Proof there is a God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    But that assumes an existing supply of parts, purposely put together.
    Of course there is *natural selection* which discards improper engineering in nature and leaves only functional organisms.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    We know that you are ignorant of the history of religion because you always decry your own ignorance of the subject.

    Of course, as an evangelist, you are likely to lie about this subject as much as any other.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Lets go back a bit to post #537 , in gods image.

    This god , which was not a " god " , but who is perceived to be a god because those at that were simple people thought that this being is a god; but just an advanced being who came across as a god to them; but were just advanced beingings who manipulated the genetics of primative beings ( Humans ) which already existed; hence the " in the image of god " .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    See my post 514

    Egg , a reproductive body consisting of an ovum together with its nutritive and protective envelopes and having the capacity to develop into a new individual capable of independent existence.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Good
    All physical phenomena are a result of mathematical functions. As Tegmark says " the universe does not have *some* mathematical properties, it has *only* mathematical properties"
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    That's not evidence write4u; it is just a statement presented by you.

    Prove that by changing the numbers in a physical represenation dynamic equation changes at the same moment the physical dynamic(s) of what is being represented by this equation.

    You won't be able to.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    No, it is an hypothesis by Tegmark (with support of Livio and others) which is being peer reviewed. Tegmarks presentation made persuasive logical sense to me and I am presenting it here in order to introduce the concept to the general public interested in science.

    ???
    Of course not, because the question, as presented, is incoherent
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    There is nothing incoherent about my above statement.

    You claimed that all physical phenomenon are mathematical functions in post #545 . I pointed out the logical consequences of that statement. Which my first statement explains.
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Or are the mathematical functions merely properties of the physical? The same way that breadth, width, height are properties of a brick... the brick is not caused by those properties - they are contingent upon the existence of the brick... to be a brick means that it has properties of breadth, width, height etc.

    I think it is the causal nature that sideshowbob has issue with (unless I'm mistaken).
     
    sideshowbob and river like this.
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Yeah. The thing is, I don't discuss religion here, let alone the history of it.
    Plus I have never evangelised, because that's against forum rules. So there!

    Careful, your brainwashed conditioning is showing..

    jan.
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I've read Sitchin.
    Which part does your claim refer to?

    jan.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Let me start with the qualification that (as this layman understands it), when Tegmark speaks of numbers and equations, he uses them in an abstract sense.
    A simple example: 1 atom equals the abstract number 1, but 1 star also equals the abstract number 1. The actual value of these abstractions vary by the numbers (values) contained in the those single (1) objects themselves.

    IMO, our Algebra illustrates the abstract nature of mathematical relationships without assigning specific values. So, our mathematics are algebraic equations, using specific numerical values. Nature does not need these abstract descriptions of its mathematical functions, it just functions that way.

    A single brick is more than it's dimensions. It is also the number and weight of all the atoms contained within the brick. The atoms themselves consist of numbers of particles. It is the entirety of all the numbers (values) and their mathematical relationship (equations) within the brick that allows the brick to become explicated in reality as a brick.
    I am struggling with that myself, but when we speak of causal forces we still use numbers (values) to even describe the forces themselves. The 4 fundamental *causal* forces we have identified all have different values.

    Everything, everywhere, seems to be just discreet sets of discreet mathematical values with discreet mathematical relationships, which can be translated and quantified in our mathematical language with numbers and equations, a remakable ability of the human brain, but still limited by our point of observation.

    But Rhesus monkeys can count just as well as humans. They just use a different way of counting, like recognizing "more or less" of something. But one can make an argument that this is a rudimentary form of algebra.

    Also, a completely brainless organism such as the slime-mold can mathematically navigate a maze to a source of food. It does so by a cumbersome, but effective way of subtraction. First, it extends parts of itself into every opening it finds. When that is a closed path, it withdraws this (tendril) back to the main body, but leaves a marker, which signals a dead-end and is then ignored by the rest of the body. It follows this procedure for every opening it finds, until all dead ends are closed and only the open path to the end of the maze, where the food source is found and the entire body of the slime mold follows this open path toward the food source. Also a remarkable ability of using an abstract mathematical function, in view that the slime mold is a single celled amoeba without a brain at all. This may illustrate:

    Note the fractal properties of the amoeba.
    Another (in-depth) presentation:

    Gravity is a set of numbers (a field) with relationship to other sets of numbers, (such as a brick) within the gravitatioal field. It is certainly causal to the brick falling. It doesn't just do that by itself. Is that not the basis for Newtionian mechanics? Einstein later proved the inadequacy of Newton's theory at very large scales.
    Schrodinger proved the inadequacy of Newton's theories at very small scales.

    The geometry of spacetime itself is a set of numbers, measerements. A quantum event is an exchange of numbers, but with an aspect of uncertainty to us. But that can be due to our limitation of observing the mathematical function itself. But we know that the quantum function seems to work everywhere, except perhaps in Black Holes.

    Finally, i can see a clear relationship of CDT (*causal* dynamical triangulation), a hypothesis developed by Renate Loll et all, and endorsed by other physicists, such as Lee Smolin.

    The elegance of this hypothesis is that it is a background independent *causality* (using the mathematical function of iteration, and tends to support Tegmark's mathematical hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Write4u

    True

    mathematics finds relationships ; good

    Mathematics does NOT CAUSE RELATIONSHIPS between anything at all. Mathematics finds the pattern dynamics between things.

    Mathematics is a complex micrometer.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And why can this not be causal??

    Yes, Human Mathematics is the observation and translation of the abstract mathematical Nature of everything.

    When I visualize the hierarchical Orders from the *infinitely subtle* to the *gross expression* in our Reality, I look for common denominators, the abstract DNA of the Permittive Condition which allows for these hierarchical Orders to develop.
    For instance,
    A common denominator of all things is the abstract concept of Potential, in it's brodest form:
    *That which may become reality*. It follows that one aspect of the Permittive (zero state) Condition is Infinite Potential, the higher order of Probability and the Implicate Order. (Bohm)

    I believe this leads to the concept that all things in reality were, are, and will be preceded by a pre-existing potential, or combinations of potentials.
    Thus the abstraction Potential is a *metaphysical* Common Denominator" of all things.

    But the chronology of hierarchical sets of Orders requires a mathematical function.
    I believe that this leads to the concept that all things in reality were, are, and will be in accordance to a mathematical value, function, or equation.
    Thus the abstraction of Mathematical Function is another *metaphysical* Common Denominator of all things.

    It's not a question that the essence of the universe is mathematical, but rather if an abstract mathematical potential can become a self-caused causality.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Perhaps if you can show how anything abstract can be causal? The "abstract" is usually our subjective interpretation - our thought, idea etc. It is the actual (as opposed to abstract) that has causal efficacy, surely?
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So you can't read your own posts in this thread?
    So you can't read your own posts in this thread?

    Look, I understand why evangelists lie: they really have no other options when facts get involved.
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I don't see anything in post 514 that remotely resembles a "proof" that the egg came millions of years before the chicken. It starts with the assertion that you already proved it. Please spell out your "proof".
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    You keep asserting that. I keep asking you how you would test the "hypothesis".

    Frankly, I don't think it is testable - i.e it isn't even a hypothesis. It's just empty speculation.
     
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    I have the thought that it will rain today and grab my umbrella on the way out the door. That thought is an abstraction of the mind. Yet it causes me to take my umbrella with me. The abstraction causes the physical action of grabbing the umbrella.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Yes. It's made up. It may or may not bear any resemblance to reality.
     

Share This Page