The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.


Within the universe, cause precedes effect.

If cause, then effect:

If A then B

A

Therefore B


The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause:

If not B then not A,

not B

therefore not A

The universe creates its own purpose. If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic. We observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the universe cannot be totally deterministic.

Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.

Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.

If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.


Therefore:

The universe is an intelligent mind.

Are you trying to say that the universe and everything in it is god? And that everything is a part of god (the universe)?

If free will exists, then undeniable proof for the existence of God cannot "exist", because free will would then be negated.

Free will exists

Therefore God exists and this proof may be denied.

This is my interpretation of the ontological proofs of Anslem, Leibniz, and Goedel:

1.) A property is positive iff its negation is not positive.

2.) A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property[self containment]

3.) A positive property is logically consistent.

4.) A property is God-like iff, it contains all positive properties. The term "God" is therefore defined as an unlimited being that is self contained, and contains, all positive properties.

5.)Being God-like is a positive property

6.) Being a positive property is logically necessary.

7.) Necessary existence is a positive property.

8.) Therefore God exists.

Originally posted by J.P.
The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.The designation of purpose is spurious here. As you later state, purpose implies intent. You haven't established this; you're assuming intent without substantiation.

Free will existsAnother assumption.

A property is God-like iff, it contains all positive properties. The term "God" is therefore defined as an unlimited being that is self contained, and contains, all positive properties.Defining God as a 'being', as 'self-contained', or as 'intelligent' limits the scope of God, excluding that which is not 'being', 'self-contained', or 'intelligent'. It therefore does not contain all positive properties and is not God by definition.

~Raithere

J.P.

Welcome to sciforums.

The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.OK.

Within the universe, cause precedes effect.Perhaps, except for the case of an infinite object.

The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.No that is invalid. A cause need not have any purpose. One cannot claim that when I walked in the rain that ‘rain’ intended and had a purpose to make me wet.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause..Except for the case of an infinite object.

The universe creates its own purpose. This a non sequitur – it does not follow from your previous dubious premises.

If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic.These seems to be just baseless assertions.

We observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic. OK.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the universe cannot be totally deterministic. Not quite. The principle says that we cannot determine both characteristics simultaneously. The uncertainty principle does not say "everything is uncertain." Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events.

Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.Non sequitur. You have not shown that the universe is capable of purpose, that was only an assertion.

Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.True.

If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.This is paradoxical. If the universe did not exist at some point then there could be no ‘within’ to have a cause.

Also from your first assertion that the universe is everything then how could there have been a cause of the universe. Again if there was a point where nothing existed then there would be nothing to constitute a cause.

Therefore:

The universe is an intelligent mind.Not even close to a proof.

I would like to point out a few things that I found a little Iffy about your proof:

Originally posted by J.P.
The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause:


You give no reason why the "purpose" of cause is to create an effect. You have given cause and effect a probable relationship. Building on this probablility invalidates some of your later claims.

This section should read:
The "purpose" of cause is to possibly provide for the creation of an effect.

Originally posted by J.P.
The universe creates its own purpose. If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic. We observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic.

The universe is not totally chaotic, but it is very chaotic. Everything is in a state of change and decay. Our observation of the universe has not shown it to contain "consistent laws", as a matter of fact there are many things that refute any kind of stability at all (anit-matter, negative energy, neutrinos)


Originally posted by J.P.
Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.

No, this is not based in logic. Determinism is not proof of the universe creating purpose through cause and effect, that is a relative view forced upon the universe by the human mind.

Originally posted by J.P.
Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.

Purpose has not at all been shown to be used in the cause/effect relationship, so this assertion is not correct. Intent is not shown in this proof either. That is an assumption.

Originally posted by J.P.
If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.

The universe is an intelligent mind.

You did not accurately or effectively show that creation (cause and effect) denotes purpose or intent.

ZERO MASS

J.P.,

If free will exists, then undeniable proof for the existence of God cannot "exist", because free will would then be negated.Doesn’t this depend on the characteristics and definition of God? For example we can argue that if he has the property of omniscience then all events are necessarily predetermined which negates the possibility of human free will. In this case if free will does exist then this type of god cannot exist.

Free will existsHow do you know?

Therefore God exists and this proof may be denied.How are you defining God? There are thousands of definitions.

Very interesting. This physics agrees with the Total Existence = Holistic Mind hypothesis:

http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm
QUOTE:
----------------
AG: To give a little background, what had been happening was that for many years quantum physics had been giving indications that there are levels of reality other than the material level. How it started happening first was that quantum objects—objects in quantum physics—began to be looked upon as waves of possibility. Now, initially people thought, "Oh, they are just like regular waves." But very soon it was found out that, no, they are not waves in space and time. They cannot be called waves in space and time at all—they have properties which do not jibe with those of ordinary waves. So they began to be recognized as waves in potential, waves of possibility, and the potential was recognized as transcendent, beyond matter somehow.
But the fact that there is transcendent potential was not very clear for a long time. Then Aspect's experiment verified that this is not just theory, there really is transcendent potential, objects really do have connections outside of space and time—outside of space and time! What happens in this experiment is that an atom emits two quanta of light, called photons, going opposite ways, and somehow these photons affect one another's behavior at a distance, without exchanging any signals through space. Notice that: without exchanging any signals through space but instantly affecting each other. Instantaneously.
Now Einstein showed long ago that two objects can never affect each other instantly in space and time because everything must travel with a maximum speed limit, and that speed limit is the speed of light. So any influence must travel, if it travels through space, taking a finite time. This is called the idea of "locality." Every signal is supposed to be local in the sense that it must take a finite time to travel through space. And yet, Aspect's photons—the photons emitted by the atom in Aspect's experiment—influence one another, at a distance, without exchanging signals because they are doing it instantaneously—they are doing it faster than the speed of light. And therefore it follows that the influence could not have traveled through space. Instead the influence must belong to a domain of reality that we must recognize as the transcendent domain of reality.

Here is a much better and more compact version of the ontological argument, than my ad-hoc patchwork :

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/ontol.html

1. (G-->[]G)-->(<>G-->G) (Theorem, sub G for P)
2. G-->[]G (Def of God)
3. <>G (premise)
4. <>G-->G (1, 2 MP)
5. G (4, 3 MP)


COMMENTARY
It is quite a simple argument which makes it hard to understand its fullness. The simple is packed with meaning.
As you can see, there is one and only one premise, that it is possible that God exists. If this be granted, then his necessary existence follows.
Since all efforts to show that the concept of God is contradictory have failed heretofore I conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that God exists. Kai Neilson tried to argue this in his debate with J.P. Moreland, but didn’t make much progress.
Now I realize that to the average person, this seems like a trick, but the average person is not particularly accustomed to following logical arguments at all, much less highly specialized forms of logical calculi developed by professional philosophers. Most professors at the University level don’t even know modal logic and many have never studied it and some have never heard of it. What do those who know it, but don’t believe in God say? They say that the concept of God is incoherent. I have not yet seen an even slightly plausible argument to that effect. Until I do, the OA will be cogent to me. I might add that I am a convert on this argument. I argued for years that the ontological argument was flawed until someone showed me the modal version. I have always followed Reason wherever it lead and, as usual, it lead to God.

J.P.
The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.
In literature in science papers and in common speech there are concepts referred to as alternative or parallel universes. Therefore, saying, “the universe is defined as the totality of all that exists” is incorrect. Even if the universe was commonly referred to, as everything that exists any statement defining it would be meaningless we have no idea what is beyond our sight.

Within the universe, cause precedes effect.

The universe is a very big place with lots of strange things happening. Cause and effect are very useful ideas but we just don’t know what is happening around the corner or in a different dimension.

J.P,

Within the universe, cause precedes effect.Except at the quantum level where effects have been observed before their cause.

Originally posted by J.P.
As you can see, there is one and only one premise, that it is possible that God exists. If this be granted, then his necessary existence follows.We may also call into question the definition of god as a necessary being.
This is an assumption as god defined as a necessary being is only a possible definition of god.
All the OA says essentially is that if god is a necessary being then god exists.

Therefore <>(G->[]G) and all we wind up with is <>G.

~Raithere

For Cris and all atheists,

Here is logical, irrefutable proof of God's existence :
http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/CTMU.html


QUOTE:
What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe. Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God (like the universe) a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual (syntactic) consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large. Thus, we have a new kind of theology called monopantheism, or even more descriptively, holopantheism. Second, God is indeed real, for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructively creative intelligence. Indeed, without a guiding entity whose self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure. Monopantheism is the logical, metatheological umbrella beneath which the great religions of mankind are (sometimes blindly) situated.

