is incomplete or perhaps theory of everything is really not what your after.
But is it impossible to include a definition of god in a TOE?

[sol2]

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs. God, Buddha, Christna, Satan, Ra, whatever all these have to be included in your definition of "everything" or else your definition is incomplete or perhaps theory of everything is really not what your after.
When you say everything, to me that means everything including all of our thoughts, dreams, beliefs, disbeliefs,math, science, well everything.
I personally like Grand Unification Theory as better more defined name.

Why not a belief, that such choices made, can hold relevances to the gravity of all situations. That some, operate independantly, having realized that such choices have consequences?:) Maybe God, can do that? But us mere mortals, are locked into the entanglement issue?:)

[JesseBonin]

you can call god anything you like, reguardless of specific beliefe. it all boils down to human need to believe that there is something greater than themselves. As humans we can deny that desire, but that is a belief unto itself and still propogates the "god" aspect of humanity. written into our very DNA is the need to discover and find hope or "develope" into something greater than that which we currently are or currently know. weather you study to find enlightenment, dive into the pool of drugs, or meditate endlessly the goal is the same. Is that not the work of god?? Our endevor to proove that there is a god is proof in and of itself that god does indeed exist.

as we delve deeper and deeper into our small universe we find more and more to discover, is this not the propegating effect we might name god? If god is not a reason to improve ourselves (or evolve) then what use would god be? and more importantly why would our belief in such an entity be important to that entity.

as we expand our knowlege and improve our ability to percieve do we not make god more powerful? or a least more present? again we downplay our importance in the universe. if all mankind perished, would the universe cease to exist? it would for us to be sure.

i say, what we percive as a people exist ONLY unto us. besides, if we all perished who would be left to tell us if the universe went on without us or not?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP)Certainly there is Uncertainty when it comes to position and momentum, but in the instance of orbital patterns, one can get around this?(SNoP) The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect....hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems....and so on....and so on....

[Jimbroni]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect....hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems....and so on....and so on....


Well Said.

[Jimbroni]

Why not a belief, that such choices made, can hold relevances to the gravity of all situations. That some, operate independantly, having realized that such choices have consequences?:) Maybe God, can do that? But us mere mortals, are locked into the entanglement issue?:)

I would agree that such decisions one would make would have a profound effect on ones perspective, thus altering his/her/its :) logic. Which is why I personally would not try to include an intangible such as God into TOE and instead focus on GUT, but perhaps we don't have a choice or the initial cause isn't meant to be found. So like any scientific endeavor you need a control variable. I think the easy way out is to make God the controlled variable. :) That just feels funny to say that.

[Mike2]

I think a TOE would show how God created the universe. The existence of a Creator would be implied.

I've come to understand that God is the Logic that holds all things together. You cannot participate in an argument unless you accept the premise that logic is relevant and controlling. So if God is Logic, then you must start every debate, argument, and study with accepting the premise that God exists. God is not something you can prove any more that you can prove the existence of logic. God is just a starting premise for gaining wisdom.

A TOE is not complete until it explains everything physical. But questions do not stop until you derive physics from logic. For if we reduce physics to some other physical quantity, even though it unifies force, etc, it still begs the question as to where these more fundamental laws or entities came from. I've had this conversation many times on the Net. You cannot argue that God is in control so that everything is logical unless you can prove that physics can be derived from logic.

What is missing is to show how the events described about religon are consistent with the laws of physics and logic. What still needs to be explained is how the creation of life, the resurrection, a New heaven and earth can come about. I believe it is all a matter of entropy. All these events seem to contradict the increase of entropy in all events in the universe. But I think that there may be a conservation of entropy for the universe as a whole. There is no alternative but that a universe exist. This is true at all times. So the Shannon information of a 100% probable event is 0. The Shannon information being equal to the entropy, there is a conservation of entropy in the universe as a whole. So as the universe disperses and increases entropy in one part of the universe, there should be a decrease of entropy in some another part of the universe. This may account for the physical necessity of life. This may account for why we, as decreased entropy creature, observe a increase of entropy for the most part.

So life is a decrease in entropy. There is a decrease in entropy associated with the construction of information storage devices such as a brain. And I think there may also be a decrease of entropy associated with a reduction of knowledge (information) to wisdom. For wisdom recognizes principles and precepts that reduce the amount of information needed because that information can be derived from just a few facts and applying principle.

Structures that maintain their coherence characterize systems of low entropy. So it seems as though a resurrection would also be a reduction in entropy. And I suspect that the New Heaven and earth will be created as a result of the entropy reduction techniques of finding wisdom and being steadfast in sincerity.

[JesseBonin]

lets pretend that there is only 1 photon that exists in the entire universe and beyond
let pretend that this photon is either absolutly slow or super luminal
and the photon travels a path that weaves strands that braid themselves immensly dense (kinda like the weavings of a baseball) and that all matter/energy is permiations within this weaving of photonic energy. at some supremly complex series of vibrations sentient life is formed (you and me) and we visualize these permiations as the things we see and touch, smell, and hear so on... then .... if we are sentient then the power that permiates all things must also be sentient... you can go a step farther ... all thoughts, actions, choices, and discovery have been laid out befor you, pre-ordained. we discover nothing befor we are ready to discover them.

ask me about the single photon theroy on the "light speed" string

[sol2]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect....hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems....and so on....and so on....

Respectively Mr. Robin Parsons

I am on trial here, and seeing the number of posts you have.....the quote button is self explanatory.

Do you agree on a cosmological level there are dynamics going on?

Do you believe on a small level, there are dynamics going on?

Some talk about the "isometrical relationships" between the very small and the very large. Can GR and QM speak to this?

In the ring laser of Mallet, there is a "feature of GR" that is attractive.

Can topological features (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@230.7Kl1bcYrOPl.0@.1dde4009/20) be described in cosmological events?

If we can use GR to describe features of experiments like Mallets, then what has been explained about the very small?

Has the fifth Dimension afforded us, a diffeerent perspective on uncertainty?

[sol2]

I think a TOE would show how God created the universe. The existence of a Creator would be implied.

I've come to understand that God is the Logic that holds all things together. You cannot participate in an argument unless you accept the premise that logic is relevant and controlling. So if God is Logic, then you must start every debate, argument, and study with accepting the premise that God exists. God is not something you can prove any more that you can prove the existence of logic. God is just a starting premise for gaining wisdom.

A TOE is not complete until it explains everything physical. But questions do not stop until you derive physics from logic. For if we reduce physics to some other physical quantity, even though it unifies force, etc, it still begs the question as to where these more fundamental laws or entities came from. I've had this conversation many times on the Net. You cannot argue that God is in control so that everything is logical unless you can prove that physics can be derived from logic.

What is missing is to show how the events described about religon are consistent with the laws of physics and logic. What still needs to be explained is how the creation of life, the resurrection, a New heaven and earth can come about. I believe it is all a matter of entropy. All these events seem to contradict the increase of entropy in all events in the universe. But I think that there may be a conservation of entropy for the universe as a whole. There is no alternative but that a universe exist. This is true at all times. So the Shannon information of a 100% probable event is 0. The Shannon information being equal to the entropy, there is a conservation of entropy in the universe as a whole. So as the universe disperses and increases entropy in one part of the universe, there should be a decrease of entropy in some another part of the universe. This may account for the physical necessity of life. This may account for why we, as decreased entropy creature, observe a increase of entropy for the most part.

So life is a decrease in entropy. There is a decrease in entropy associated with the construction of information storage devices such as a brain. And I think there may also be a decrease of entropy associated with a reduction of knowledge (information) to wisdom. For wisdom recognizes principles and precepts that reduce the amount of information needed because that information can be derived from just a few facts and applying principle.

Structures that maintain their coherence characterize systems of low entropy. So it seems as though a resurrection would also be a reduction in entropy. And I suspect that the New Heaven and earth will be created as a result of the entropy reduction techniques of finding wisdom and being steadfast in sincerity.

Mike2,

I have been reading your responses to Ranyart, but I have decided to stay out of that part of the physics forum.

You used entrophy as a variable....and the logic from this...is that topology can be spoken to here? I am definitely open to corrections.

Now of course we can talk about the early universe, and what supergravity might mean here, and from the cooling nature, what matters, and action of space find discrete things form, and negative energy being expressed? A dualistic nature?

