# The mathamatics of G*O*D =?

scott_sieger

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Hi,

I was wondering if it is possible to define reality in the form of mathematical equation(s).

Do you think Mathematics is capable of such a task?

Because mathamatics seems to be designed to identify variables are we setting an impossible task for ourselves when considering the infinite number of variables concerned.
For example:
It's a bit like mathematically trying to define absolute nothingness i think.

Nothingness can only be defined by default as in by defining everything else we achieve by default an understanding of nothingness.

Is this the task we are trying to complete? The defining of nothingness by default.

A theory of everything would achieve by default a theory of "nothing"

But the real arguement is should we include the infinite variability factor in our maths as a standard rather than an assumption.

I am not a maths devotee but from what I have observed so far is that in looking for a constant we are in fact defeating ourselves when in reality there is no constant to be seen.

I know that many will look at this writing and want to pick holes in it's logic.....this is a given variable. but maybe some one will understand the point I'm attempting to make with out the worry of pedantic use of logic.

Can we attempt to define God in a formula?

## Answers and Replies

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
scott_sieger
A thought since my thread was posted

Could mathematics be compared with the theory of light speed travel in that the closer you get to the solution the more complicated the solution becomes? So much so that the shear complexity o fthe maths ensures that a solution will never be found?

Is the answer to G * O * D = infinite variable and thats all there is to it. Maybe then we can get on with something else.

WE really have to understand something I feel with this maths physics thing. If we think of the universe with out having us as humans as part of it then there will never be an equation for everything and only part of everything.

And if any mathematics expert can tell me the formula for emotions such as love and grief I'll take my hat of and shake his hand.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Scott, maybe you know I've been trying to make sense of some papers on quantum geometry, aka LQG, for the past couple of weeks. And In the paper I'm working on today, Thomas Thiemann the author says he has found use for an infinite dimensional algebra, that ws introduced over 60 years ago by the great mathematician von Neumann. And in that algebra, Thiemann shows, different worlds, different topologies of the universe, different physics can coexist and be orthogonal (non interacting) to each other.

When I read your post I thought of this. The powers of mathematics as we know it today are far beyond what has ever been used by physics. And mathematics, just like all knowledge, is constantly growing.

FZ+
Let x = GOD

Tada! We have defined God mathematically. God is whatever x is, a reference to this particular concept.

But that isn't what you want, is it? There is a big gulf between just the labelling of definition, and actually understanding. By the otological argument, God is the greatest that can exist, the concept of the most infinitely of infinites. But how can we say that this means anything, not just a flaw in our conception of mathematical logic?

If we treate the universe as an equation, there appears to exist a very simple solution: 0=0 - nothing, for ever and ever and ever... But what universe is that? If the direction, I am looking, the universe seems a temporary lack of solution, a broken balance. Is god then a broken balance?

But then we need to remember that it is we who are looking at this universe, we who draw up labels and concepts. We who see our side of our universe. Can something like god even be known to us? If we define god mathematically, would it be god? Is god defined then as that ultimate uncertainty? Defined as that which cannot be defined?

Does god even exist to be defined?

Last edited:
scott_sieger
Fz+

What you have written is indeed profound.

I recieved an e-mail once a long time ago from S.Hawkings e-mail department. And his answer to the big question is simply

The universe is a metaphor for God and God is a metaphor for the universe. When I got this reply I thought it was strange that for a profoundly gifted mathematician to understand his limitations in being able to write a mathematical equation for a metaphor.

And In the paper I'm working on today, Thomas Thiemann the author says he has found use for an infinite dimensional algebra, that ws introduced over 60 years ago by the great mathematician von Neumann.
Selfadjoint, What you have said here is quite exciting to me. If we have any chance of coming up with a better maths I would think this to be a direction worth pursuing.

I used to call it Infinitely variable logic or sperical logic. A maths method that can allow for the infinitely variable such as a formula that determines a "skin cell" or a thought, or a perception.

Scott,
Im very poor at matmatics but i will give it try based on what you and others have said.

God/Universe = God/Universe

God/0 = 0/God

Physical + Metphysical = Phy + Met

Infinite Set of Finites = Inf. Set. of Fin.

Infinite Set of Variables = Inf. Set. of Var.