Why, if there exists a metareligion in which to establish the brotherhood of man through the unity of sentience, are men perpetually at each others' throats? Unfortunately, most human brains, which comprise a particular highly-evolved subset of the set of all reality-subsystems, do not fire in strict isomorphism to S much above the object level. Where we define one aspect of "intelligence" as the amount of global structure functionally represented by a given sÎS, brains of low intelligence are generally out of accord with the global syntax D(S). This limits their capacity to form true representations of S (global reality) by syntactic autology [d(S)àd(S)] and make rational ethical calculations. In this sense, the vast majority of men are "not good enough", intellectually speaking, to form rational worldviews and societies; they are deficient in education and intellect, albeit remediably so in many cases. This is why force has ruled in the world of man…why might has always made right, despite its marked tendency to violate the optimization of global utility derived by summing over the sentient agents of S with respect to space and time.

Now, in the course of employing deadly force to rule their fellows, the very worst element of humanity – the butchers, the violators, the ancestors of the "nobility", i.e. those of whom many modern leaders and politicians are merely slightly-chastened copies – began to consider ways of maintaining power. They lit on what passes today for religion, an authoritarian priesthood of which can be used to set the minds and actions of a populace for or against any given aspect of the political status quo. Others, jealous of the power thereby consolidated, began to use religion to gather their own "sheep", promising special entitlements to those who would join them…mutually conflicting promises now setting the promisees at each other’s throats.

But although religion was consistently employed for evil, several things bear notice. (1) The abuse of religion, and the God concept, has always been driven by human politics, and no one is justified in blaming the God concept, whether it is real or not, for the abuses committed by evil men in its name. Abusus non tollit usum. (2) A religion must provide at least emotional utility for its believers, and any religion that stands the test of time has obviously been doing so. (3) A credible religion must contain elements of truth and undecidability, but no elements that are verifiably false (for that could be used to overthrow the religion and its sponsors). So by design, religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means.

Does the reverse apply? Can a denial of God be refuted by rational or empirical means? The short answer is yes; the refutation follows the reasoning outlined above. That is, the above reasoning constitutes not just a logical framework for reality theory, but the outline of a logical proof of God's existence and the basis of a new "logical theology". The framework serves other useful purposes as well - e.g., the analysis of mind and consciousness - but we'll save that for another time.

J.P.

I found the article total gibberish.

It can be reduced and summarized very simply as -

The universe exists therefore God exists.

The conclusion is a non sequitur.

Defining God as a 'being', as 'self-contained', or as 'intelligent' limits the scope of God, excluding that which is not 'being', 'self-contained', or 'intelligent'. It therefore does not contain all positive properties and is not God by definition.



Answer, for Raithere:

[1.]The interval from zero to one has an "unlimited" number of fractions. God can be both finite and infinite, not just infinite. Therefore God is self contained and unlimited.
[2.] Anything that exists is a positive property.
[3.] God is defined as "more" than intelligent.
[4.] God contains all positive properties by definition

Definition:

G = God = creator

C = creation = that wich is created

G > C

C is dependent on G.

Without G, C would not exist.

P--->Q
means "if P then Q" ,
P
therefore Q

Proof? :

[1.] G is necessary or G is impossible, G or not-G

[2..] If G exists, G's existence is necessary, "N" , G--->N[G]

[3.] The existence of G is not a contradiction

[4.] Therefore G is not impossible

[5.] N[G] or not-N[G]

[6.] not-N[G]--->N[not-N[G]]

[7.] N[G] or N[not-N[G]]

[8.] N[not-N[G]] --->N[not-G]

[9.] N[G] or N[not-G]

[10.] not-N[not-G]

[11.] N[G]

[12.] G

Dude. You are messing yourself all up.

You cannot analyze and prove or disprove god, that's the whole thing.

To do so you must necessarily claim authoritative knowledge. I have a big problem with that, but that aspect is a whole other conversation.

It's that simple.

For instance:

"[1.] G is necessary or G is impossible, G or not-G "

Do you think this is the entire spectrum of possibility?

What if G is unfathomable? What if the comprehension of role of G is simply beyond manipulation in some sort of proof? I think this alone renders your proof, proofless, as you are insisting on one or the other whereas by the definition of the creator you cannot insist jack, as logic is not necessarily applicable.

I'm almost certain that only thing PROVABLE regarding the existence of "god(s)" is that the existance of "god(s)" is unprovable, even by those god(s) themselves if they were to exist.

J.P.

C = creation = that which is createdThis is invalid, you have not established that the universe was created or that it must have been created.

C is dependent on G. Invalid for the same reason as above.

Without G, C would not exist.Invalid yet again for the same reason.

We know the universe exists.

We do not know that a god exists or could exist.

We do not know whether the universe had a beginning and hence cannot conclude that a creator is necessary.

If you argue that every effect has a cause then you must explain the cause of God in the same way you are arguing that the universe had a cause. In this case we can prove that God does not exist – i.e. -

If we assume that G is caused by a super G (Gn-1) then Gn-1 must have been caused by a super super G (Gn-2). This in turn is caused by Gn-3. The series is infinite and requires Gn-infinity. Since infinity in this case has no beginning then there can never be a point where an original creator could exist and hence the whole series is impossible which in turn means that God cannot and therefore does not exist.

Once you accept that not everything must have a cause then that argument for a creator god becomes invalid.

Originally posted by J.P.
The interval from zero to one has an "unlimited" number of fractions. God can be both finite and infinite, not just infinite. Therefore God is self contained and unlimited. You have not proven your conclusion here. What you have stated is that god is infinitely divisible not that God is 'unlimited'. While this means that god is continuous it does not mean that god is unlimited. To be finite is to be limited.

Anything that exists is a positive property.Only by definition of your set, this may or may not have any correlation to reality.

God is defined as "more" than intelligent.Presumptive and irrelevant in context.

God contains all positive properties by definitionAgain, this is only one possible definition. There are theoretically an infinite number of possible definitions of god. Additionally the set of 'all positive properties' has not been properly defined or asserted through argument. Just what does the set of 'all positive properties' entail?

G = God = creator
C = creation = that wich is created
G > C
C is dependent on G.
Without G, C would not exist. C is dependent upon G for what?

P--->Q
means "if P then Q" ,
P
therefore QWhat are you trying to say? If I substitute apples for P and ketchup for Q how does this translate? If apples then ketchup?

G is necessary or G is impossible, G or not-G False dilemma; what about <>G for instance?

If G exists, G's existence is necessary, "N" , G--->N[G]No. That something exists does not mean that its existence is necessary, if this were so anything that existed would always exist. We know that this is not true from experience.

The existence of G is not a contradictionThis depends upon the definition of G.

The rest of it doesn't even make sense. Try again.

~Raithere

Re: Langan's article.

Sorry J.P. but I concur with Cris here.

Poorly reasoned arguments expressed horribly.

I particularly enjoyed the part where he essentially calls those who do not perceive his conjectural 'metareligion' stupid.

~Raithere

the problem is with the concept god itself unless you are very very carefull with your defintion, which of course, means you're primping the word to meet your need rather than describing something about a system.

If I say "god is he who created and controlls all that is".. how can I logically validate the statement "god exists"? I mean, I can only do so in terms logic, which is part of the creation. So the only way to verify the creator is by pointing to part of the creation?

From this, I infer that:

You cannot prove intelligent design, you cannot prove god. You cannot disprove intelligent design, you cannot disprove god.

You cannot rationally debate the source or intent external to a closed system while you're locked inside the system.

Hmm. I had the thought all of the sudden that this is kind of part of entropy really. Eh. It's just the closed system part I guess. Maybe not? Thoughts? I mean entropy does cover something about information loss. Meh. Thoughts?

Isn't that a nice little problem that seems skirted here?

Cris,


We know the universe exists.

We do not know that a god exists or could exist.

Suppose you can logically equate "Universe" with "God". Now, exchange the two in your former sentence: "We know the God exists", and vice-versa for the latter: "We do not know that a Universe exists or could exist."

Does it make sense to imply that the universe cannot be separate from God, and that God cannot be separate from His creations (i.e. the Universe) because there logically has to be a connective medium to exchange information (going all the back to Spinoza's meditations on the Mind-Body dualism introduced by Descartes.)


We do not know whether the universe had a beginning and hence cannot conclude that a creator is necessary.

If you argue that every effect has a cause then you must explain the cause of God in the same way you are arguing that the universe had a cause.

Perhaps every effect in reality (where reality is a characterization of bounded potential ... which amounts to the known universe) does indeed have a cause and effect. But what we do not know is what lies outside of Reality (and if we knew anything, it would suddenly be *in* reality ... we can never know anything outside reality), and the only rules (i.e. Logic, physics, mathematics, et cetera) that we do know are within reality, so God doesn't necessarily have to abide by the same logical rules that we do.


In this case we can prove that God does not exist – i.e. -

If we assume that G is caused by a super G (Gn-1) then Gn-1 must have been caused by a super super G (Gn-2). This in turn is caused by Gn-3. The series is infinite and requires Gn-infinity. Since infinity in this case has no beginning then there can never be a point where an original creator could exist and hence the whole series is impossible which in turn means that God cannot and therefore does not exist.