A supersymmetrical relationship forming in expansion?

I think then indeed the ideas here is to find a geometrical defintion that is indeed based on that logic.

The idea to assume the existance of something always "being", is a smart one because I find the logic of "nothing" falible right from the word go:) You can correct me here if you like.

Any corrections appreciated

[Mike2]

The idea to assume the existance of something always "being", is a smart one because I find the logic of "nothing" falible right from the word go:) You can correct me here if you like.

Any corrections appreciated

Time, of course, is a created things as well. So there is no "before creation", or pre-existing being. Time and being come into existence together. So "always being" is correct.

This is still the case if everything proceeds from a infinitesimal point (nothing). But to suggest otherwise, that something proceeded all at once, or that time proceeded from negative infinity with something existing before it expanded at time equal zero, both these suggestions preform the logical error of petitio principii, AKA begging the question. You are left without explanation as to where it came from.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well Said.Thank you, but isn't it ironic that this Universe requires us to have belief systems, and yet makes such an example of solidity to us, sold as a rock, stable as a Proton, a need to believe in solidity...solid as in objective proof, no need to belive in it, it is self evident, truth.....

Sol2 sorry for the time, but I have a tendancy not to answer 'all questions' inasmuch as I need be carefeul of "not giving it all away" (Biblical advise actually)...perhaps, if I have the 'reading' opportunities, (time on computer) I will go read the links, maybe answer some of the questions, then again, who knows, maybe I can't cause I don't know the answer.....yet....

[JesseBonin]

Above all else man seeks relations with God. (most men anyway) There is no everything without including this hard wired function of the human machine. To understand "Everything" we must first understand ourselves, a journey very few ever undertake. More importantly, our thoughts ARE significant in the grand scheme of things.

The search for god: Since the beginning of recorded history (and even discovered history) the human animal has had a relationship with "a higher power". We have in our history been wrong about alot of thing we "believed" to be true. The desire to know god, i think is different in that this "hope" is something we are all born with. Instinct? genetic patterning? or something deeper and more sublime? Our desire to know "how it works" is undoubtedly the first step the kindergarten class of the school of omnipotance.

Understanding ourselves: If every journey begins with the first step, then man has not even begun his journey. To understand everything one must start somewhere, otherwise we discover parts of a jigsaw puzzle we have no idea how to assemble. What is the beginning? the simple answer is "you" or "me, myself and I" we need scientific and philisophic blueprint of ourselves to understand completely anything we interact with. Are we insignificant in the grand scheme of things? absolutly not. Its hard to explain presence, without first posing this question to yourself, Am i important? You are the beginning and the end of all of reality. When you pass from this life, reality ceases to exist, at least for the most important being in the entire universe, yourself. I am an illusion, as are all other people, places and things. We are voices within your reality to help you learn, discover, suffer if need be. Scientifically, we must also understand why we are, a much harder question to prove through science. We have to know why our molecule degredate, why our thoughts affect physialogical changes in our bodies and anatomy. How our thoughts and perceptions effect the reality around us. Do not be any less impressed by the mundane than the power it holds deserves. Our ability to comunicate complete thoughts gives our thoughts power beyond the imagined. Our thoughts do hold power and presence. On some level, the power generated by our thought patterns effect the world imediatly adjacent to us, slight changes in magnetic fields to small to measure, still have the ability to effect the world at some level. In understanding ourselves completely (provided everyone did this) we would find ourselves in perfect harmony with all things around us, creating an eden or heaven. Then our search in the heavens would be non-essential to our expansion throughout it.

As we evolve as a people, we learn more about ourselves and how we effect our world. Eventually, much like a virus, we will learn to live in harmony with our host. Until that time we are bound by the restraints of this reality and this life. I believe like anything else in this world, "focus" is our main neglect. we always seem to be focused on the wrong things. Learn how your atoms work, learn how your DNA is written, learn how your mind conveys thought so on, then we can know all there is to know about "everything"

8)

[Erck]

Nice post.

I'm wondering if knowing ourselves is just a first step, in being able to then, go beyond that which we have learned... to go beyond ourselves... to others... to god?

[sol2]

Time, of course, is a created things as well. So there is no "before creation", or pre-existing being. Time and being come into existence together. So "always being" is correct.

This is still the case if everything proceeds from a infinitesimal point (nothing). But to suggest otherwise, that something proceeded all at once, or that time proceeded from negative infinity with something existing before it expanded at time equal zero, both these suggestions preform the logical error of petitio principii, AKA begging the question. You are left without explanation as to where it came from.

I believe this assumption had to take place here, as always being, becuase it allowed one to see the cyclical nature of that reality. I do not know how otherwise this can be considered.

I believe the essence of this flunctuation if you will, of the mobius strip or the klein bottle serve us well to descirbe this issue of continuity in action. If you had discrete functions alone, you have isolated your self from the potential of the fifth dimensional perspective, which recognizes the matter distinctions we now see around us, as an effect of fifth dimenisonal perspectives.

I do not know if this is confusing things, but in regard to the vacuum, how else might we have uinderstood negative energy as contained in this realization that while matter distictions are real ( as we all see) that "now" is a manifestation of then?

There is not much (in Time) that separates this if you consider early comsological events to measures in weak field considerations (LIGO)?

[JesseBonin]

I'm wondering if knowing ourselves is just a first step, in being able to then, go beyond that which we have learned... to go beyond ourselves... to others... to god?

It is my belief that if or when we finally do know all there is to know about ourselves, the search for things beyond that will be already done.

(theory) If the universe is made up completely of Photonic energy (and all things known and unknown are permeations of this energy) the we ourselves are made of this same material. In finding ourselves we should find that every particle of what we are is an exact replica of the entire universe. Kinda of like a hologram, if you cut a hologram in half you do not get two halves of a picture, you get 2 complete pictures half the size. this is the holographic universe theroy. And everything we know about the atom and how it works compliments this particular theory.

I think that at the center of all atoms is the very fabric of reality, a photonic power source that defines how a particular atom acts and reacts. If we were somehow able to split our universe in two, what kind of energy release could we expect. On the other hand, if we were somehow able to Fuse together our universe and another, what then would the releaase of power look like?

The expansion of our universe is not unlike the expansion of an underground atomic test, the explosion causes fision of all local atomic matter and as the sundered atoms find refuge in other mass new material is created. if we could freeze a nuclear detonation and allow 1 second of time to elapse over 100 years, we may well find that microscopic star systems are formed, where life florishes in an instant of time. the speed of light would be the barrier of course. If we were to accelerate ourselves beyond the speed of light would we find ourselves suddenly on the outside of a nuclear test looking at our universe among zillions of others? in any model of the universe you have to account for yourself, weather our role in it is significant or insignificant we are still a part of it so we matter.

ALL current theories and past theories suffer the same deficiency, HOW?
how did the universe first start its expansion?
what caused the first boom? was there a first boom?
does the universe repeat itself over and over again?
even gravity wont explain how so much material compressed could generate enough energy to escape its own gravity. and all the searching in history has brought us no closer to understanding this. maybe there is a sentience beyond what we call reality, maybe, when our universe is about to die, our decendants will know of a way to "restart" the universe, and in that way provide ourselves with immortality. maybe we are the forfathers of god.

[Erck]

(theory)I think that at the center of all atoms is the very fabric of reality, a photonic power source that defines how a particular atom acts and reacts.
Is there a "source" inside the universe... inside the particle, the string, the wavicle? Inside the "thing" and the "no-thing?"

ALL current theories and past theories suffer the same deficiency, HOW? how did the universe first start its expansion?

How was there anything to begin the expansion?

[JesseBonin]

light is the answer
it is the only constant is our chaotic universe. All things come from it, and return to it. (warning: religous quote) "i am the LIGHT, and the way" from our earliest ancestors we see the importance of light.

all things produce light (things in the real world anyway) or is it the other way around, light produces all things? either way light is the only thing present in ALL things, the only thing we have in common with everything. Light wounderful Light.