Gods Integrity = Mathematical Integrity

-1 + -1 = God - 1

The um-total set of trancendental numbers equals God

Rybo
====
Cosmic Evoluting Transformations
By Rybo6 alias Os-Jbug

From the synergetic concentric heirarchy,
To the action of the toroidal process,
So begins our fall,
From equilibrous grace,
And the God{des},
Of total comprehension,
Into the quasi-reality,
Of disequilibrious,
Oscillating consciousness.

We evolute outward from an involution,
With seven planes and seven faces,
Sometimes diverging and then converging,
In eternal transformation,
From the unknown to the known,
In orbiting trajectories,
That are forever approaching,
The critical proximities,
Of absolute truth.

Intellect beyond time,
Purpose preceding space,
Falling in and out of love,
The interrelationships of God{des},
Encompasses all experience,
As limited, finite, quantum bits,
And their associated voids of space,
A.k.a., untuned-in, fields of gravity.

MathematicalPhysicist
Gold Member
Originally posted by scott_sieger

Nothingness can only be defined by default as in by defining everything else we achieve by default an understanding of nothingness.

Is this the task we are trying to complete? The defining of nothingness by default.

A theory of everything would achieve by default a theory of "nothing"

the definition of nothing is 0.

The Mathematics of God

"And God said, let there be numbers, and there were numbers; odd
and even created he them, and he said unto them, be fruitful and
multiply; and he commanded them to keep the laws of induction."
-Edward Nelson (Department of Mathematics, Princeton)

Originally posted by EvilPoet
"And God said, let there be numbers, and there were numbers; odd
and even created he them, and he said unto them, be fruitful and
multiply; and he commanded them to keep the laws of induction."
-Edward Nelson (Department of Mathematics, Princeton)
Multi-plication only occurs as a result of divsioning the finite Universe as a sum-total whole or its finte-subparts as indivual wholes.

It is finiteness of 60 degree triangular relationship that is inherently and apriorily insistent on the stucutural-integrity of Universe.

Rybo

But that isn't what you want, is it? There is a big gulf between just the labelling of definition, and actually understanding. By the otological argument, God is the greatest that can exist, the concept of the most infinitely of infinites. But how can we say that this means anything, not just a flaw in our conception of mathematical logic?
i think that in order for math to be able to do anything with God it would have to have a model of an absolute infinity which would be something like a cardinal that is maximal. with ZFC assumptions, there is no such thing as a maximal cardinal &kappa; cuz 2&kappa;>&kappa;. i think that if there was a maximal cardinal, it would have to be the cardinality of the set of all sets which doesn't exist within ZFC as a set but as a proper class. my class theory is pretty weak so i don't know if the class of all sets (or the category of all sets for that matter) can be measured at all or studied as a model of God. maybe the category of all categories is a model for God... (doubt it, though i think it may be a model for linguisitcs in general)

speaking of metaphors, my ex-wife was telling me about her metaphor class once (yes, a whole class about metaphors). apparently, they use words like mapping, domain, and range. i think metaphors are the linguisitc/conceptual equivalent or generalization of either relations or functions. perhaps there is some map from God to the universe kinda like what hawking said in which they are the images of each other...

by the way, finding a mathematical model of God would be a step backwards in proving God exists, i think, though i think we should prove God exists about as hard as we try to prove 1+1=2 or that the empty set exists. let's dispense with the existence argument and see if anthing interesting comes out of theories about its nature not unlike interesting things (well, to some) come out of the study of sets.

i think that in order for math to be able to do anything with God it would have to have a model of an absolute infinity which would be something like a cardinal that is maximal. with ZFC assumptions, there is no such thing as a maximal cardinal &kappa; cuz 2&kappa;>&kappa;. i think that if there was a maximal cardinal, it would have to be the cardinality of the set of all sets which doesn't exist within ZFC as a set but as a proper class. my class theory is pretty weak so i don't know if the class of all sets (or the category of all sets for that matter) can be measured at all or studied as a model of God. maybe the category of all categories is a model for God... (doubt it, though i think it may be a model for linguisitcs in general)

speaking of metaphors, my ex-wife was telling me about her metaphor class once (yes, a whole class about metaphors). apparently, they use words like mapping, domain, and range. i think metaphors are the linguisitc/conceptual equivalent or generalization of either relations or functions. perhaps there is some map from God to the universe kinda like what hawking said in which they are the images of each other...

by the way, finding a mathematical model of God would be a step backwards in proving God exists, i think, though i think we should prove God exists about as hard as we try to prove 1+1=2 or that the empty set exists. let's dispense with the existence argument and see if anthing interesting comes out of theories about its nature not unlike interesting things (well, to some) come out of the study of sets.
God is Universe ergo God isthe finite but eternal physical --no energy created no energy lost--

and God is the finite set of metaphysical cosmic laws/principles that coincide with the physical.