Once you accept that not everything must have a cause then that argument for a creator god becomes invalid.



Yes, I agree it is a bit paradoxal. However, the Cognitice theoretic model avoids this problem by introducing the concept that the universe created itself. This is accomplished through the syntax known as SCSPL (self-creating self-processing language), the real substance of the model.




I found the article total gibberish.

It can be reduced and summarized very simply as -

The universe exists therefore God exists.

The conclusion is a non sequitur.


For finding such a lengthy article gibberish, it is unique that you don't have more to say about it (we call this a gut-shot).

Lets try this - pick out what you think is gibberish, then post those parts of it here for me to look at, then offer your analysis and why you think it is gibberish:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

If you choose not to do this, then you yourself make up just as much gibberish as you claim the Cognitive Theoretic model does, but the model doesn't make these types of bold generalizations that are pointed in no particular direction (The model actually has many areas, and surely not all areas are "gibberish" with respect to the information contained within its particular context).

BTW, "non sequitur" is latin for "does not follow". Perhaps you are the one who is not correctly following the logical construction of the model? Just to point something out, I'll write an example of a "non sequitur" ... just for your (future) benefit.

1: If A then B

1a: If I am in Missouri, I am in America.

2: Not A

2a: I am not in Missouri.

3: Therefore, not B

3a: Therefore, I am not in America.

Hope this helps. I'm looking forward to reading an actual critique instead of an opinion summed up in a single word.

"Hmm. I had the thought all of the sudden that this is kind of part of entropy really. Eh. It's just the closed system part I guess. Maybe not? Thoughts? I mean entropy does cover something about information loss. Meh. Thoughts?"

Sounds fine to me. go look up the information density of black holes, and the holographic universe theory. theres enough theories and guff in cosmology and physics to keep you going for years. no need to bang your head against the same wall, look into new stuff. I would say more, but I dont have my library here with me and my memory is poor and this isnt my field anyhow.

C = creation = that which is created

This is invalid, you have not established that the universe was created or that it must have been created.

If God creates time, God is independent of time. Time is created. If time extended infinitely into the past, it becomes a nonsensical paradox. If God is independent of time, there is no need for a previous creator of God, since time itself is just one aspect of creation. Creation means to "bring into existence".

God brings the universe[space-time], into existence.

Unity[monotheistic God] is a relation that contains an unlimited number of fractions[iterations].

G[C] = G

G[[C]] = G

G[[[C]]] = G

G[[[[[C_n...]]] = G


Matter is a form of energy; energy is primary to matter. Energy is defined[ in physics] as the ability to do work. Work is defined as [Force*Distance]. Force is an aspect of a distributed field; fields are primary to energy. Physical laws determine the dynamics of quantum fields; physical law is primary to fields. Physical laws must have a principle of organization. Either physical laws result from a unifying principle of organization, or, physical laws result from an infinite regress. Infinite regress is an absurdity, therefore, physical laws are the result of an organizing principle.

"Organizing principle" implies purpose, purpose implies mind.
Organizing principle is derivative of mind, therefore mind is primary to physical law. The mind that is primary to physical law is called "God"

Therefore God exists.

J.P.

If God creates time, God is independent of time. Time is created.I understand the words but they portray no meaning. These are just baseless speculations and assertions.

If there was a point where time did not exist then explain how any action can occur without time being present? Saying that God can function outside of time has no meaning unless you can show how it might be possible. Even the creation of time involves time since there would be a before and an after effect – such a transition cannot occur without time being present – now that is a paradox.

It would appear that God can only operate with time being present otherwise no meaningful action could ever occur.

If time extended infinitely into the past, it becomes a nonsensical paradox.Where is the paradox? Making a baseless assertion adds no value to the argument. This is simply the nature of infinity – something that has no boundaries.

If God is independent of time, there is no need for a previous creator of God, since time itself is just one aspect of creation. But that does not answer the problem of where did God come from. If everything is derived from cause and effect something must have caused God – whether this is with time or not.

I hope you realize that if you claim that God was not caused then that destroys the argument that everything must have a cause and I can claim with equal validity that the universe had no cause and is infinite and hence does not require the existence of a creator. I.e. therefore there is no God, or at least God is unnecessary.

Creation means to "bring into existence".Fine, but so what? You still haven’t shown that the universe was created or that it needed to be created. Can you demonstrate that the universe does not have infinite duration such that it would require a creator to start it?

J.P.

Physical laws must have a principle of organization.Why?

Either physical laws result from a unifying principle of organization, or, physical laws result from an infinite regress. Why?

Infinite regress is an absurdity, Why?

Originally posted by J.P.
so God doesn't necessarily have to abide by the same logical rules that we do.In which case it's senseless to assert logical propositions about god.

Yes, I agree it is a bit paradoxal. However, the Cognitice theoretic model avoids this problem by introducing the concept that the universe created itself. This is accomplished through the syntax known as SCSPL (self-creating self-processing language), the real substance of the model.Self-causation is hardly an original concept. Nor does it resolve the paradox of infinite recursion, it brings us right back to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. God/Universe, by this definition, is incomplete and thus is not god or is infinitely recursive.

Unity[monotheistic God] is a relation that contains an unlimited number of fractions[iterations].Only if god is holographic. Iterations and fractions are not generally equivalent.

physical law is primary to fields.Unfounded. There is nothing to suggest that the principle (law) of interaction necessarily precedes or is causal to the existence of the primary forces.

Physical laws must have a principle of organization.Unfounded. Nowhere has this been established as a logical necessity. In fact, observational evidence indicates that quantum events occur randomly/unpredictably. It is only in large numbers that the laws of physics take form.

Either physical laws result from a unifying principle of organization, or, physical laws result from an infinite regress.False dilemma.

"Organizing principle" implies purpose, purpose implies mind.Unfounded. Circular reasoning. This is, in fact, the conclusion you are attempting to prove. You cannot simply insert it, unfounded, as a premise.

Organizing principle is derivative of mind, therefore mind is primary to physical law.Unfounded, circular. See above.

~Raithere

Genisis 1:1

"in the begining, God created the Heavens and the earth..."

thus is my belief..thatxs for listening

Cris / Raithere:


Poorly reasoned arguments
expressed horribly.

I particularly enjoyed the part where he essentially calls those who do not perceive his conjectural 'metareligion' stupid.

The sentient beings that are " 'not good enough' - intellectually speaking", are of the majority, not the minority? An exceptionally intelligent, rational thinking process[minority?] is valued, but it appears that some people? will also follow unethical leaders[majority?].



If God creates time, God is independent of time. Time is created.

I understand the words but they portray no meaning. These are just baseless speculations and assertions.

Actually, they are not baseless assertions. Since relativity also explains time as a dimension, a particle of matter moves through, [or is is processed by] time, approximately as fast as a photon of light moves through space.


m = m'/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]

Because the processing rate of global spacetime is the invariant "c", the global "independent" level of spacetime is "timeless".

G[[[[[...C_n]]] = G



If there was a point wheretime did not exist then explain how any action can occur without time being present? Saying that God can function outside of time has no meaning unless you can show how it might be possible. Even the creation of time involves time since there would be a before and an after effect –
such a transition cannot occur without time being present – now that is a paradox.

The universe, along with the entire time line and the laws of physics, emerges from a background of unbound quantum potential [quantum field]. It is called the UBT by the Cognitive theoretic model. UBT is primary to spacetime; It is independent of the concepts of space and time.

What is quantum potential? Good question, I don't exactly know, but being primary to spacetime and the laws of physics, it is more than the emergent properties of the universe, hence it is more than the property known as "intelligence". UBT is for all intents and purposes, what we call "God". The unbound quantum potential, or the "UBT" was not an easy concept for me to fully grasp. Worse than infinity. ;)



It would appear that God can only operate with time being present otherwise no meaningful action could ever occur.


If God creates spacetime God is independent of spacetime, yet, God's creation is quantifiable through the "logos".

Truth is stranger than fiction.



Where is the paradox? Making a baseless assertion adds no value to the argument. This is simply the nature of infinity
– something that has no boundaries.

The universe can be finite yet not have a boundary. Since theories need to have finite sensible answers in their framework, the infinities and paradoxes must be eliminated. For example, what good does it do to say a quantity is infinite? What if we are trying to compute certain properties of existence?

infinity + infinity = ???

infinity*infinity = ???

infinity/infinity = ???



But that does not answer the problem of where did God come from. If everything is derived from cause and effect something must have caused God – whether this is with time or not.


1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 +...+ 1/2^n

1 = convergent series

If the limit is converging, finite sensible answers can be derived.


I hope you realize that if you claim that God was not caused then that destroys the argument that everything must
have a cause and I can claim with equal validity that the universe had no cause and is infinite and hence does not require the existence of a creator. I.e. therefore there is no God, or at least God is unnecessary.