People think that light is a wave .. or could light be absolutly still and solid? and we as the "irresistable force" are simple occupants of the time space paradox that situation produces? And it is our own "vibration" and "motion" that gives light the appearance of motion wave or otherwise?

we always seem to put the cart befor the horse as it were. Man always has to come out on top, so it is not us that is moveing, it must be the light. HOGWASH

If god is all things, all knowing, all whatever, then waht is the commonality in all things ... thats right boys and girls ... light (or photonic energy however you like it)

should we assume that nothing in reality is "at rest" let me clarify a little or reclarify as it were. everything we know as "mass" exists due to its motion, light is a by-product of that motions effect within the absoute stillness of Photon. you will as you read my wild meanderings notice that i refer to Photon as a singular thing. this is becouse i belive that there is only 1 photon. And either it is super-luminal and able to be in all places at all times, or it is absolutly still and our universe is within it. lately i kind of lean towards the later of the two explanations. Super-luminance would not explain the finality of light, whereas the still photon may. this is alot easier to say than to actually explain. I am NOT a mathmatician (although i have studied quite a bit of it) quantum math is a little beyond my limited study. however, set the speed of light to zero and see what kind of answers you come up with.

i call god photon, and as in any belief there must be a "leap of faith" make yours how you choose, hell it cant hurt... 8)

[Erck]

A god full of a universe without a light, is just a bunch of wavicles running around bumping into each other in the dark. :-)

[JesseBonin]

LOL erck .. and thus reality lives on 8)

[Jimbroni]

[QUOTE=JesseBonin]light is the answer


we always seem to put the cart befor the horse as it were. Man always has to come out on top, so it is not us that is moveing, it must be the light. HOGWASH

QUOTE]

You have some very interesting theories about the constant nature of light.
I've notice you ellude to this in alot of threads you've responded too.

I have one question I've been meaning to ask. If light or god or universe or photon is one solid medium and everything is energy flucuations and wave moving thru that then how are shadows cast?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is in the very nature of light, inasmuch as, light, in transit, is invisible...hence "shadows"...more light bouncing off of one surface, and less off of another, cause all you ever see of light is it's interactivity with matter, otherwise you cannot 'see' it.....that is why the Universe looks "inky black" when you look up at the sky at night...you cannot see all of the light that is actually there...


Does that help?

[Jimbroni]

It is in the very nature of light, inasmuch as, light, in transit, is invisible...hence "shadows"...more light bouncing off of one surface, and less off of another, cause all you ever see of light is it's interactivity with matter, otherwise you cannot 'see' it.....that is why the Universe looks "inky black" when you look up at the sky at night...you cannot see all of the light that is actually there...


Does that help?

Not really :) Because the way I'm reading Jessebonin statement is that light is not in transit, which makes no sense in my mind. The very directional nature of shadows suggests light is coming from a source and can be blocked or redirected causing a shadow. (Standard Physical Model) I'm waiting to see Jesse's explanation on how shadows would work in a model were light is fixed and everything else isn't.

Actually in my mind, which is all screwed up. If Jesse changed light to time his theory would make a heck of alot more sense. :)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ok then you would like to know the "relativity of light intesities", hence shadows, because even in the shadow, there is light....and one last (perhaps) insight, if you deal with "light" as what it really is, EMR (Electro-magnetic radiation) and stop dealing with it simply on the level that we see, (visually) then the entire Universe is flooded with light, everywhere! no exception, just 'relative light intensities' due to travel times, and paths....

Does that help?

[Jimbroni]

Ok then you would like to know the "relativity of light intesities", hence shadows, because even in the shadow, there is light....and one last (perhaps) insight, if you deal with "light" as what it really is, EMR (Electro-magnetic radiation) and stop dealing with it simply on the level that we see, (visually) then the entire Universe is flooded with light, everywhere! no exception, just 'relative light intensities' due to travel times, and paths....

Does that help?

I don't disagree with you, light is everywhere, but do you believe that photons do not move and have zero velocity?

[JesseBonin]

You have some very interesting theories about the constant nature of light.
I've notice you ellude to this in alot of threads you've responded too.

I have one question I've been meaning to ask. If light or god or universe or photon is one solid medium and everything is energy flucuations and wave moving thru that then how are shadows cast?

he is the simplest answer i could come up with, move your finger through a pool of water ond look at the wake. the only evidence we have of lights "wake" is shadow cast on mass. but if you are far enough away from a solid object you cast no shadow, becouse light fills in the space behind you.
to be more acurate, move your finger through the water very fast, youll notice that directly behind your finger a "vortex" is created where water seems to behave diferently that we would calculate, that is shadow.

[Jimbroni]

he is the simplest answer i could come up with, move your finger through a pool of water ond look at the wake. the only evidence we have of lights "wake" is shadow cast on mass. but if you are far enough away from a solid object you cast no shadow, becouse light fills in the space behind you.
to be more acurate, move your finger through the water very fast, youll notice that directly behind your finger a "vortex" is created where water seems to behave diferently that we would calculate, that is shadow.

What you are describing is a mechanical longitudinal wave, sound is a spherical longitudinal pressure wave. Light is not longitudinal it is a transverse EM wave. The term for what you are describing is diffraction.
Where we are getting hung up is not the mechanics of wave theory, but the mechanics of particle theory. You have been saying photons do not move correct? and that light is only a wave moving thru a medium which is nothing but photons. That is a very controversial statement because thats not what I learned in Physics.

My understanding is that photons are emitted and a shadow is an area where photon density is lower than neighboring regions. (ie review the double slit experiment)


Oh and sorry for taking us way off topic.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Since a flashlight, shone on a scale, will give a reading, all I can surmise is that it has energetic force about it, Pardon the pun, scaler force, hence the belief that it is a moving physicality as/of energy...more energy, in one spot, that is moving....

OK?

[JesseBonin]

Since a flashlight, shone on a scale, will give a reading, all I can surmise is that it has energetic force about it, Pardon the pun, scaler force, hence the belief that it is a moving physicality as/of energy...more energy, in one spot, that is moving....

OK?

excellent 8) but is the photon moveing, or is photonic energy effecting adjacent photonic energy that simple has the appearance of motion due the the energies effect on the molecules of the scale.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mathematically you can reduce all of the factors to the point where this question arises, as a consequence of, the mathematically available perception... the truth of it, in reality, needs furthering of the proof of it, as to decide if it is the mathematical perception (model) that will persist, or some other observable reality......

Is that a good answer?....cause it isn't the complete one....not by a shot, near or long.....

[Erck]

Is that a good answer?....cause it isn't the complete one....not by a shot, near or long.....

A little "muddled" I'd have to say.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

A little "muddled" I'd have to say. "I'll bite" what part?

[Erck]

Mathematically you can reduce all of the factors to the point where this question arises, as a consequence of, the mathematically available perception... the truth of it, in reality, needs furthering of the proof of it, as to decide if it is the mathematical perception (model) that will persist, or some other observable reality......
This part.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes, well, clearly it isn't muddled to me, so if you don't tell me what part you find 'muddled' well, that is the end of the conversation....right?

[Erck]

I apologize if my choice of word was questionable... I really should have said "I don't understand what you are saying, would you mind rewording it?"

I find the whole part I quoted less than clear... but maybe it's just me.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

OK, given the ability in mathematics to cut everything fine, you can cut lightspeed into enough divided pieces, times, as to give the appearence (arising) that light has actually stopped, relative to time....a bit like Xeno's 'paradox' just not to absurdum, hence we get the apearence arising that photons don't need to move just the energy about them as we still need to resolve the transferences that we do observe....then we have the last part, which simply says, we need better proof before we can know if it is just a 'trick' of the math, or really the realities manner of operation...

Is that better?

[Erck]

Yes, that is better, thank you.

[pepcin7]

ready?

ok.

here we go.

me = God = you.

that's it. no more, no less.

what does that equation MEAN?? excellent question. i've been asking myself that question my whole life. and i think i've known the answer before i've known the question.

of course, you have to define what "me" is. this is HARD. it requires self examination. not easy.

then you have to define what "=" means. this is HARD. VERY hard to put in three dimensional terms. i'm gonna have fun with this one. it’s like a double chemical bond or something.

then you have to definte what "God" means. this is HARD. again, self examination and examination of God and the nature of God.

then i have to define what "you" means. this is HARD. i want to examine you.

the definitions will NEVER be complete in any sense. the question is will the definitions be complete enough for you to be satisfied. you may think your levels of dissatisfaction are limitless, and belive me, i know the feeling, but you can still your ego when you choose to. remember, you can choose to do anything you want. do, or do not. there is no try.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix
I like what you say. I am god and so are you and so is everything else. I don't think it fits well here as you give no coroboration and no evidence and no physics. you just make the statement, as did I. We may be rare but I think we know. ahh, I know we know. If you don't know that you know that then you don't. I don't claim to understand it, or do I claim to understand many things about this fantastic world. Only that I am part of it and it me and being that the world is dominated by fear cause many don't know this and that they are immortal it is hard to see sometimes because of the conciousness projection and belief in limits and scarcity. But it's ok. It doesn't really matter yet paradoxically we are all priceless and the universe is benevolent.

