Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[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 going to 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 believe 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 into 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. let's 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 let's add, oh i don't 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, let's 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 apparent 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]

yes, topological feature of induction- deduction? ?

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 apparent 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 existence 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)[/color]As far as Science is concerned,
no god(s) exist, except in your imagination.(SNoP)[/color]

...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, let's 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 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 sort of centers upon certain times, and events, on a much lessor time scale then the Science of the Universe talks of...so ...

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Interesting point

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]

INfinite Potential in a point?

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?

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

 

[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]

Regarding Subtleness

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]

Catalan numbers in Pascal Triangle!

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 referred 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, sort of 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?