Cause and effect relations are events, in that events are the intersection of world lines. If the universe is a closed-timelike logic loop, it intersects with itself. Time is self creating. It emerges out of the background of unquantified potential since it has its own logical consistency.



Fine, but so what? You still haven’t shown that the universe was created or that it needed to be created. Can you demonstrate that the universe does not have infinite duration such that it would require a creator to start it?


An infinite chain of cause and effect is not a true explanation.

Also, all of the evidence points towards the fact that the universe has a beginning.



Physical laws must have a principle of organization.

Either physical laws result from a unifying principle of organization, or, physical laws result from an infinite regress.

Infinite regress is an absurdity,


Cris: WHY?


Well, if an infinite causal chain means that every explanation is explained in terms of a previous explanation, then the previous explanational foundation still needs an explanation of why it exists.

etc...etc...etc...etc...



[ abstract representation]---[semantic mapping]--->[represented system]

The abstract representation cannot be an "exact" semantic mapping with the physical system, since every nuance, or aspect, of the represented physical system cannot be known. Is it possible to explain the exact semantic mapping as a converging deductive limit, or converging series of axioms, that is approached but never reached?

The burden of proof would then be to prove that the limit is converging.

Start with an unspecified variable, for example, X.

X is an analytic proposition, then proceed with the a deductive process of deriving axioms.

Then in the opposite direction, start with the scientific method, utilizing an inductive limit, or more specifically, a series of deductive falsifications beginning with Newton's classical reality?

Let this be N.

Two "converging limits", that intersect at infinity.

X--->[represented system]<---N

This is an interpretation of Chris Langan's model and Saint Anslem's ontological argument:


1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Originally posted by Raithere
The designation of purpose is spurious here.

well...thank you Raithere!
;)

1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

Why do you place such value on an ultimately meaningless statement? I mean, that's a pretty big if you're building on.

If it is possible for monkeys to spontaneously appear blah blah blah.

I think that is exactly IM-possible from the definition of a POV for knowledge to be perfect as you describe.

Following your precedent I'll just rush to the conclusion: Therefore god doesn't exist.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by wesmorris
If it is possible for monkeys to spontaneously appear blah blah blah.


na ja...it is the first compliment I ever got, even if I have to misquote and misinterpret someone for it.

J.P.

If God creates time, God is independent of time. Time is created.

Hypothetically speaking, even if God was independant of (our) time(which I assume he would have to be), he would still be confined by a time dimension of his own. Time is a fundamental principle of not only our known universe, but everything. If God moves, functions, thinks, performs, etc.- then he operates via time. Movement and time are different definitions of the same thing. Therefore God is not independent of time in general.

The universe, along with the entire time line and the laws of physics, emerges from a background of unbound quantum potential [quantum field]. It is called the UBT by the Cognitive theoretic model. UBT is primary to spacetime; It is independent of the concepts of space and time.

I believe I know what you are talking about as it seems to ring a bell with my personal understanding of the universe.

What is quantum potential? Good question, I don't exactly know, but being primary to spacetime and the laws of physics, it is more than the emergent properties of the universe, hence it is more than the property known as "intelligence". UBT is for all intents and purposes, what we call "God". The unbound quantum potential, or the "UBT" was not an easy concept for me to fully grasp. Worse than infinity.

It sounds like to me that you are just switching labels. What's the point of this? You're switching the label of "universe or UBT" to "God". But switching labels should not allow you to subsequently switch meanings. You seem to want the best of both worlds- switching labels, and then quietly switching to the commonly associated meaning(of God). This is not valid deduction, it's the old bait-and-switch method.

You admit that the UBT was not easy for you to understand and that you still don't exactly know what it is- so how can you so confidently claim that this UBT is God?

God implies intelligence, UBT does not.

Even if God exists, how can you prove that he created our universe? Why would you just assume that if (a) God exists, that he of course created our known universe?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
na ja...it is the first compliment I ever got, even if I have to misquote and misinterpret someone for it.

LOL

Originally posted by J.P.
The sentient beings that are " 'not good enough' - intellectually speaking", are of the majority, not the minority? An exceptionally intelligent, rational thinking process[minority?] is valued, but it appears that some people? will also follow unethical leaders[majority?].Huh? You've been reading Langan too much; you're making as little sense as he does. What you appear to be saying is: "Most people are stupid? Intelligent, rational people are valued but stupid people follow unethical leaders." This makes no sense as a reply to my statement.

Because the processing rate of global spacetime is the invariant "c", the global "independent" level of spacetime is "timeless". All you did here was reiterate your unfounded assertion. Prove it.

The universe, along with the entire time line and the laws of physics, emerges from a background of unbound quantum potential [quantum field]. It is called the UBT by the Cognitive theoretic model. UBT is primary to spacetime; It is independent of the concepts of space and time.Please give us an independent reference to UBT, I am unfamiliar with the term and can find no sources other than Langan.

UBT is for all intents and purposes, what we call "God".Which means that you've inserted God into the equation without establishing it first.

The universe can be finite yet not have a boundary.Incorrect. Any finite shape must have a boundary, although that boundary may be in a higher dimension.

If the limit is converging, finite sensible answers can be derived.Not if it's infinitely converging. 1/infinity = ???
It emerges out of the background of unquantified potential since it has its own logical consistency.Unfounded.

Well, if an infinite causal chain means that every explanation is explained in terms of a previous explanation, then the previous explanational foundation still needs an explanation of why it exists.CTMU does not escape this. Self-recursion is still recursion.

~Raithere

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
well...thank you Raithere!I don't believe you.

;)

~Raithere

Huh? You've been reading Langan too much; you're making as little sense as he does. What you appear to be saying is: "Most people are stupid? Intelligent, rational people are valued but stupid people follow unethical leaders." This makes no sense as a reply to my statement.

Not exactly, "people", in general, are NOT stupid. I will admit though, that it is still difficult for me to fully understand the CTMU ;)



All you did here was reiterate your unfounded assertion. Prove it.

It is not an unfounded assertion. It is basic relativity 101:
http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/March00/4DUniverse.html

QUOTE:
Time doesn't flow past Us. It's we who are moving down the time axis.
Sir Isaac Newton spoke of "time flowing like a river", and that's the way we perceive it. It seems to us as though time flows past us. But in reality, it's the other way around: it's we who are moving. Time is a dimension or direction just like the other three spatial dimensions, and everything up and down the time axis is static or frozen. It's our motion down the time axis that animates our world. It's like a 3-D Omnimax movie. The Omnimax film consists of several film reels of two-dimensional images that, when flashed in front of us on a screen, give us the illusion of a 3-D world in motion. If we stop the film(s), what we'll see are static 3-D images, with each successive image differing slightly from the preceding image. It's only when we run the films through the projectors that we get the illusion of motion.

A 3-D virtual reality simulation might be an even better example of our four-dimensional universe.

In, maybe, 10 more years or certainly in 20, we should be able to put together some really good computer simulations, with 3-D imagery perhaps fed to eye-mounted displays or a to wide-screen high-definition display, with stereo sound, tactile feedback, a "motion seat", and maybe even the release of various odors ("smell-a-vision"). Much of this is probably available right now at Wright-Patterson AFB, but in 10 or 20 years, it should be greatly improved, and maybe even cheap enough for us. And who knows what will be available in 200 or 300 years? The bottom line is that such simulations consist of successive frames of 3-D imagery flashed fast enough to give the illusion of continuous motion. There have been some virtual-reality simulations conducted in which the subject wears display goggles, earphones, and a tactile-feedback suit. The subject walks around in a large open area like a gymnasium, experiencing a virtual world. As time goes by, these simulations should become better and better and cheaper and cheaper, and most science fiction writers expect to see them become very popular--even addictive.

The point of all this is that the reality in which we actually live our lives is very much like the steadily improving virtual reality that we're gradually inventing. We are moving down the time-axis of a four-dimensional universe that consists of a continuous series of three-dimensional "frames" or cross-sections that are ourselves and the objects around us at a succession of instants. Just like 70-mm. movie frames in an Omnimax 3-D theater film, each cross-section (three-dimensional tableau) is slightly different from the cross-sections before it and the cross-sections after it. It is these changes from frame to frame, when we zip through them, that give us the illusion of continuous motion. However, whereas a movie film is two-dimensional, and an Omnimax film uses several two-dimensional film strips simultaneously to create magnified 3-D imagery, the universe in which we live consists of a 4-D objects that we perceive as a continuous succession of full-size 3-D objects. It's our mental motion along this continuous succession of gradually changing 3-D cross-sections of 4-D objects that creates the illusion of motion. And the time axis is just like a spatial axis. What makes it unique is that,

1. For some reason, we can't see the past or the future--only the present. Being able to see only the present amounts to our being to able to see only a razor-thin window revealing what lies directly perpendicular to the time axis, but not being able to actually see anything that lies behind us or in front of us in the time direction.