[JesseBonin]

"i think, therfor i am" modern philosophy. Perception mathimatical or otherwise is still the root of all discovery. Have you ever stood in the rain, and tried to dodge rain drops? excedingly hard to do, until you realize the awesome power of discovery and invention and open your umbrella. I cannot dodge the rain, but i can deflect it, and that is power over the elements of a sort. Infection was a death sentence until some clever folk stumbled upon penacillan. Maybe these analogies are too vauge, let me try and simplify my idea but better explain the premiss.
I does not matter if lights is moving 188,000 m/s or if it is perfectly still, lights motion is inconsequential. The important part is its finality, it provides us with a stable platform to develope real mathimatical proof of all things. (god included)

As it stands, we have to trudge through a mindless bog of the heaviest math known to man to define anything in our universe, from the simplest atom to the most complex quasar. the math we use is neccisarily difficult due to the "intangent" light.
let me give you an example. if we take e=mc^2 and give light a value of 1 then the equation breaks down to energy is equivilant to mass. bare in mind, the current scale for energy is based on the older equation. the newer equation would require a new scale as far as measurement is concerned.

for instance. a thing with .0013 mass currently would have an energy of 117,000,000
what does that number represent other than a scaled number?

by unifieng the 2 scales we can calculate other anomolies with simple math. algebra, geometry, calculus .. in this way we negate the need for quantum math altogether.

it really is a matter of perception, if we view light as an intangent then we must account for "chaos" and by definition it is impossible. God, i think, WANTS to be discovered.

[JesseBonin]

I like what you say. I am god and so are you and so is everything else. I don't think it fits well here as you give no coroboration and no evidence and no physics. you just make the statement, as did I. We may be rare but I think we know. ahh, I know we know. If you don't know that you know that then you don't. I don't claim to understand it, or do I claim to understand many things about this fantastic world. Only that I am part of it and it me and being that the world is dominated by fear cause many don't know this and that they are immortal it is hard to see sometimes because of the conciousness projection and belief in limits and scarcity. But it's ok. It doesn't really matter yet paradoxically we are all priceless and the universe is benevolent.

maybe god wants to be discovered becouse WE want to be discovered

[sol2]

I really do not know if this answers the question, but the thought of the No Boundary theory seems interesting

What is needed, therefore, is a definition of asymptotically flat space-times that allows one to overcome both the problem of “where infinity is” and the problem of simulating an infinite system with finite resources. The key observation in this context is that “infinity” is far away with respect to the space-time metric. This means that one needs infinitely many “metre sticks” in succession in order to “get to infinity”. But, what if we replaced these metre sticks by ones that grow in length the farther out we go? Then it might be possible that only a finite number of them suffices to cover an infinite range, provided the growth rate is just right. This somewhat naive picture can be made much more precise: Instead of using the physical space-time metric to measure distance and time, we use a different metric , which is “scaled down” with a scale factor . If can be arranged to approach zero at an appropriate rate, then this might result in “bringing infinity in to a finite region” with respect to the unphysical metric . We can imagine attaching points to the space-time that are finite with respect to but which are at infinity with respect to . In this way we can construct a boundary consisting of all the end points of the succession of finitely many rescaled metre sticks arranged in all possible directions. This construction works for Minkowski space and so it is reasonable to define asymptotically flat space-times as those for which the scaling-down of the metric is possible. Jörg Frauendiener

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-1/articlesu1.html

[JesseBonin]

lets suppose a single sentient thing existed. lets suppose this thing decided to see what would happen if it moved. So it moved . a 1 dimensional thing begins to move in a 2 dimensional loop. now this thing enjoys this but it still lacks the maximum possible enjoyment, so it starts to add some s turns in its track, "wow" it says, when i add this "s turn in my path here, it makes my path a little awkward over there. "i wounder what would happen if i add a couple dips and hills in my s-turn" "incredible" says the entity. "by adding that dip and turn i have created something that appears to have mass" (use your immagination a little LOL) "i wonder what would happen if i let my path cross over itself here" ,,, "unbelieveable, my track seems smaller even though i know its the same length, and it looks like a created a great burning sphere, i will call it "atom"" "well lets add, oh i dont know, 10^10^10^10^10 turns and the same amount of dips and the smae amount of rises and the same amount of crosses" "i think i will call this "star" and this over here i will call "planet" and this," HEY!" that thing is moveing, and its thinking, i will call you "man" hopefully you get the gist.

one thing started it all, lets call it "photon" and since all things are essentially created from it, its "energy signature" is embedded in all things (light) and since all things are permeations of this "track" or "string" we are bound by the tracks "energy" (gravity, magnetisim, dark energy) and since "photon" enjoys adding complexity to ris race track the track itself "appears to get smaller and smaller" of course that would have the opposite effect on our perception due to the fact that our little part of the "photon race track" gets smaller faster than the whole track does, so it looks like the universe is getting bigger or expanding.

[Erck]

The "point" expressing itself?

[pelastration]

The "point" expressing itself?
... and if we start with only a point ... it has a boundary. OK? non-breakable. Whatever shape or structure it will have or evolve to or expand ... it will have that boundary.
Since there is nothing except that point ... nothing can break or cut it. No Universal Scissors.

[Erck]

The point, the "thing"... always comes with the "no-thing."

[pepcin7]

I was the guy who wrote that (less than easily read) part about God and knowing it. Here are a few things I find interesting about the world of physics and it's apparant quandaries. The big bang. Who thought of it? Oh I know who; I say that only to make a point. At first glance if you believe in a god then this seems just fine; it works with what you know. but if you are a physicist then it just leaves you with many many more questions and theorizations than you could ever start to cope with. For example. Was there a before the big bang? If so what? If not then what started it? Then although this is not physics there are the philosophers who will ask "Why" ? Why should such a thing take place? It is just the "why is there something rather than nothing?" question started at a different point. A singularity? What exactly is that? I know but the answer doesn't make sense. The big bang seems like just a guess really. A crazier one than many other theories thought of, that then, turn out to be true. And to the guy who thought about proving infinity with shorter and longer metre sticks. That seems to me just playful mathematics. It doesn't really address the "physical real" infinity meaning endlessness with no end and no end after that. I don't scoff or mean to suggest anyone dumb unintelligent or anything of that sort. I just think of all the theories I know of over time and have read about and have heard comment on, and I see that for all of it, man is no closer really to understanding his place. There are some other interesting TOEs that are more about the evolution of human conciousness and spiral nesting and psychology. read some Ken Wilber among others. They incorporate physics into some of the work but there interest is more internal about explaining what we are really wanting to know. "Who are we?" and "what should we do" "why are we here" their answers are very curious and surprisingly possible in its originality. just a point I wanted to put out there.

[Erck]

Having a belief in god or not... the question of how, when, why the universe is still a fairly valid question.

The who is answered of course, with a belief in god.

The singularity is a good question, belief in god or not.

Your point about the "internal" is important... very important.

And... I wonder how much we can find out about it, by better understanding the "external" world?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

In physics the qustion of the origin of the big bang is a simple as the cycles that we observe/see in all of nature, hence it's origin, in physics, is as 'simply answerable' as that...it began as the end of the last cycle, arose from the remnants of the last Big Crunch, that arose from the last big band, that arose from the last big crunch, that arose, begating, begating, begating, that kinda stuff.....

[selfAdjoint]

Well I don't think people are doing much with big crunches any more, since the acceleration of the expansion was discovered, but there is a cyclic model out of brane theory. In this model our universe arises from a brane that is periodically hit by another brane, parallel and close to it but "wiggling". Everytime there's a hit, the existing universe is wiped out and a new one started, or so I've heard.

