Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[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? what's 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 a lot 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 scenario we do not account for "possibility" similar to basic relativity. Now let's 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 scenario 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 possesses 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 separate 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.
I think she can.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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

, , , ,

 

[sol2]

M is all Inclusive

The problem of definitions and semantics.
Can a finite person (a mother) infinite love her child.
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.

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

This is part of the vision for some of us beginners


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?

 

[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.

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

This is part of the vision for some of us beginners


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
Dynamic thanks.

 

[sol2]

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

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...

 

[sol2]

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

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?

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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

 

[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

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.

https://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 existence 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 believe that god definitely 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 believe that god definitely 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]

My Take On This

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 aggressive, 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 itself 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 everything 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 everything 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?