2. For some reason, we're moving down the time axis rather than one of the other three axes.

3. Our speed down the time axis is fixed. We can't stop, speed up, or slow down. ("Stop the world! I want to get off!")
One of the possibilities is that you're really experiencing a super-realistic computer simulation. Maybe in some laboratory beyond our present awareness, you're hooked up neurally to "God's" computer, and the life you're experiencing, including reading this presentation, is really only a hyper-sophisticated computer simulation.
END QUOTE



Please give us an independent reference to UBT, I am unfamiliar with the term and can find no sources other than Langan.

UBT is potential for every configuration state. Those states that have their own internally consistent logics possess the ontological wherewithal to sustain their own existence.

Here is a definition of quantum "potentiality":
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/heisenberg.htm

QUOTE:
DP: In discussing the 'collapse of the wave function' you introduced the notion of potentiality. Would you elaborate on this idea?
The question is: 'What does a wave function actually describe?' In old physics, the mathematical scheme described a system as it was, there in space and time. One could call this an objective description of the system. But in quantum theory the wave function cannot be called a description of an objective system, but rather a description of observational situations. When we have a wave function, we cannot yet know what will happen in an experiment; we must also know the experimental arrangement. When we have the wave function and the experimental arrangement for the special case considered, only then can we make predictions. So, in that sense, I like to call the wave function a description of the potentialities of the system.
DP Then the interaction with the apparatus would be a potentiality coming into actuality?
Yes.
END QUOTE



Which means that you've inserted God into the equation without establishing it first.

No, "God" is the only answer that completes the equation.



Incorrect. Any finite shape must have a boundary, although that boundary may be in a higher dimension.

You will have to talk with Stephen Hawking. He discovered the "No Boundary Principle":

http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

QUOTE:
In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
END QUOTE



Not if it's infinitely converging. 1/infinity = ???
Unfounded.

Elementary calculus, limits:

Limit
x--->infinity 1/x = 0
The convergence to zero is a sensible answer.



CTMU does not escape this. Self-recursion is still recursion.

You probably have a good point here Raithere, why does potential exist, even if it is not a temporal existence in itself, how can it exist?

I have my own theory, that says total nothingness is exactly equivalent to a perfect and infinite symmetry. Therefore, there "must" be a definite probability that this infinite symmetry will spontaneously start symmetry breaking .

In that regard, my theory ;) is superior to the Cognitive model.

Originally posted by J.P.
I will admit though, that it is still difficult for me to fully understand the CTMU.It really doesn't seem to be your fault J.P. I've read several of Langan's articles and interviews now and, even if I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is on to something, he expresses it very poorly and very cryptically. 195 I.Q. or no, he does not give enough information with which to analyze his claims and his logical proofs have holes in them. If you're interested in a more thorough treatment of isomorphic recursion as it pertains to consciousness and perhaps the Universe, I suggest "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter.

It is not an unfounded assertion. It is basic relativity 101:I understand time as a dimension; where the argument becomes weak or at least where it is insufficiently explained is where he introduces the idea of a 'timeless' God acting upon time.

UBT is potential for every configuration state. Those states that have their own internally consistent logics possess the ontological wherewithal to sustain their own existence.But quantum potentiality does not allow for every state, it is a function within a system; constrained not unlimited. Nor has it been proven that 'internally consistent logics' allow potentialities to become reality. And if it can be, how is it that one such potential becomes existent while the others do not?

No, "God" is the only answer that completes the equation.If UBT is the equivalent of God it cannot be dropped into the middle of the argument unestablished. It must first be proven.

You will have to talk with Stephen Hawking. He discovered the "No Boundary Principle"Okay, in this context I agree.

The convergence to zero is a sensible answer.But it will never get there, not if the continuum is infinitely divisible.

I have my own theory, that says total nothingness is exactly equivalent to a perfect and infinite symmetry. Therefore, there "must" be a definite probability that this infinite symmetry will spontaneously start symmetry breaking.I like that thought but, infinite in what way? And what is it that's infinitely symmetrical? Ouch...

~Raithere

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html


I currently believe that there was no higher intellegence that designed our universe. I was presented with this (link above), but I fear that I have little knowledge in physics, and very little intellegence overall. Even with this handicap, I would very much like to know if there was or was not a higher designer. So can you please help me understand how this proves one?

All I could get from it was that if our universe was different, then it would be different. Trial-and-error of the universe also comes to mind....(if this area isn't randomly-by-chance fit for life, then no life would exist here)

Please help

JP,

Since all efforts to show that the concept of God is contradictory have failed heretofore

Perhaps you would like to prove this statement before you say much more!

Lets start with this.

"If God was (is) the creator of everything, then God had to create himself. You now have existance via creation ex nihilo".

Creation ex nihilo can occur mathematically via N--->(+n)+(-n) and does not require God; hence O'coms Razor says God doesn't exist.

Lostinthought7,

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/...heUniverse.html

This is a wonderfully classic logical fallacy.

If you bake a cake are you then surprised at how the baking dish is so similar to the shape of the cake?

What the ID adherents are saying in these arguments is that the baking dish was designed to suit the shape of the cake. Whereas in reality the shape of the cake is a result of the dish.

Of course order will result when components are derived from others, they would not occur otherwise.

The argument for life is similar. The ID argument says that the Earth environment was designed to fit the needs of life. The reality seems to be that life evolved because of the environment. If the environment had been different then perhaps an entirely different type of life might have evolved.

Originally posted by J.P.
The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.


Within the universe, cause precedes effect.

If cause, then effect:

If A then B

A

Therefore B


The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause:

If not B then not A,

not B

therefore not A

The universe creates its own purpose. If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic. We observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the universe cannot be totally deterministic.

Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.

Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.

If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.


Therefore:

The universe is an intelligent mind.

:cool:

There are several fatal flaws in your argument:

[1] It's logically inconsistent to state that "the universe is defined as the totality of all that exists", and to state thereafter that "the universe creates its own purpose"! Because if the universe contains all that exists, it must also contains all purposes.
It is a clear mistake in logic to assign to such totality one single purpose. In short, if the universe is a totality, then it is a totality in all respects, not just few.

[2] "The universe is an intelligent mind"! This statement is both wrong and useless. It's wrong because it's simply a projection of man's inner image of the workings of the human nervous system on this totality of things called 'the universe'. It's also useless, because nothing can be gained in the theoretical or the practical sense by treating the universe as 'intelligent mind'.

[3] All that talk about 'cause and effect' is non-sequitur, and demolished completely by the illustrious David Hume long time ago. It just doesn't hold water.

[4] The 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle' has been used to deny causality not to support it. Its use in the above context is completely beside the point if not counter-productive.

JP, I noticed in one of your posts ( can't remember which one) that you refer to two photons travelling in opposite directions and simultaneously having some relationship with each other therefore suggesting that this relationship is travelling at speeds faster than the speed "c".

You use this as an example of trancedence "beyond reality"

This I question. Trancedence. Why would instantaneous communications in a contiinuum be considered trancedent. ( if that's a word)

After all it is only our science that proves a limit to speed. THis doesn;t necessarilly mean that speed is limited it just means that we haven't proved otherwise.

The universe can only fuction with both the instantaneous and the time of speed.

Everything is in an instantaneous relationship with everything.

Speed is also part of the equation but at all times there is a continuum of interreactions.

Cause becomes effect and effect becomes cause.
Cause can be infinite with effect being finite. Cause can be finite and the effect being infinite. And infinite combinations of all of them.

If you can imagine a universe teaming with intelligent life. One could suggest that the universe (God) is intelligent from with in and not from without. I get the impression that we tend to think God is looking inwards at us when in fact he is looking outwards through us ( intelligent life etc)

We are like intelligent bacteria that provide the host ( Universe ) with intelligence.

I don't feel there is a need to prove the existance of God as the universes existance is self eveident.

Sorry about this poorly worded post, I think I drank too much last night. ( hic!!)

wesmorris,


Why do you place such value on an ultimately meaningless statement? I mean, that's a pretty big if you're building on.

Obviously, it creates a burr in your saddle, else, you would not be posting the derogatory commentary. Where is your logical refutation?


If it is possible for monkeys to spontaneously appear blah blah blah.

Non-sequitur.


I think that is exactly IM-possible from the definition of a POV for knowledge to be perfect as you describe.

It may be impossible for a human mind to perfectly model reality but all that needs to be proved, is that the limit is converging for the limit to exist, or diverging for the impossibility.


Following your precedent I'll just rush to the conclusion: Therefore god doesn't exist.

Why are you making what appear to be emotionally driven statements against the logical possibility for God to exist? Is the "God concept" an anathema to "Wes"?


Hmm. I had the thought all of the sudden that this is kind of part of entropy really. Eh. It's just the closed system part I guess. Maybe not? Thoughts? I mean entropy does cover something about information loss. Meh. Thoughts?

Isn't that a nice little problem that seems skirted here?

