Uncertainty About God is Certain Einstein Once Said, 'All conflicts between science and religion have all sprung from deadly errors.' Let us consider the theory of God. I was going to put this theory earlier into the works, however, i felt it should be left for the end, when we considered universal Armageddon - it just seemed appropriate. The difficulty for theologians is that physics does not require a divinity. However, i am a Christian, so i tend to fight against the dogmatic and rather narrow view of modern science. There are a few scientists however that strongly believe that a God exists. Einstein was one of them. He often referred to God as ''the Old One'' - this term would often leave me in curiosity. It tends to indicate God has age about him. Perhaps the description of God has undergone some drastic changes over the years - because i would have thought God has no age... After all, He/She is never changing; now that must also indicate never ageing. So, let us break free of this - can we all agree on what God is like? If we take the biblical interpretations of God, we can make a consistent picture of his/hers nature - (now is a good time to mention that Einstein was raised as Jew - but he lost the Jewish faith at the age of 12, and picked up the faith of Spinoza's God - but the point i am trying to make in this book, is that, whatever God is, there should be correlations we can all come to agree on). For me, three words can sum God up rather well. He/She is omnipotent. God is also omniscient. He/She is also omnipresent. This sums God up for me... but, before we continue, let us agree on one more aspect. God knows everything. There should not be an atom in the universe He/She is not aware of... hence something similar found in the Bible, ''God knows the number of every strand of hair on your head.'' However, having a scientific mind, i must admit, we must change our views of what God could be - we often take the bible far too seriously. For instance, to say God knows everything, is where the first inconsistency arises, when interpreting God into the theory of quantum physics. According to the uncertainty principle, to know everything there is about matter, like the location or path of any particle simultaneously is unknowable. To know such knowledge would be disastrous for our universe; it would cause extreme violence. The uncertainty principle states that some of the particles in our universe are potentially volatile. This means that certain particles have explosive tendencies. Even an amount of 10^15 particles would be sufficient in ultimately annihilating our universe in one swift flash of energy, sending our universe back whence it came. So, the question is, can an all-knowing God be correct? To know the location and path of 10^15 particles at any given time would destroy our universe - God would need to be ignorant of certain atomic behavior. The second paradox arises when one takes into consideration when measuring an energy of a system. To measure the energy of any system, you need to be separate of it. In Relativity, it indicates that there is no outside to our universe. All that counts, exists inside of it. In just this case, how can anyone measure the energy of the universe, when one needs to be outside to measure it? To do so, God would need to be able to measure Himself/Herself simultaneously; now this might not be a problem if He/She has omnipresence. Of course, there is always the argument that God made it all, thus He/She should know what and how much ingredients were used, just like your mums Sunday apple pie. The third paradox arises in the wave function. The only time anything real can come out of the wave function is when intelligence comes into the picture. If God is all-knowing and all-seeing, then surely He/She would collapse the wave function for us? Indeed if God did, there would be nothing for us to collapse. 'I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, i believe there is a very close relationship between the two. Further, i think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.' Albert Einstein Most physicists should agree that if God is real, then God is what we call quantum physics. Thus all quantum laws would be the nature of God. It is His/Hers way of having anything tangible in the universe. Some scientists believe God is some kind of holographic entity existing as some kind of supercomputer recording all events in its data banks. If we where to believe physicists Barrow and Tipler, all matter requires the consciousness of God to exist. Nowadays, most scientists however use God as a metaphor, just to explain the unexplainable - well, nothing much there has changed after 2500 years. We where using God to explain the mystical back then, and we are still doing this today. However, as i have said, there are some scientists who entertain the God theory - like physicists Frank Tipler, Fred Hoyle (in some interpretations), Shiuji Inomata and Fred Alan Wolf. Fred Alan Wolf has an interesting description of what he calls God. He believes God is us - as he puts it, ''a spill from the giant ocean of thought,'' and goes on, ''that is God, temporarily trapped by the hologram.'' We often wonder how reality became how it is. From the simple seed, to the human eye, everything has the appearance of intelligent design. It was unfortunately, only last year or so, the theory of