[Erck]

It seems that when a theory starts to wear thin... things that are described as relatively solid, like points, bangs and crunches... turn into things that wiggle, like branes, strings, and wavicles.

Vacillation... the lubrication of decision-making.

[sol2]

It seems that when a theory starts to wear thin... things that are described as relatively solid, like points, bangs and crunches... turn into things that wiggle, like branes, strings, and wavicles.



But what is not undertsood is that to get to the brane idea you did not just throw GR out the window, and say Qm is not of any use. So the new perspective is defintiely built on the foundation.

Mr. Parsons comments are very simplistic indeed......until it is recognized, what cyclical really means? From that new foundational perspective, we might say its called paradigm building, and some do like these overused models of perception:):)

Vacillation... the lubrication of decision-making

Maybe we can call that, a topological feature of induction and deduction?:) A universal kind of thing:)

[pepcin7]

I get your meaning; as mechanical, but fluid. But many of these terms we throw around are aestheically pleasing, but, theoretically there are many challenges to these ideas. Many of the versions of string theory and other extrapolations derived from the multiplying versions are just that. mental extrapolations. In this area, we must keep in mind that there is very little hard physical or energical data backing them up. They may fit the TOPOLOGICAL form for elegance and beauty. Beauty is a thing that mathematicians and physicists must admit are attractive in their models. I suppose much of it comes from a hidden (often unspoken) deep fascination that allows for mystery and it's seductive charm. For in reality what we are and where we are is REALLY a beautiful and overwhelmingly vast and literally ineffable WONDER! No one with an ounce of humanity can honestly say they have never simply looked at the night sky at least once in their life where they were not awestruck. It does happen. Yes even to physicists. Often then we are driven to find that final equation of ultimate, super penultimate, finality that sums it all up in one extraordinarily beautiful, simple equation. Who has not wondered? Which is more amazing E=MC 2sq or the thinking of it? How was it thought of? Do we yet know what it all means? Wonder is a great motivator of scientific research. I can't remember his name right off, but he addressed a convention of physicists (on quantum mechanics) and in his speech said that today we no longer ask the question ", is the hypothesis crazy, rather, we ask, is it crazy enough ?". JBS Haldane once remarked , "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose; it is queerer than we can suppose." The cyclical idea is another extrapolation on the big bang that has not been proven any more than a crunch. We have even invented dark matter to take the place of the apparant missing mass that should exist in order to keep the galaxies from flying apart based on the amount of required gravitation to keep them so held. No one has ever seen dark matter, or dark energy, or even has a clue what it might be like,, except for further theorization and,... extended further extrapolation. Maybe we just don't know something yet; Probably we don't. But without hypotheses, how and what would we test and measure? So the work goes on...more feverishly, no doubt, due to the latent amazment, that this work ,so far, has inspired.

[JesseBonin]

everyone wants so bad to "understand". here is a tid-bit. All cultures of early man had tales of how the world came to be. My favorite is a native american saying. "the sun seeing that is was alone, shed one tear, and that tear became the earth". or something like that. What the majority of these beliefs all have in comming is the existance of a "nothing" befor creation a "void".

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ok then you would like to know the "relativity of light intesities", hence shadows, because even in the shadow, there is light....and one last (perhaps) insight, if you deal with "light" as what it really is, EMR (Electro-magnetic radiation) and stop dealing with it simply on the level that we see, (visually) then the entire Universe is flooded with light, everywhere! no exception, just 'relative light intensities' due to travel times, and paths....
Just to be certain that the emboldened is understood well enough, try to realize that when I stated "everywhere", I meant e-v-e-r-ywhere, as light looked at, as EMR, operating in the Universe, gives us EMR right down into the Core of a Neutron Star, permeating into the Stars very core, from the without (outside) of the star.....that gives us EMR, EMR in areas of greater activity, then moreso, extreme activity, (and activity rates) while amidst the appearance of 'centers'.....comes from the Bible actually, my sourced inspirational thought, "There is NO darkeness in Him..." and there is, in truth, no darkeness (absence of EMR) in the Universe, anywhere!

[treat2]

maybe god wants to be discovered becouse WE want to be discovered


Maybe you all should stop confusing Religion with Science. Try consulting your Minister, Priest, Rabbi, Mullah, religious dogma, or whatever the hell you use to define everything for yourself. As far as Science is concerned,
no god(s) exist, except in your imagination.

As per spirituality, incomplete whatever you imagine, Atheists such as myself have no need, no desire, no want for, and no lecturing about your own
(i.e. plural "your own") deficiencies.

I leave all of that garbage for the Scientific Pantheist to the fanatical Christians and Islamists to obsess about.

No doubt a Religious Forum was unable to assist, eh? Glad to help!

[Erck]

As far as Science is concerned, no god(s) exist, except in your imagination.
Not true. Plain and simple.

Some of the greatest scientists refer to god from time to time. Just because it's existence isn't figured into any equations, doesn't mean it wouldn't be, if it could.

Physics as it is... is still very much in our imagination.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect....hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems....and so on....and so on....treat2, do you understand what this piece of writing tells all of us?

[Erck]

I certainly remain uncertain... but it seems that quoting one's self is an interesting notion.

[Mike2]

So the Shannon information of a 100% probable event is 0. The Shannon information being equal to the entropy, there is a conservation of entropy in the universe as a whole. So as the universe disperses and increases entropy in one part of the universe, there should be a decrease of entropy in some another part of the universe. This may account for the physical necessity of life. This may account for why we, as decreased entropy creature, observe a increase of entropy for the most part.

So life is a decrease in entropy. There is a decrease in entropy associated with the construction of information storage devices such as a brain. And I think there may also be a decrease of entropy associated with a reduction of knowledge (information) to wisdom. For wisdom recognizes principles and precepts that reduce the amount of information needed because that information can be derived from just a few facts and applying principle.
Since this wisdom would help us to survive, it defeats the tendency of entropy to claim us. It negates entropy. So do the actions motivated by such knowledge and wisdom constitute a reduction of entropy?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I certainly remain uncertain... but it seems that quoting one's self is an interesting notion.Uhmm when someone makes statements like this....
(SNIP)As far as Science is concerned,
no god(s) exist, except in your imagination.(SNoP) ...and since Science itself basically is the exploration of the Universe and existence, such a statement is very premature, unless treat2 has definitive proof of the Non existence of God, Science itself may lend an opininon in the direction but, absent of proof, usually, Science is NOT then considered conclusive, and finality of statements usually is reserved till there is clear/definitive proof.....

Then again, the reason why I quoted myself is because that statement that I made explains why all of it is simply based upon belief systems, unavoidably! that means BOTH Science and Religion are belief based, it is inescapable..........

[selfAdjoint]

If what you mean by all this is that science hasn't so far disproved any supernatural being, well and good; that's true.

If you mean that because science hasn't disproved a supernatural being it is therefore only a system of beliefs like a philosophy or religion, then no, that's false. Science is beliefs plus objective evidence. That's different from religion, unless you count the face of Jesus on somebody's garage door as evidence.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Good answer, but Science, not unlike religion? well, no, religion does find "Source of Thought", Science? well, lets all read, what? the Origin of consiciousness? on who's Authority? ...please, on who's authority?

[sol2]

If what you mean by all this is that science hasn't so far disproved any supernatural being, well and good; that's true.

If you mean that because science hasn't disproved a supernatural being it is therefore only a system of beliefs like a philosophy or religion, then no, that's false. Science is beliefs plus objective evidence. That's different from religion, unless you count the face of Jesus on somebody's garage door as evidence.

If we were considering the power of Myth here (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@221.O6LfbevHN6i.0@.1dde6917/10) the point about reason comes to the forefront.

From a historical perspective, we might speak about where the orignations of where thoughts might have begun?

Objective reasoining, then manifests for what science can become in experimental values, yet it had this other process involve that was a path of consideration.

So we say then that math being the architect for reality might have run into diffiuclty lacking a way in which to describe what is real for some, and real for others. Strings/M Theory for instance.

Would philosophy then become the basis of mathematical reasoning?

[Erck]

ALL things equally "converge" eventually.

[sol2]

ALL things equally "converge" eventually.

That would mean it was all separate in the first place?

In supersymmetry this would be a contradiction?