According to Stephen Hawking, in the book "The Universe in a Nutshell", the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge. This leads to another theory which states that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the circumscribing surface, with the entropy being the measure of the total information contained by the system. The information associated with all phenomena in the three dimensional world, can be stored on its two dimensional boundary, like a holographic image.

Since entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a region of space, and the entropy of the universe must always increase, the next logical step is to realize that the spacetime density, i.e. the information encoded within a circumscribed region of space, must be increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time. Information is not lost.

AAF / Quantum Quack,



There are several fatal flaws in your argument:

Thanks for the help.


[1] It's logically inconsistent to state that "the universe is defined as the totality of all that exists", and to state thereafter that "the universe creates its own purpose"! Because if the universe contains all that exists, it must also contains all purposes.
It is a clear mistake in logic to assign to such totality one single purpose. In short, if the universe is a totality, then it is a totality in all respects, not just few.

The general contains the specific, the abstract contains the concrete. An all inclusive "purpose" i.e. "to exist" must contain all of its distinctions, if something is distinct from another "something", it is a different type of existence, that is to say, it is stratified from a more general, or a more specific type of existence. Therefore logic demands that a composition of total existence have separate distinctions within itself, yet it is also an embodiment of itself. Existence is a paradox, albeit a self resolving one.


[2] "The universe is an intelligent mind"! This statement is both wrong and useless. It's wrong because it's simply a projection of man's inner image of the workings of the human nervous system on this totality of things called 'the universe'. It's also useless, because nothing can be gained in the theoretical or the practical sense by treating the universe as 'intelligent mind'.

If the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum states cannot leak out of the closed system. So the density of entangled quantum states, continually increases, as the entropy must always increase. While to us, it is interpreted as entropy or lost information, it is actually recombined information, to the universe.

Spacetime Memory = Compression Waves = Interpretation of Increased Entropy.


If our universe is a self projecting computer simulation within a simulation within... within a simulation, which is a process, it would need to be an accelerated process.

locally, as the distance between two objects approaches zero, and velocity is low, space-time is a Euclidean geometry.

As the distance between two objects increases, space-time is a "non-Euclidean" geometry.

This non-Euclidean geometry uses a Euclidean tangent vector space to approximate its curvature properties. "tangent vectors".

Is it possible to derive Einstein's field equation strictly in terms of quantum mechanical operators? using n-dimensional cross sections of cotangent vector spaces? Near a massive object M, the *isobar* cross sections increase in density, as wavefunction density gradients, a possible solution? to Hartle and Hawking's "wavefunction of the universe"?

There is the Schrodinger equation:

H(psi) = E(psi),

where H is the Hamiltonian operator, the sum of potential and kinetic energies, and "psi" is the wavefunction. E is the energy of the system. The square of the wavefunction, is the probability of the position and momentum for the system.

The Wheeler DeWitt equation is the Schrodinger equation applied to the whole universe. Since the total energy of the universe is postulated to be zero(even though the Hamiltonian for the universe isn't quite defined) the Wheeler DeWitt equation is:

H(psi) = 0

There is a complementary path integral approach for this equation. Stephen Hawking derived the wavefunction of the universe as a path integral, for a complex function of the classical configuration space:

psi(q) = integral exp(-S(g)/hbar) dg

The problem is that "dg" is not well defined either

exp is the base of the natural logarithm "e" raised to a power. The power in this case, is the quantity -S(g)/hbar, where S(g)
is the Einstein Hilbert action.

The Einstein Hilbert Action:

The Lagrangian, which is the difference of kinetic and potential
energies, has a formulation in general relativity:

Lagrangian = R vol

R is the Ricci scalar curvature of the metric g, derived by contracting the Ricci tensor and "vol" is the volume form associated to g. The Einstein Hilbert action then becomes:

S(g) = integral R vol

Spacelike hypersurfaces are endomorphically projected Compression waves. A self embedding of surface integrals. This gives continuously increasing density gradients, as matter-energy is quantum mechanically re-scaled. What appears as universal expansion with radius R, is actually matter-energy contraction with radius 1/R. Total spacetime is constant.


According to string theory, from the principle called "T-Duality", the physics for a circle of radius R is the same as the physics for a circle of radius 1/R. So if total spacetime is a constant, and matter-energy would be shrinking at a uniform accelerated rate, it would appear to the shrinking beings in the universe, that their universe's spacetime was expanding and matter energy is the constant.

Hawking's entropy equation:

Entropy = [Area of event horizon]*[Boltzmann's constant]*[speed of light^3]/4*[Planck's constant/2pi]*[Newton's universal gravitational constant]

S = [A*k*c^3]/[4*hbar*G]

Quantum gravity and thermodynamics are related.

The R - 1/R duality of string theory, gives two ways of looking at the world. Which way is correct? R with spacetime expansion? Or 1/R with matter-energy requantization?

Both could be correct, depending on the perspective of the observer.


[3] All that talk about 'cause and effect' is non-sequitur, and demolished completely by the illustrious David Hume long time ago. It just doesn't hold water.

You could have a good point here AAF. The "cause & effect" argument is an oversimplification, of course ;)


[4] The 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle' has been used to deny causality not to support it. Its use in the above context is completely beside the point if not counter-productive.

Heisenberg uncertainty agrees with free will for the universal mind.


JP, I noticed in one of your posts ( can't remember which one) that you refer to two photons travelling in opposite directions and simultaneously having some relationship with each other therefore suggesting that this relationship is travelling at speeds faster than the speed "c".

On one level of stratification, the two photons are separate. On another level, of stratification, the photons have zero separation.

Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.

According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to guarantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."

Einstein's equation basically says

Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]

[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.

[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.

.
Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of
d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.

[spacetime tells mass]<===[geodesic path for particle]===>[mass tells spacetime]

An object following a geodesic has no unbalanced forces acting on it. Its energy-momentum is a constant. In order for the object to deviate from the geodesic, it must be accelerated. Energy must be expended, for example, its rocket boosters could fire, or an outside force like a meteor impact .


Is mass "m", a form of condensed space-time?

The mass-energy equivalence is given by the equation

E = m*c^2

Really, the equation is:

E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4

For a photon, the rest mass is zero, the equation reduces to:

E^2 = p^2 c^2

Since p is the momentum of a photon of light, the equation becomes:

E/p = c

Light is also a wave with a frequency (f) of oscillation and its energy is also given by the equation:

E = h*f = p*c

wavelength, Lambda = c/f

E/f = h = p*Lamda

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself, if, mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-configured as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as they presently are.

[<->[<->[<->[U]<->]<->]<->]

The increasing spacetime density must be background independent.

Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]

h represents Planck's constant

G is Newton's universal gravitational constant.

c is the speed of light in vacuum.

S = distance scale

T = time scale.

p is momentum

Planck length = sqrt[hG/c^3] = constant ratio

Planck time = sqrt[hG/c^5] = constant ratio

[Planck length]/[Planck time] = c = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+k

Discrete quanta = hf

Continuous wavelength = h/p

Since we are continuing to discover how symmetry is violated in the universe, it should be possible to devise an experiment to determine how the spacetime expansion vs. matter contraction symmetry, is violated. Then it should be possible to prove, or disprove Eddington's idea.

A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:

quote:



All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .


Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.

Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action.

Periodicity is a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex variable "z" is changed.

f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)

Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".

Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are created.

So when spacetime tears and a wormhole is created, it must obey certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
transformations are continuous!

So the number of holes[genus] on the surface of space, determine whether there exist an infinite, or finite, number of solutions to the universal equations?

Multiverse, or one Universe?

Strong Anthropic Principle or Weak Anthropic Principle?

The information density of space increases. This is a relation and its inverse.

For example, unity is a constant, representable by:

[1 = c ] = [1/2 + 1/2] = [1/4 + 3/4] = [1/5 + 4/5] = [1/6 + 5/6]

The left fraction represents [energy/momentum] and the right fraction represents compressed [space/time] density, where space means "distance interval" , a relative measurement.

[E/p]<--->[S/T]

[1/R]<--->[R]

The physics for a circle of radius R, is the same for a circle of radius 1/R

E/p = S/T = c

[Space/time] and [energy/momentum] are two different forms of the same invariant quantity [c].

[E/p]_n = [E/p]_n+1 = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+1

Yes, c+c = c

[c + c]/[1 + c^2/c^2] = c

So E/p + S/t = 2c/2 = c

S/T = E/p = S/T + E/p = c

We live in a nonlinear universe. Einstein's equations don't lie

c+c = c

aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0

0 + 0 = 0

Gravity exists because the information density of space-time is increasing. This creates a "pressure force" where processed space, compresses mass-energy, and mass-energy reacts by compressing space. The process is "time", which becomes dilated due to the increased information density of massive objects.

mass energy = information

space = self similar relation

time = process = change

So space compresses matter-energy and matter-energy gives an equal and opposite reaction.

Space-time tells matter how to move and matter tells space-time how to curve.

[mass tells spacetime ]<===[geodesic]===>[ space-time tells mass]


I don't feel there is a need to prove the existance of God as the universes existance is self eveident.


