TOE incomplete without God

[phoenixthoth]

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace).

 

[wuliheron]

Nice quote.

What's so special about TOE's, nothing. There is no more need for a God in a TOE than there is for an explanation of automechanics. Still, no accounting for taste. If you insist on using God or the Easter Bunny to explain automechanics have fun.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace)."

are you sure? no TOE has proven itself experimentally as correct as far as i know. perhaps this is because things exist in the universe that are not taken into account.

kaku feels that the one inch equation will allow us to read the mind of God. i think this can be done without the TOE. it's not that hard.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[wuliheron]

Often when physicists such as Einstein have referred to God, it is a euphamism for the laws of nature, a poetic statement, rather than a reference to some divine being. For all I know Kaku is an atheist.

 

[KitNyx]

The fact that no TOE has been proven to absolutely fit the bill is not evidence for the existence of God. It is only a testiment to how much we really do NOT know about how the universe runs. The fact that no TOE has been proven complete, only proves that no theory to date is complete, not that God is the missing variable.

- KitNyx

 

[phoenixthoth]

"Often when physicists such as Einstein have referred to God, it is a euphamism for the laws of nature, a poetic statement, rather than a reference to some divine being. For all I know Kaku is an atheist. "

then they choose their euphemisms in a very interesting manner, in a manner in alighment with some religions. why are you in denial about the fact that einstein and kaku (and hawking) all believe in God?

i'm not saying one should believe in God just because those "great" men do, but i do find it interesting that they do. i find it particularly interesting that kaku thinks the one-inch equation will enable us to read the mind of God, not something I've heard hawking say.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

"The fact that no TOE has been proven to absolutely fit the bill is not evidence for the existence of God. It is only a testiment to how much we really do NOT know about how the universe runs. The fact that no TOE has been proven complete, only proves that no theory to date is complete, not that God is the missing variable.

- KitNyx"

true. God is definitely not neccessarily the missing variable, nor are the spirit/higher dimensions. but i wonder what is missing. i would have to examine the supposed TOEs first before learning that...

cheers,
phoenix

 

[radagast]

Believe in god or not, but if you put the moniker 'theory' on something, in the context of scientific theory, then it requires a great deal of evidence. God has no (objective) evidence which cannot be explained better by physical means. By 'better', I mean either fits the observations better, or fits Occam's definitions of a more rational choice.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i agree that there is skant, circumstantial physical evidence that God exists.

why not permit ourselves to allow ourselves to consider spiritual feelings as evidence?

just a thought.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[selfAdjoint]

One problem with that is that language is a very poor instrument for describing our inner feelings. It is notoriously unable to do anything with qualia (the "immediate redness" of red, for example), and spiritual experiences are likely to be heavily if not entirely of the qualia kind.

"I felt a oneness with the universe" is a joke as a description to anyone who has actually experienced that.

So while scientists can come to agree what a quark is, even if they will never see one, we cannot come to reliable agreement about each other's inner experiences.

 

[phoenixthoth]

""I felt a oneness with the universe" is a joke as a description to anyone who has actually experienced that."

you have an odd sense of humor if you think that's a joke.

i think it's a joke to say we shouldn't even try to use language to articulate spiritual feelings.

i find both poetry and abstract mathematics as vehicles.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[Perspectives]

Does TOE require GOD to be complete?

If we are being literal then the EVERYTHING in TOE must include GOD and not GOD. Yet, to reply as in "God, is a euphamism for the laws of nature" is to infer and conclude without licence. We are not in a position, yet, to address GOD as an answer to why the Universe is.

The Universe and it's mechanisms will be proven without addressing GOD as an explanation. It is said that to fully embrace something is to know it all. If that is true then should we ever fully understand the Universe we will know.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets try simple, Plato asked; "What is God?", milenia later I (by God's Grace) respond; "The 'Truth'"

So if we start there, then the Entirety of the universe is representative of God in all of the Manners in which that presentation of the universe, to us, is truthfull.

So, as for a T.O.E. we have none yet, as we already know that there is no one theory that yet encapsulates the "Truth of the Universe" completely enough, for any of us to accede to it.

If God is the Truth, (as I say) then any T.O.E. will, wittingly, or unwittingly, be a description of that God, yet it will still remain incomplete of the Fullest knowledge of God, inasmuch as, that God is greater still then all of this Universe.