At Planck length, would we assume the reality, and speak about what patterns could have existed in such energy states? All the while, there were lessor degrees, defining its edges.

Yet even here at high energies, there is something unique about these dynamics, that call for pattern recognzition. Anew math?

Gravity, is not isolated from the general context of weak field measure? It becomes one part of the whole picture, in gravitational intensities? (dimensions, can we call "this" that?:)

[pelastration]

Science is beliefs plus objective evidence.
Interesting, but of course 'postulates' are also considered doing science ... not being evidence.
Maybe you put postulates on the beliefs side?

[Erck]

That would mean it was all separate in the first place?
I didn't mean to imply separation.

I put quotes around converge for two reasons.

An unseparable "relative pair," forms the core of the universe... and a macrocosmic representation of that same unseparable pair, forms the boundry of the universe.

[sol2]

An unseparable "relative pair," forms the core of the universe... and a macrocosmic representation of that same unseparable pair, forms the boundry of the universe.

I think this explains it better to me. The idea, that to consider these two things, that a continuance of, as dynamcial movement is evdient. Whether it be from the Vacua state, that is currently being expressed, or concealed in the plasmatic reactions of supergravity. Beyond this, the gravitational consideration is also being spoken too, yet by including this together in one complete picture, a bubble maybe, we understand the universe, outside/inside the universe?

[Erck]

I think this explains it better to me.
Oh good.

Also... between the micorcosmic pair and the macrocosmic pair, there are an infinite number of "potential interconnections/pathways."

Does that statement mean something to you?

I'm just making this @!$@^ up as I go along. :-)

[Dlanorrenrag]

Do not both science and spirituality each have vital roles, such that neither need be jealous of the other? Does science advance any legitimate rationale for disregarding spiritual beliefs at a fundamental level? Whether consistently metaphorized or not, does not everyone necessarily rationalize, whether consciously or not, in order to effect choices, behaviors, and purposes? Is it not unimportant whether science can prove faith or unspoken rationalizations, so long as science cannot disprove them? When one thinks trying to advance a consistent moral philosophy is unimportant, does he not simply tend to leave rationalizing and leading the directions our society should take to others, whose purposes may not be quite so esthetic? While science cannot disprove all spirituality, cannot science help guide our value judgments? Was not Occam’s Razor originally applied by a monk while dealing with spiritual values? Surely, no one suggests scientists must be amoral.

[Erck]

When a physicist asks "why" the universe exists... it's possible that he or she doesn't understand the depth from which, the question is coming?

It might seem like an "intellectual" practical curiousity, but it might be more a case of the "spirit" inside, actaully asking the question.

[Mike2]

Both science and religion are seeking the ultimate issues concerning creation and destiny. Science is only speaking of events in a more percise language. Whereas religion is relying on intuition based on the most overall principles of understanding, true, false, right, wrong, life, death, heaven and hell. But as far as Christianity is concerned, we cannot say that the events described and predicted do not have some physical interpretation. For that would be the same heracy as the Gnostics proposed.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So the thread starts as "TOE incomplete without God", then polls to ask if the requirement of integration of spirituality is required, NO, it isn't. (but you might just find "parrallels" that seem operative, as I have)

As for "Incomplete Without God?". Well God wrote the TOE, (My Belief/knowledge granted, unprovable to you) then the Universe came into being, in Science, the Universe simply came into being...the two follow really closely, in some manners, closer then most would realize, (sorta) the Bible just sorta centers upon certain times, and events, on a much lessor time scale then the Science of the Universe talks of....so ......

[Dlanorrenrag]

When a physicist asks "why" the universe exists... it's possible that he or she doesn't understand the depth from which, the question is coming?

It might seem like an "intellectual" practical curiousity, but it might be more a case of the "spirit" inside, actaully asking the question.
****************
I agree.

[Erck]

:-) Thought you might.

[sol2]

What probabilties could then be expressed from it, and how would any pathways choosen, had come from expressions of higher dimensions?

Let's assume you have a mathematical structure that could detail for you in consideration, such expressions as that of Pascal's triangle. Then what in these higher dimensions would signal which pathway?

http://mathforum.org/workshops/usi/pascal/images/base.gif


http://mathforum.org/workshops/usi/pascal/mo.pascal.html

FRom the idea of planck length, all has become energy (it had become problematic in physics research?), so if I said it's strength and weakness, then at this level, patterns would have to mean something.

We recognize Nash for his principal of negotiation (beautiful mind ) its inception from inside the bar. Then could such perceptions, have revealled something from this realm? You can't ignore such PARADIGMAL CHANGES NOW HAVE CHANGE PERCEPTION AND VISUALIZATION?

If we had accepted a "paradigmal change," to what has always been considered in particle reductionism, what has then happened, that we could not assume such expressions could exist? Or could they?

What Lies Beneath (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@195.gCmPbCsYRU3.0@.1dde532a)

Emergence and Lauglin:)

[tabloid]

"toe" was always there long time back.we are just trying to refine it into something else(the same thing) to gain a better understanding of things.anyways,its the scientists to say...my job is to learn :cool:

[Erck]

Infinite potential in a point?
Yes and no.

The substance of every point/wave is relative.

It will suggest "everything" yes, but it will also suggest no-thing.

The true substance in a point is "relationships."

The TOE might be more subtle than we think.

[Dlanorrenrag]

Within the balance of existence, what relative exchange accounts for manifestation of an arrow of time? Is a dissipation of heat and energy exchanged for something more than spatial expansion, perhaps a categorical *accumulation of history and information*?

Do survivalist processes allow basic category patterns of string vibrations to manifest material fields that become ever more adept at "anticipating" how to survive, co-opt, align, magnetize, polarize, unite, or repulse more massive or dense field patterns?

Do we have imagination enough to even guess what might result when a pattern becomes adept enough to relate to a universal membrane with enough information (regarding leap, location, direction, speed, acceleration, momentum, rotation, spin, frequency, amplitude, intensity, vibration, oscillation, wobble, irregularity, charge, balance, polarity, density) to be able to outlast any pressure that might be brought to bear by any other existing field pattern?

At such a diffused point of aesthetic imagination, might we intuit a basis for bringing Occam’s Reductionist Razor to bear, in order to join a physical theory of everything (TOE) with a universal philosophy of values (POV)? As a matter of aesthetic faith, might ultimate string vibrations reasonably or metaphorically be considered, on one side of the coin of existence, to constitute the wiring of Nature and, on the other side, the synapses of a "God" Membrane, as sort of ultimate building blocks of a TOEPOV?

[pelastration]

Hi Sol,

Thanks for reminding me the Pascal's triangle. So - especially for you - I checked my pelastratic approach and it's relationship with the Catalan numbers ... with the Pascal triangle.

And indeed there is a relationsship never done or shown before. I hope it will appeal to you. You will not find it on the website you refered to.

I found out that for every Catalan number an 'exclusive' number of the triangle is used. Fun! And strange. Check the image on http://www.mu6.com/holons/catalan_pascal.jpg.

There is not yet a real 'visual' pattern and I just checked it for the first six or seven layers of combination (till the Catalan number 4862). The white spots left open will be used by following catalan numbers.
To me it confirms that the pelastration approach is found in the natural systems. I see that John Baez goes in that direction to with Category theory and Hilb, but it's noncommutative and it seems to me he is still inversing in the commutative way(?).
Just think about the envelop of SST and all becomes clear. ;-)
d

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Selfadjoint is right in his pointing out the nature of Science, seen as 'sticking to the physical' ergo "extrinsic provability" what remains as 'intrisic' is subjectively accountable only, ergo not acceptable in scientific proofs of things....but I'll tell you when you get to certain places, certain things, you cannot proceed any further, it is impossible, hence we MUST follow beliefs, if only as a construction of, and from, a basis of "Extrinsic Objective Proof" and the math helps somewhat to verify, but it should be noted! it too! can mislead....if the logic isn't 'suitable'.....