Space and time have a beginning.

The best explanation for that beginning is self causation best
explained CM Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Existence is a definition, a predication, which is why Kant so vehemently denied that existence is a predicate, but alas, existence is a definitive constraint as is all definitions. To exist means "to be". So infinite paradox becomes infinite freedom from constraint, and reality itself is an infinitesimal difference, from perfect equilibrium.


The "Ein Sof" is an infinity that cannot be comprehended. For every set A there is a choice function, f, such that for any non-empty sub set B of A, f(B) is a member of B, and so we see that there may be an infinite number of sets B within A, and as such the Banach-Tarski paradox is created. A single sphere is decomposed and re-assembled into two spheres, each with the same radius as the original sphere.

So we see that:

[paradox] = not-[paradox]

is a paradox of course!

therefore:

paradox = paradox

is absolutely true.



Alpha = Omega

It is the categorical formulation of the simultaneous, situational, instantiated contradiction, where deductive invalidity is the product of the utmost categorical truth of the assumption that if the antecedent of a true conditional is false, then the consequent of the conditional is true or false indifferently, and of the categorical falsehood of the conclusion consequently predicates that if it be not the case that the consequent of a true conditional is true or false indifferently, then, it is not the case that the antecedent of the conditional is false. To pronounce the consequent of a true conditional as being true or false indifferently is tantamount to saying modally that where the antecedent of a true conditional is notoriously false, then the consequent can, or could be, or is possibly true or false. But it may be worthwhile to see that the definitive, simultaneous equality of both true, and false, can be formulated without explicitly including modal terms, which become the predicating operators, which, for the sake of showing that the consequent paradoxical conundrum is not straightforwardly resolvable by appealing to concrete philosophical scruples concerning the intensionality of predicated modal contexts.

The categorical representation of the propositional anti-logic, in which deductive invalidity depends on the modality of the truth conditionals concerning the prerequisite of the contingent assumption and consequent conclusion. The totally relevant content of the assumption and conclusion, definitely contains no modal terms. But, the modality attaches to the fact that the conditional assumption is quite possibly true, while the conditional conclusion is necessarily false.

Which leads us to an argumentational representation of a completely non-bogus modal formulation of the "paradox". Deductive invalidity is most excellently predicated on the categorical truth of the modal-term-laden assumption and the definitive categorical falsehood of the modal-term-laden conclusion. Hence, the assumption is such, that if the antecedent of a contingently true conditional is false, then, the consequent of the conclusion can be true is itself quite simply, ...true. Therefore, the conclusion that if it is not the case that the consequent of a contingently true conditional can be true, then it is not the case that the antecedent of the true conditional is false, is itself quite simply, false.

Meta-philosophical scruples notwithstanding, existence is, a paradox, albeit a dynamic resolute relation.


THE TRUTH: God creates a logical Universe.
Imagine a Universe in which there is no logic. There would be no meaningful numbers, no addition, subtraction, or counting of any kind. There would be no laws, no physics, no predictability, no cause and effect. Such a Universe would be utterly and totally devoid of meaning. Thus, for any Universe in which anything meaningful can happen, logic is a most fundamental necessity.

OK so we accept that what you propose is correct.

What does that mean to us?

Does his answers give us anything of value? Other than the woopee effect?

What does his TOE do for us and our future?
How can it be applied to our benefit?

I mean to ask you JP to look beyond the theory and apply it.THE TRUTH: God creates a logical Universe.

God didn't create a universe he just created himself.

Again God is not removed from the universe he is the universe.
He couldn't have created the universe as separate to himself.

How did God create himself, he would probably look at you and say "I dunno!" " I just woke up one day and here I was.":D

JP,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following your precedent I'll just rush to the conclusion: Therefore god doesn't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why are you making what appear to be emotionally driven statements against the logical possibility for God to exist? Is the "God concept" an anathema to "Wes"?


ANS:Wes's comments are not "emotionally driven statements".

They are the most rational views as opposed to "emotionally driven statements" pushing a view that God is at the root of existance for which there simply is not one shred of evidence and no good explanation for how such could be, nor any advantage what-so-ever for that being the case.

The concept of God adds an middle man to the unknown process with no gain in knowledge but infact adds even more complictions for which there is no answer.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. I had the thought all of the sudden that this is kind of part of entropy really. Eh. It's just the closed system part I guess. Maybe not? Thoughts? I mean entropy does cover something about information loss. Meh. Thoughts?

Isn't that a nice little problem that seems skirted here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a region of space, and the entropy of the universe must always increase, the next logical step is to realize that the spacetime density, i.e. the information encoded within a circumscribed region of space, must be increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time. Information is not lost.


ANS:, and the entropy of the universe must always increase,. This is an assumption based on less than complete testing and certainly is not proven. The very expansion of the universe suggest entrophy could be decreasing as it may be evidence of an on going creation.

Gee, we are getting to see God at work.

JP,

THE TRUTH: God creates a logical Universe.
Imagine a Universe in which there is no logic. There would be no meaningful numbers, no addition, subtraction, or counting of any kind. There would be no laws, no physics, no predictability, no cause and effect. Such a Universe would be utterly and totally devoid of meaning. Thus, for any Universe in which anything meaningful can happen, logic is a most fundamental necessity.


ANS: Let have a look at your above statement.

For your God to have created everything he must also have created time-space otherwise he would not be the original creator.

Therefore he must create himself ex nihilo in absence of time-space before he could then create time-space. Everything that exists must have come from creation ex nihilo, including your God.

Creation ex nihilo can be expressed as: N------>(+n)+(-n) as a mathematcial principle which doesn't viloate conservation. It requires no God.

Your God is deemed a useless complication and would be ruled out by O'cams Razor.


Now before you launch YOUR "emotionally driven statements" please post specific, verifiable, or at least quantifiable evidence to support the inclusion of your God in the overall greater understanding about our origins.

What does accepting your God contribute? Nothing. It not only clouds the issue but distorts the conslusions for the evidence and understandings that we have achieved thus far.

Does this prove you are wrong? Of course not. Does it show that in all likelyhood you are wrong. You bet your bippy.

Originally posted by J.P.
Heisenberg uncertainty agrees with free will for the universal mind.Random action is not the same as free will. What you're implying is that the action is not truly random but is determined by God's will but there is nothing to support this assertion. In fact, seeing as that quantum uncertainty is probabilistically predictable on gross levels God's will would likewise be probabilistic.

Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects. Information cannot be passed at faster than light speeds using quantum entanglement. Thus it is not the same as zero separation in a classical context; you're still limited to communication at the speed of light.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.You're neglecting the fact that there is destructive as well as constructive interference; intersecting waves sometimes complement and sometimes cancel. You also have no additional sources of energy; the total energy in a closed universe is constant, there cannot be a constant increase of the total, thus no compression.

~Raithere

Originally posted by J.P.
AAF / Quantum Quack,

Thanks for the help.

The general contains the specific, the abstract contains the concrete. An all inclusive "purpose" i.e. "to exist" must contain all of its distinctions, if something is distinct from another "something", it is a different type of existence, that is to say, it is stratified from a more general, or a more specific type of existence. Therefore logic demands that a composition of total existence have separate distinctions within itself, yet it is also an embodiment .................................................. ................................


:)

GENERAL REMARKS:

[1] You wrote: "........ the abstract contains the concrete.....".

It's the exact opposite. The concrete contains the abstract, not the other way around. That is because concrete things can never be absolutely exhausted, and their characteristics are potentially infinine. Moreover, the abstract is always obtained from the concrete through induction which by its own nature has potentially infinite outcome.

[2] ".........Existence is a paradox, albeit a self resolving one...".

I see no paradox related to Existence, and certainly there is no paradox related to Absolute Existence as long as it is treated as something in Eternity not as something run by Eternity.

[3] ".....If the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum states cannot leak out of the closed system.........".

Closed or not, 'information' can never leak out of the universe, because there is nothing outside the universe to leak into.

[4] ".................................................
Spacetime Memory = Compression Waves = Interpretation of Increased Entropy.............Einstein's equation basically says

Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]
..........................................".

Look! You have to make a choice here, either physics or metaphysics, but not both. Because each one has its own rules and grandmasters. They don't mix. So if you choose physics stick to its rule of thumb: {Don't touch the absolute or mess with infinity}. Furthermore, physics is highly mobile and changing all the time. You can't place eternal stuff like existence and ultimate goals and purposes on such shifting dunes called physics. Brielfly, if you love eternal principles and the realm where infinity rules and the abstract is king, then choose metaphysics, my friend.

Have a nice day.

:D

AAF,

Closed or not, 'information' can never leak out of the universe, because there is nothing outside the universe to leak into.

I take a slight exception to this portion of your responses above.

The exception is this. "It depends on you definition of the Universe and if you allow for the theoretical concepts of Multiverse".