If in doubt of that assertion, well, try figuring out just where in the Universe "Ideologies" come from, as they are clearly non-existent "things", insubstantive, and cereberal in all of there derivations, and yet have arisen in people from the beginning as best as we can tell.

To know exactly how the Universe is comprised, operates and functions, is to know still only a partiallity of the truth about God's Mind (so to speak) inasmuch as, if spiritualism is explored, we find the idea of "Lies", and that is clearly NOT a presentation of the/A God which "Is the Truth" hence, we can know that there is more to all of this then meets the eyes, literally......quite literally.

If there is an infinity, that would be God, but Infinity is unprovable, in either direction, (for or against) so to disprove the existence of God you would first need to prove that there was NO inifinite, to Prove the existence of God you would need to prove that there is an infinite, hence the best we are ever going to get, sorta, is a T.O.E. which helps us to know more simply about our collective physical surroundings.

Does that help??

 

[LURCH]

Does The TOE Require the Integration of Spirituality

I agree that definitions become somewhat sticky on this point, but I voted "no". Not because of the difficulties in defining "God", but because of the definition of "TOE". In nearly every context I've observed, the TOE is only used as a refference to a theory that integrates the three forces EM, Strong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear, with gravity. I think this could be done quite handily without an understanding of God, just as automechanics can be understood without believing in the existence of auto makers.

A complete cosmological model, well that would be a different story.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Lurch
I think this could be done quite handily without an understanding of God, just as automechanics can be understood without believing in the existence of auto makers.

In having learned a little bit about "auto mechanics", I would tell you that it helps. enourmously. if you believe in "automakers", if for only the reason that it helps you to find the 'thinking patterns' of the "originator", hence enables both, learning, and understanding, of design. (Therefore purpose/use too)

 

[Pyrite]

Strange, i was always of the opinion that a Theory of Everything was a complete cosmological model.

First off, you likely cannot properly describe to me your spiritual feelings, and not having felt them, I cannot understand what they are, or more importantly, what they might mean. The same goes with my spiritual feelings. Also, there is no real proof that a feeling in the human brain that leads people to spiritual thinking is in any way connected to an actual spiritual world. (or whatever.)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Pyrite
Strange, i was always of the opinion that a Theory of Everything was a complete cosmological model. YUP! and as explained in my previous posting, that is only a part of the whole of spirituallity/God
First off, you likely cannot properly describe to me your spiritual feelings, and not having felt them, I cannot understand what they are, or more importantly, what they might mean. The same goes with my spiritual feelings. Also, there is no real proof that a feeling in the human brain that leads people to spiritual thinking is in any way connected to an actual spiritual world. (or whatever.)

For the emboldened, O.K. try thinking that every 'thought' is actually a spiritual 'feeling', as opposed to what you have otherwise 'thought' it was, a 'thought'.
Does that help?

 

[Nereid]

If one applies the scientific method to 'the meaning of god' (and, since it's the scientific method, you can see/check/do the work too), one might conclude as follows:
-> 'god' is a highly culture-specific concept (caveat: lots and lots of difficulties being certain that expressions in different languages - several thousand - have been adequately addressed)
-> many people in many (but not all) cultures - sometimes a large majority - appear to believe that their 'god(s)' is (are) unique, universal, and ubiquitous (and much else besides)
-> (for the avoidance of doubt) the christian culture (or anyone of its sub-cultures) in the USA in the early 21st century is not different, in any significant way, from any other culture (wrt 'the meaning of god').

Question for phoenixthoth: what do you think about these conclusions?

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Nereid
If one applies the scientific method to 'the meaning of god' (and, since it's the scientific method, you can see/check/do the work too), one might conclude as follows:
-> 'god' is a highly culture-specific concept (caveat: lots and lots of difficulties being certain that expressions in different languages - several thousand - have been adequately addressed)
-> many people in many (but not all) cultures - sometimes a large majority - appear to believe that their 'god(s)' is (are) unique, universal, and ubiquitous (and much else besides)
-> (for the avoidance of doubt) the christian culture (or anyone of its sub-cultures) in the USA in the early 21st century is not different, in any significant way, from any other culture (wrt 'the meaning of god').