There need not be an argument of "Science V Religion" as the two endevour to discover the same thing proper description of the truth, Science just sticks to what it can prove "extrinsically" and hence concordant with "Current Scientific Theory/Thought"

Religion allows certain latitudes for the Mysterious in nature, as yet Scientifically un-explained mysteries......sorta

[amp]

I think that a major problem is not many are willing to consider that the universe and 'everthing in it' is a subset of 'God', in fact it is entirely contained with-in 'God' and even as that is true one should realize that 'God' permeates the entire reality of we perceive as the universe

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well, sorta agree, God would be the "Infinite" though, so neither Science, nor Religion, can prove, dis-prove, 'do anything' about it, not mathematical either, although the sign/symbol is needed in understanding 'limits', but it is an impossibility to prove, or dis-prove, hence No One side can Win the arguement.....

[Erck]

Should god as "infinite" necessarily be a given?

[JesseBonin]

to "understand" anything we must understand its limits. This is the basic human flaw. We assume that there are boundries, and we can define thoes boundries in any words we like. Even if we use terms like "endless, infinite, everything, and nothing" we still limit the idea by defining it. To define something gives it a "definate" that limits the possiblities of the ideas. I like the term "zero, zed, 0" most of us quickly forget that thoes symbols are the representation of that whice we choose NOT to define, these do not neccisarirly represent anything. Remember your grade school teacher telling you that 0 was not a number, but the absence of a number? whats the difference between saying "nothing" and representing nothing with a 0? the word nothing has an absolute definition, meaning the "non-existance" of whatever it is we are considering "something" whereas 0 represents that which we wish not to define, there could be something there we are just unwilling to, or unable to define whatever it is 0 represents. The term 0 gives us an opporitunity to incorperate alot of things into the "math" we use to define our reality.

there is another misunderstood number 1. Why? 1 represents more than just the singular. A mathmatical analogy ... you have 1 apple, we can deduce the number of apples you have by concluding that the "1" represents a singular entity. in this senario we do not account for "possibility" similar to basic relativity. Now lets look at the "1" in a different way. If we say we "start" with 1 apple, we now have a number with more than just it's singular meaning. we now see one not as a singular entity, but as a "beginning" or "starting point" . We have 1 apple, but as that apple dies its seeds are spred and grow ten trees, from which a thousand apples grow. In this senario the possibility of our 1 is 1000

"I knew that, but it doesent really give the number 1 any more meaning" doesent it? try to look beyond your own basic "human flaw" and try to look outside of the definitions. If you truly want to theorize "everything" you have to start from the beginning. To find the beginning you have to find the one thing in nature that can reproduce both examples of "1" at the same time. It has to be a "singular" thing and it has to possess the potential to be "all things"

With all that in mind, the only thing i could come up with is light. Why light? split any atom and the result is brillint light of every spectrum. Heat as a by product? heat as a primary function, you cannot have one without the other they are one and the same at the smallest level. although they are two very seperate measurements.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Should god as "infinite" necessarily be a given? Hence the entire reason for belief, the requisite of the need for faith, belief, the practice of spirituallity, as by way of (organized) religion(s)

The infinite need not be 'seen' as God, but then again, it cannot be 'seen' soooo.........we simply cannot prove it....ever.....accept, profess, believe in whatever you like, God gave you that right, and I am not the one who will be 'seen' as being guilty of taking it away from you, you have to do that all for yourself............

C:Ya!.*

[Erck]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?

[sol2]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?

I like what Mr. Parsons is saying. That if at some level the logic runs out we might indeed call this belief.

What might we call planck length, and in that infinite potential, expressive in such a point?

It is difficult to know what might be expressed in these probabilities. Can they exist here? In the early universe such expansion potentials are recognized in discrete things, as the universe cools.

This does remove other potentials within this universe, Suns die and new ones are born:)

Compaction of a singularity, assumes critical density and when at the same time such compaction reveals other possibilites?

I am open to corrections

[Erck]

I like what Mr. Parsons is saying. That if at some level the logic runs out we might indeed call this belief.
Maybe our logic just isn't sufficiently critical yet?

[sol2]

Maybe our logic just isn't sufficiently critical yet?

This would then be part of the desire then for a new math?

How shall that arise in a supersymmetrical world?

If it's born in thought, and philosophy is its base, then it must arise from a cognitive state( mathematical foundation) similar to supersymmetry?

Hence this would have to include topological features, supermetric points in supergravity etc.?:)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?It cannot be, but the Infinite can hold the finite, at leat the appearance of "finite-ness" hence we encounter the illusion of time (it is really just 'motion', and how we meter that) followed closely by the illusion of 'solidity' that is enscounced within the appearance of time....

But all is EMR.....Light(?) sorta, and as I had posted once before, In metaphysics, we find that "In an ininity, the center(s) can appear as everywhere/anywhere"......even in the middle of a Neutron Star flooded with EMR energy in between the spaces between the centers right down to the very core of it, "pressuris extremis" YIKES!

[pelastration]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?
The problem of definitions and semantics.
Can a finite person (a mother) infinite love her child. :wink:
I think she can.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The problem of definitions and semantics.
Can a finite person (a mother) infinite love her child. :wink:
I think she can.
:confused: , :tongue: , :eek: , :cool: , :rolleyes:

[sol2]

The problem of definitions and semantics.
Can a finite person (a mother) infinite love her child. :wink:
I think she can.

Mr. Parsons,

If M is a bubble then the pelastrian considerations would make sense and so would mother:) The geometrodynamics would also make sense from this standpoint and why it was introduced. :wink:

From my perspective, the dynamics of pelastrian are from a heighten perspective? A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Reinmannian curvatures to dynamics situations :biggrin:

This is part of the vision for some of us beginners :smile:


Visualization of Superstring States

Of course in order to really understand this one has to acquaint oneself with the required formalism. But I think it is a fun exercise in physics pedagogy to try to come up with semi-heuristic mental pictures which provide the layman with more information than the general statement above while avoiding a complete mathematical development of the theory.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000334.html

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Infinity cannot have time, soooooooo...............all the rest is, well.....having Fun yet?

:cool:

[Erck]

There's all the time in the world...

[pelastration]

Mr. Parsons,

If M is a bubble then the pelastrian considerations would make sense and so would mother:) The geometrodynamics would also make sense from this standpoint and why it was introduced. :wink:

From my perspective, the dynamics of pelastrian are from a heighten perspective? A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Reinmannian curvatures to dynamics situations :biggrin:

This is part of the vision for some of us beginners :smile:


Visualization of Superstring States

Of course in order to really understand this one has to acquaint oneself with the required formalism. But I think it is a fun exercise in physics pedagogy to try to come up with semi-heuristic mental pictures which provide the layman with more information than the general statement above while avoiding a complete mathematical development of the theory.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000334.html
Indeed Sol, ... A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Reinmannian curvatures to dynamics situations :biggrin:
Dynamic thanks.

[sol2]

Indeed Sol, ... A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Rienmannian curvatures to dynamics situations :biggrin:
Dynamic thanks.

Thanks D,

Doesn't matter who saids it:)

Rienmannian revelations help us to see the world different and Einstein grasped onto this? Gauss helped to prep us to these ideas and Grossman's introduction to Einstein also helped.

Here's a further link and final one.

Quantum Rienmannian Geometry (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/riemannian/)

I'll be watching the threads, after all, good information can come from here as well:)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Gentlemen, your assertion includes time, no doubt, right?...cause if it does....well...

:cool:

[sol2]

Gentlemen, your assertion includes time, no doubt, right?...cause if it does....well...

:cool:

It's always been easy on a cosmological scale to understand these application of GR. What was difficult is to marry it to the small world.

Time dilation and length contraction have to be undertsood in this dynamical world of the small, so how shall we do this?

Somebodies developes a new theoretcial language ( shall we call it math) and covers all the bases? Such conceptual frames once adopting these new persepctive allows one a different view on the world, and now we realize it just is not stargazing we are doing:)

It helps us undertand the dynamical nature of the very small.

So what's left? Simulatneity? How shall we incoporate this idea in a dynamcial world where we've changed our perspective? Some undertand the current trends of coputerization has to look very different then it does now?

Reductionism has run out of room, for its definition. GHZ entanglement in light of these new concepts? How will they explain what in undertood in those metric point considerations. We need more room? Numerical relativity and computerization based on these mathmatical defntions has to incorporate the language of LIGO? :smile:

Just thinking out loud.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The marriage of the small, to the large, is simple enough, if you know how....:cool:

[Erck]

Just stand one of them on a stool while they say their "I DOs." :-)

Or is that not what you meant?