Under certain definitions "Virtual Particles" come INTO existance ex nihilo. Which would mean they came from beyond our existance. In which case we must acknowledge that there is something beyond our universe.

J.P.:

You should read Tipler's <i>The physics of immortality</i>. It contains many of the same (flawed) kinds of arguments you've posted here, but with a somewhat better grounding in general relativity.

Originally posted by MacM
AAF,



I take a slight exception to this portion of your responses above.

The exception is this. "It depends on you definition of the Universe and if you allow for the theoretical concepts of Multiverse".

Under certain definitions "Virtual Particles" come INTO existance ex nihilo. Which would mean they came from beyond our existance. In which case we must acknowledge that there is something beyond our universe.

:cool:

If the concept of multi-universe is defined in terms of totally or partially independent entities each of which is called universe, then the metaphysical concept of the universe as a whole totality is still valid, and nothing can exist outside that totality.

As for the hypothesis of "........ "Virtual Particles" THAT come INTO existance ex nihilo.....", has been proposed to explain away certain anomalies within the context of the physical universe. Outside the physical universe, their coming or not "INTO existance ex nihilo" makes no difference at all concerning the ontological status of NOTHING and it is equal to nil.

Originally posted by JesusRocksMySocks
Genisis 1:1

"in the begining, God created the Heavens and the earth..."

thus is my belief..thatxs for listening
so who created God??
(hint p****e);)

/Obviously, it creates a burr in your saddle, else, you would not be posting the derogatory commentary. Where is your logical refutation?

You said: "1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God."

Which I called meaningless. Hmm.. let me see if I can recall why...

My proof is long and windbaggish and who knows, maybe mistaken. I'll give you a synopsis.

If you increase a POV to the point at which is contains every single facet of the universe in consciousness simultaneously, the meaning of "mind" evaporates. It is no longer a POV, as it would necessarily have to encompasses and permeate all others.

I think that fundamentally the only reasonable position regarding epistemology is agnosticism. There is a long winded explanation as to why, but I summarize that any other argument is in essence "argument from authority". I argued it a few different places. It's been a while but I'll await your response before bothering to look it up.

/Non-sequitur.

You said "If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality"

To which I replied: "If it is possible for monkeys to spontaneously appear blah blah blah."

Which is an attempt to illustrate an equivalently meaningless 'if', by the logic I present above that mind is a meaningless term in your application, as its definition would change fundamentally. Ahh, definitions. What a game we can play there eh?

So you have constructed an if to nowhere, much as I did with the monkey thing.

/It may be impossible for a human mind to perfectly model reality but all that needs to be proved, is that the limit is converging for the limit to exist, or diverging for the impossibility.

Non sequiter, as you use mind in an illogical context.

/Why are you making what appear to be emotionally driven statements against the logical possibility for God to exist?

My statements are driven by my conviction in my logic. What about yours? Surely you can't claim this untrue when you make statements like "Chris Langan has done[and is doing] his homework." Sounds like you're expressing devotion of sorts. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

/Is the "God concept" an anathema to "Wes"?

A little I guess. It's more that I'm annoyed by argument from authority. There is no such thing except in the minds of varying degrees of sociopaths IMO.

/According to Stephen Hawking, in the book "The Universe in a Nutshell", the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge.

I knew about the first part but "defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge". That's new to me. "states"? What kind of "states"? I suppose I need to read that book. Hmm. Hey that is a good idea for an office christmas present!

I know this may pose a huge challenge of logic and deductive reasoning but there is the idea that before the universe existed there was nothing, absolutely nothing.

Some how this nothingness became something and that's big question How?
I hear talk about virtual particles coming into existance and then dissapearing. I hear all sorts of speculation as to where they come from.

The truth could very well be that they come form nothing and nowhere, the only reason we argue against this is that we simply can't comprehend the logic of something from nothing.

Nothing is also part of the totallity of this universe and spontaneous creation of matter continues today.(postulation)

If you can work the logic of this question you will know how God or the universe created it self.

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
I know this may pose a huge challenge of logic and deductive reasoning but there is the idea that before the universe existed there was nothing, absolutely nothing.

I think there are likely a multitude of theories as to what did or didn't exist before the universe. One of them I read was "quantum foam". I'll leave it to someone more qualified to explain what that might be. :)

Quantum Quack,

Nothing is also part of the totallity of this universe and spontaneous creation of matter continues today.(postulation)

If you can work the logic of this question you will know how God or the universe created it self.


ANS:Where "N" is "Nothingness" and "n" is a variable "Somethingness", I prefer the view of creation ex nihilo via N------->(+n)+(-n).

Mathematically "Nothingness" can be bifurcated into a wide variety of +/- "Somethings" pairs or opposites and not violate conservation.

That view does not require a God and the inclusion of a God adds nothing to the understanding of creation since God must have created himself in absence of time-space in the first instance, if he is to be the creator of everything.

Hence God is supurflous or the formula describes God. Take your pick.

Wes,

One of them I read was "quantum foam".

ANS: I wouldn't see the Big Bang (or anyother creation event) originating from the quantum foam as being the initial creation. It would be a change in form only. One would have to back track to where and how did the Q. Foam come into existance.

To suggest as some have that it has always existed and hence there was no initial enception seems wholly contridictary to me.

That would translate as "We have always existed hence were never created". That simply doesn't seem plausible it is totally contridictory use of terms in a description of an event.

/I wouldn't see the Big Bang (or anyother creation event) originating from the quantum foam as being the initial creation. It would be a change in form only. One would have to back track to where and how did the Q. Foam come into existance.

Here's my whacked out take on it:

If there is such a thing as "quantum foam", it could really only exist as an abstract (as there is no space-time in which for it to exist). As such, it is not subject to time, but would be in essence - the source of time.

But of course, I have a hard time conceiving of what could exist outside of a system (that I'm inside of) that appears to be closed.

/To suggest as some have that it has always existed and hence there was no initial enception seems wholly contridictary to me.

Well, prior to the big bang the term "always" loses all meaning no? Hell even the term "prior" regardign the big bang loses all meaning.

/That would translate as "We have always existed hence were never created".

Hmm.. I don't know about that... it was my impression that "quantum foam" would have preceded time. Maybe I got that part wrong. Regardless, it's quite obvious there was a "beginning" to time (for lack of a better way to put it), in the bang itself right?

/That simply doesn't seem plausible it is totally contridictory use of terms in a description of an event.

It's difficult to talk about the beginning because it seems to me that NOTHING makes sense at the "time" of the event. To me it's quite logical that the "origins" of time would elude examination, as it seems to me almost impossible that they make sense in terms of current observations. (and I mean at t=0)

One can hypothesize what type of conditions might have lead to the universe, but can one be sure? That closed system thing comes to mind and gets me going in circles until I get all Taoist with it and accept the is of the origin.

Theory of Intelligent Design as opposed, for instance to the theory of Evolution, is clearly unscientific. The reason is simple.
Intelligent-designers can never be able to point finger to something and say this is 'stupid design' or that thing was not designed. Therefore, their theory cannot be proved or falsified scientifically. It's a metaphysical theory, and hence it must conform with the standards of metaphysics and philosophy in general, and be judged accordingly. In particular, it must not violate the law of contradiction or identy or the excluded middle by hiding behind its fake and flimsy scientifc facade.

:cool:

MacM:

You often make the statement "N ----> (+n) + (-n)" in referring to how the universe came into being, as if it is somehow a profound insight. While few people would argue that 0 = -1 + 1, that is merely a mathematical fact, which in my few can tell us very little about the actual universe.

If you think that our universe consists of an amount "n" of "something", along with an equal amount "n" of the "opposite", perhaps it is time for you to identify what these opposite things are which you're referring to.

Over to you.

James R.,

You often make the statement "N ----> (+n) + (-n)" in referring to how the universe came into being, as if it is somehow a profound insight. While few people would argue that 0 = -1 + 1, that is merely a mathematical fact, which in my few can tell us very little about the actual universe.

ANS: You not I have assumed that somehow the formula is thought to be profound. I have not presented it that way and acknowledge it tells us nothing about "How". However, I do think it is heads above those concepts that introduce miracles, magic or Gods as their answer.

It would be nice to understand the "How" but at least there is a mathematically viable concept of "How" which is not advanced by the other listed approaches.


If you think that our universe consists of an amount "n" of "something", along with an equal amount "n" of the "opposite", perhaps it is time for you to identify what these opposite things are which you're referring to.

Over to you.

ANS: You have a slightly different view of this than is meant. For example assuming the (+n) represents our existance then all the time-space, energy and matter that exists in the universe is conserved (-n) in a negative (other) dimension and is not part of our universe but the resovoir that insures no violation of conservation in the overall creation.

So it would not be something that you could ever detect, measure, or manipulate. It is purely metaphysical and unfounded but I would have to say less so than the proclamation of a God which still leaves Creation ex nihilo as being the origin of everything and therefore God as a supurflous addittion to the unknown process.

Perhaps this is something