Question for phoenixthoth: what do you think about these conclusions?

All of this is irrelevant to the original question, isn't it? All cultures' thoughts (or feelings) about God have at least this much in common, that "God" is creator. 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.

However, a model of the event of creation itself would necessarily have to be incomplete without accounting for the existence or non-existence of a creator.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Why not try applieing the "Scientific Method" to determine "The Idea of God" upon the simplistic basis that God = the Truth.

Try that.

 

[Jeebus]

"He wanted to read the mind of God. Ultimately, Einstein failed in his mission. In fact, he was shunned by many of his younger compatriots, who would taunt him with the ditty, “What God has torn asunder, no man can put together.” But perhaps Einstein is now having his revenge. For the past decade, there has been furious research on merging the four fundamental forces into a single theory, especially one that can meld general relativity (which explains gravity) with the quantum theory (which can explain the two nuclear forces and electro- magnetism)." --Kaku

 

[Nereid]

All of this is irrelevant to the original question, isn't it?

Actually, it's quite relevant. If 'god' is a cultural artifact, peculiar to some odd blobs of a rare substance called baryons, in one extremely tiny part of the universe, then the answer to the question ("TOE incomplete without God?") is 'what a quaint idea; of course not!'

All cultures' thoughts (or feelings) about God have at least this much in common, that "God" is creator.

Er, no. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of cultures have many gods, and there may be some whose creation myths do not involve gods.

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?

a model of the event of creation itself would necessarily have to be incomplete without accounting for the existence or non-existence of a creator

Shades of the set of all sets.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Probably the title of the thread is actually backwards, "(Understanding of) God left incomplete by T.O.E."...because the Universe we now know, is contiguous, and that is required to be in occupation of space, within some far greater space that is/remains unobservable. (unless "Dark Energy" is actually just a rip in the continum of this contiguous space, then we would have, sorta, observed the 'other' space)

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Jeebus
"He wanted to read the mind of God. Ultimately, Einstein failed in his mission. In fact, he was shunned by many of his younger compatriots, who would taunt him with the ditty, “What God has torn asunder, no man can put together.” But perhaps Einstein is now having his revenge. For the past decade, there has been furious research on merging the four fundamental forces into a single theory, especially one that can meld general relativity (which explains gravity) with the quantum theory (which can explain the two nuclear forces and electro- magnetism)." --Kaku

Thanks Jeebus.

Perhaps the coffee I had this morning wasn't strong enough (I've learned from bitter experience not to trust anything I say or think before that first cup of coffee!); are you saying:
a) Kaku says any ToE is incomplete without god?
b) Kaku says any ToE is NOT incomplete without god?
c) Kaku says it's indeterminate?
d) you say any ToE is incomplete without god?
e) you say any ToE is NOT incomplete without god?
f) you say it's indeterminate?
g) none of the above; rather ...?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Why not try applieing the "Scientific Method" to determine "The Idea of God" upon the simplistic basis that God = the Truth.

Try that.

Thanks Mr Parsons.

How well does this fit the bill?
Draft high level research plan:
1) determine, among the 10^x distinct cultures for which sufficiently reliable data is available (x > 4?), the extent to which:
. a) well-constrained concepts of "the Truth" are observed (subset "A")
. b) in A, the equality "God = the Truth" exists (subset "AB")
. c) in AB, it is in use, accepted, contentious, etc
2) (in parallel) devise a protocol for assessing/analysing the data gathered in step 1), to include (e.g.)
. a) cross-cultural influences
. b) hypothesis schemas
. c) statistical measures
3) crunch the numbers.

 

[Nereid]

Mr. Robin Parsons Probably the title of the thread is actually backwards, "(Understanding of) God left incomplete by T.O.E."

So phoenixthoth's Poll question should really read something like: "Is spirituality in some kind of 'superset' of the ToE?"?

Let's ask phoenixthoth.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nereid
So phoenixthoth's Poll question should really read something like: "Is spirituality in some kind of 'superset' of the ToE?"?
Let's ask phoenixthoth.

Perhaps more like "The ToE is a subset of spirituallity."

 

[jeff]

Hmmm. Note to self: Don't post while stoned.

 

[Nereid]

Which posts did you make while stoned?

 

[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?