Macro-inifinite nothingness --nada zip-- outside of the physcial Universe is the only true infinite unoccupied 3-D space.

Micro-infinite physical is limited by the quatum graity i.e. the graviton even if that quatume is taveling at speeds beyond our ever to be instrumentabley detecable --i.e. beyond the speed of radiation--.

1 + 1 does equal 2 but under conditions fo synergy 1 + 1 can equal a sum greater than that predicted by it parts seperately. See Fullers synergetics where he takes two trianlges opens them at and end, twists them puts thme together to make 4 triangles a.k.a. the tetrahedron.

God/Universe is the sum-total of the physical i.e. within a specified time frame there is finite amount of quantifieable parts . If we sum these parts we get the sum-total of our physical God/Universe.

It is the finiteness of the eternal physical combined with finiteness of the eteranl metaphysial laws/principle that we call integrity of the sum-total whole.

Rybo

1+1 isn't 2, huh? that's interesting. when you make this argument to the bank after depositing one dollar into an account with one dollar to justify a withdrawl of four dollars, what do they tell you when you speak of tetrahedrons?

it doesn't really matter what 1+1 equals. i just said that we should try to prove God exists about as much as we try to prove 1+1=2 or to prove that the empty set exists.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
1+1 isn't 2, huh? that's interesting. when you make this argument to the bank after depositing one dollar into an account with one dollar to justify a withdrawl of four dollars, what do they tell you when you speak of tetrahedrons?

it doesn't really matter what 1+1 equals. i just said that we should try to prove God exists about as much as we try to prove 1+1=2 or to prove that the empty set exists.
Fuller points out this is the case with some chemical element also. The synergetic tensile strength of two elemenths combind is somtimes greater than the sum of their two tenisle strnegths considered seperately. Synergy!

God/Universe is self-evident via our existence as biologics having 5 or more physical senses and our metaphysical mind of abtract conceptualliations.

The first subcatgaroy of God/Universe is the physical and the metaphysical.

The banks synergetic effect on my money is called interest. :--) i.e. the bank uses my money in collaberation with other monies to do things greater tahtn they could do with just one or that others moneys.

Rybo

just out of curiosity, why say there are two elements if 1+1 is not 2? i guess there's not even really two elements in this set: {element A, element B} (where A is not B), there are more than two.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
just out of curiosity, why say there are two elements if 1+1 is not 2? i guess there's not even really two elements in this set: {element A, element B} (where A is not B), there are more than two.
I think one of us may be misunderstanding the other.

1(one) element tensile strength = some number value (A)

1(one) other element tensile strength = another value (C)

Numercally the addiition of A + C the total would be G but i reality the chmeical the two chemical elements combined give a value of M, N, O or some tensile strength that is has a value larger value than just the addition of two values woul produce do a synergetic effect.

The two triangles together making four same size triangles is teh only known way to show thie synergy geometriclally.

RYbo

the banach tarski theorem states that you can take a sphere of volume V>0 and chop it into five pieces to form a life-sized statue of jesus christ of volume V'>v. that doesn't prove 1+1+1+1+1>5.

i believe one plus one is two (which may be different from saying 1+1=2, depending on what you mean by 1, +, =, and 2).

i believe that there are two elements, element J and element K, such that the tensile strength of element J is x and the tensile strength of element K is y, the tensile strength of the element formed by joining element J and element K is z, and x+y<z.

i don't believe the two above beliefs relate to each other. you're free to believe that 1=x and 1=y and 2=z so that 1+1<2 or whatever you want about 1+1 and 2 depending on what you mean by 1, +, =, and 2.

Last edited:
God is defined as the set of all itegers positive, negative and imaginary(God is everything). If we were to add two integers in the set GOD, we would get another integer of the set GOD. x+y=z z,y,x are all elements of the set GOD. The set GOD is closed under addition and because I couldn't be bothered we shall assume that it is closed under all operations. (A*B)*C can either be equal to or not equal to A*(B*C). We shall assume this for division as well, but not for addition and subtraction. I don't know where I'm headed with this but hey, I killed 3 minutes of time! One other thought: The addition of all elements of teh set GOD gives us zero, thus God is neutral.

God is a quaternion!