[sol2]

Javier is very clear in his discriptions :smile:

And quantum fields are what you get when you marry special relativity with quantum mechanics. Again, we don't know *why* quantum field theory should describe nature, but its predictions are well tested, so as far as we have seen it *does* describe nature.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=196081&postcount=9

[quddusaliquddus]

There is no proof of God. TOE doesn't need something there is not proof of?

[n0n]

Their might not be a god but the idea behind it is genius when comparing it to mind evolution. If no one said a god ‘is’, or better, ‘an answer of some kind’, we very well could have de-evolved. But to accept something that has a potential to make sense, is the breading ground for 'learn all you can' cause what else are you going to do. We just kind of took a roundabout way, and made the potential idea of it as an absolute truth (to some, or most people, I don’t know anymore). If I look at it from a conscious stand point, the universe was created in a week or day (would it have really mattered), every night you fall asleep and from out of nothing comes the experience of something. And so I think that’s were the whole religious thing comes from, just comparing life to experience and writing it down. I mean really what would we be doing differently 10,000 + years ago that would have allowed this to be absolutely correct? Nothing, it’s all speculation, word of mouth, and couldn’t even pass in a court room. So what is left; existence, all of it, not some conscious being, but just being? And if you can’t love just being then yea, find a god, cause that's going to be the only other way. I'm happy with who and what I am, and everything existance is, is totaly great. What about you?

[n0n]

Wow, I just answered that poll. The majority of you don’t think spirituality should be apart of it? I feel this is wrong, and is understandable I guess. My own definition of spirituality is probably very different from the rest of yours. To me spirituality understands a concept, feeling or being the music, realizations of truth. Things that make you go (like) “wow, I didn’t even think of it that way” only you did. For thoughts of you who have felt that before, defiantly know spirituality. I mean raising ones hands and shouting out random noises (speaking in tongues) , I’ve done it before, it don’t make one bit of sense, its a placebo to spirituality, not the truth of it. Religions do so many other things to keep the placebo going to, communion, gospel music (which is undoubtedly the closest thing to spirituality in religion), prayer meetings, the call of people to the alter, casting ‘holy’ water on people. What’s spiritual about that?

[Erck]

There is no proof of God. TOE doesn't need something there is not proof of?
Are we sure a proof of god is not possible?

If there is a god, it would certainly be in god's power to allow proof, if it decided it was the time to do so.

[selfAdjoint]

And it would also be in god's power to set it up so that no proof (or even strong empirical evidence) was possible. A god to whom it was important that people turn to him of their free will, rather than by coercion, even the coercion of irrefutable evidence, might choose to set things up that way.

[Erck]

Yeah, it could go either way.

[Mike2]

Are we sure a proof of god is not possible?

If there is a god, it would certainly be in god's power to allow proof, if it decided it was the time to do so.
It is not possible to prove what you cannot define. However, if you define God to be the Logic that makes all facts consistent with each other, then God is the starting premise of even thinking.

[christian_dude_27]

i belive that god definately rules the universe. what i've been taught, and believe solely with every fabric of my mind and body, is that he can change any "law" of physics that we have observed, if god rules the universe, and if he created the universe, then why is there a reason that he can not change the way the universe acts? there isn't. god is god, and i'm pretty sure a creater can change aything he created.

[pelastration]

i belive that god definately rules the universe. what i've been taught, and believe solely with every fabric of my mind and body, is that he can change any "law" of physics that we have observed, if god rules the universe, and if he created the universe, then why is there a reason that he can not change the way the universe acts? there isn't. god is god, and i'm pretty sure a creater can change aything he created.
Many people like you believe that God is a type of creator and a PARTICIPATOR, and involved with all what happens to his creations.
For others he is not that participator, but an observer.
For others God is an archetype of the founding energies of the universe(s), without an independent will. More a background energy.
For others God is simply a man-created concept.
It's all a question of your perception of reality.

[Gil Fuller]

The inclusion of God in TOE does not make it complete, it makes it incomprehensible. It no longer is a theory but a nonempirical statement of faith (dogma). The original "equation" : me= God=you is a strange combination of the empirical and the imaginary and hence is nonsensical.

[n0n]

Gil Fuller has it, "me=God=you" it makes since but so much so that; if all = all then all must be all, and that cannot explain anything, but all; if all = (some random thing) then all must be all, and that cannot explain anything, but all;. It becomes philosophical, and stay's forever as such. and yes god could "hypothetically" change such a concept but we would never notice the faultiness occur for logic is always logical and if logic changes logic it only happens in a logical way and so happens when humans discover such links, not through god but through generations of exiting being that was , and will be, like it has always been even through differing of species.

[Dayle Record]

I think that we, as ambulatory chemical fires, basically consume fuel, protect our physical selves and reproduce ourselves. Much as been speculated as to why we perform this simple set of acts in such a complex way. Our brains and bodies perceive energies at large in our environment, and perhaps on levels that we have not yet taken the time to measure. The complexity and variety of our capacities for thought and perception, lead me to think that we are a part of a much larger network, that as small subscribers, we cannot fully perceive. That does not make us subject, it is just where we inhabit a larger form. We act in so many ways that have no bearing on our survival, no rationale in the natural world, that the natural world needs a broader definition. I wonder if human brain tissue has been tested for response for every kind of energy at large, we can generate, or perceive?

As far as religion goes, and people programmed to believe; this is a multi billion dollar business on one hand, that relies on belief to continue; and on the other it represents our most profound aspirations. I tell you this, if someone arrived on Earth proclaiming to be God, and making agressive, and destructive acts then we would need to deal with that entity in kind. On this world, we need to have the self respect, and knowledge that we are the owners here, and have rights to this property. On this issue we need to be of one mind. We do unto the other life forms on this planet, as we certainly would not like to be treated. What if we are just some livestock that wandered off, and our shepard really intends to eat us, after he and his family arrives?

The Sufis have a saying, "As above, so below."

Most primate groups have an order of dominance, we are unusual, in that we have projected that onto the Universe at large; as if what happens in primate society is the rule of law in the Universe. Therefore there must be a God, that has power over our power structures. We are very specific in response to our environment, the myriads of environments in the Universe at large, make for untold variety I would imagine. That is the other statement, I would imagine. I am very clear on the difference between imagination, and running into the furniture in my living room, on the way to work in the dark. I don't want Science to be ruled by the organized religious imaginings rampant in this world. That presents too many highly subjective variables for the equation.

[n0n]

I think their are 2 possibilities that the universe must reside in (means that the 'whole' universe are these 2 possibilities) 1: the infinite state 2: the finite state. now, in this universe it is a finite state and will die out, but due to the infiniteness of nothing becomes an infinite state of continuum to creation. God is only able to preceive its self through us, meaning that logic can have intelligence because we have intelligence, and therefore a new questions arises. Did logic ever make any choice that was not of an order pre ordained within the definitions of some event: ie. if god changed his mind would it be a completely logical change? and if it were, wouldn't it be seen as not a decision, but a realization?
how human is this, and I think the answer arises willingly. Its not bad to be godless, its not good to be god blessed. but this can be reversed 'its not bad to be god blessed, its not good to be godless', which proves only one thing, guess cause its all about TOE, to understand any concept even close to such a thing one must first realize that all is all but what defines all, and picking at the list and getting more technical at every moment.

[terra firma]

if god created time, space and everthing in it, where was he when he did it, when did he do it, and what did he use to make it?

[connect]

I am the eternal, I am Ra, I am that which created the word, I am the word.

The egyptians believed that before the earth there was an abyss of unpolarised matter (primodial soup).

They also believed every sound had a corresponding form, when Ra created things he literally 'commanded' matter to take the form of his word.

I believe the universe is a body of space, this body can contain other bodies (spacial constructs). The motion of the space (at string level) is a rattle effect, creating the effect of time.

[Mike2]

if god created time, space and everthing in it, where was he when he did it, when did he do it, and what did he use to make it?
God is logic in the sense that Einstein used the word when he said, "God does not play dice with the world". There of course is no evidence of God's existence apart from existence. But it seems that however the universe came to be, we believe that its origin is completely logical.

[Erck]

There of course is no evidence of God's existence apart from existence. But it seems that however the universe came to be, we believe that its origin is completely logical.
Why can't the origins of the universe and of god too... be completely logical?