Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[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 boundary 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 boundary 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 argument...

 

[Erck]

Should god as "infinite" necessarily be a given?