Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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

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 preferred "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 statement 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, let's 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]

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 statement 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, let's 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 sort of 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, just 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]

TOE and God

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[/color] 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 quantum 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 I've 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]

Find God in your TOE

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

 

[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 necessary 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 necessary ingredient to gods makeup.

I certainly agree with this statement.

God is always being all it can be.

 

[sol2]

The Gravity in all things

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 tendency 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 tendency 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?