intelligent design was taken out of American mainstream teaching in schools. Though, some of us have no problem in accepting reality as a product of some superintelligence - whilst others mock the idea. Can we simply sit back and say the universe was a fluke? What about the fine tuning in our planets distance from the sun; including the fine tunings in the size and age of our sun or the moons gravitational pull on the earth? What about the abundant elements found on earth capable for producing life? Or as Einstein once put it... why should reality dance to the pipers tune? Superstring Theory says that particles are not made up of little point-like units, but rather made up of tiny little strings that all vibrate with different frequencies. A certain frequency brings with it harmony, the chords of life as we see it today. One could imagine that the universe is like a giant harp - with God plucking at the strings so that they all make sense. The music of the universe plays an intrical overture to the sonata of the observer. Parallel Universe theory can invite the infinite possibilities of a God. Perhaps an infinite amount of universes might mean, if you look through enough of them, in at least one of them might be Gods domain. And, as we have seen earlier, Hyperspace theory says that a twin universe might be curled up into a very small region of space in the hypothetical 6th dimension. Is this where the heavens are? We need not concern ourselves about the location of hell - some interpretations of the Bible class that we are living in hell - but to be accurate, the Bible does say that hell is found in the center of the Earth, where it is extremely hot nevertheless. In fact, the Bible is highly scientific. Just there we have seen it putting hell into quite an appropriate place; since hell is depicted as being unbearably hot with brimstone and fire. It has also correctly predicted that the world was spherical - not flat as they once believed much later in history. Poor Christopher Columbas - it turns out that he was not the first to discover the world was round. The Bible also successfully predicts a beginning to our universe, and an end. We must also remember, the Bible was written in an era when science was rife. In fact, most of the Bible writers in the new testament at least, may well have been 'scientists of their day' - certain scientific knowledge’s would have needed to be known, such as astrology, numerology and geology (just to mention a few). And many of the writers where Greek. We know that the Greek civilization where highly intelligent. The Greeks were the first to devise that all matter was made of tiny little units, and it was from them we obtain the word 'atom'. They also predicted Hyperspace... Also, circumcision, a Jewish tradition as i am sure you know, actually prevents certain types of disease - thus it is a 'cleaner' way to have sex. Also, fasting has cleansing properties, killing bacterium that form is the gut (forgive me for being so graphic, but to grasp the amount of bacteria in our gut, the human feces is made up of over 50% bacteria itself - the rest, used, dead matter), not to mention extending lifetimes, as fasting actually slows the bodily use of energy - and thus stores it for a longer-lived life. The scientific lists within the Bible seem endless... For some people, God is the only way to explain reality and existence. For me, it is the only way to contemplate, not only reality and existence, but the fundamentals that allow reality and existence to be possible; and that is through consciousness. And here is the interesting part - there is only one unified consciousness in this world. Arguments of this fact have been brought forward by a few physicists and philosophers. The idea is that no matter how individual we feel separate from the next human - we are inexorably tied, as there is no separate consciousness or mind. One physicist called Ludvik Bass, who was a student of Erwin Schrödinger, shares the sentiment that there is only one single mind. So let's suppose that Bass is right; no two minds can exist independently, it would seem to suggest that our independence, our single-minded lives are nothing but illusions. Thus, let us consider this is true - out of this, i can begin with my description of God and every individual on the face of the planet - past and present. Hidden, though intricately woven into reality of the physical and non-physical is the realm of consciousness. I envision the unified dimension of consciousness like a gigantic sky-scraper, with each office resembling a human mind. This building however, is powered, not by the individuals that make it, but by a God. This God powers the conscious being - this infinite power is the essence of God, and he/she ascribes how much energy is allowed for any single human being. We never leave this unit of unified consciousness - we are only under the illusion that we are somehow independent and separate to the next observer... and this delusion of the mind is brought about by awareness - brought about by life itself. The Bible itself informs us that we are somehow separate of the 'netherworld' of God, and that when we die, we return to the God of the heavens... in much the same sense, death would be like awakening from a dream... an illusion of sorts, that the world we had been experiencing was nothing more than Gods dreaming mind. Let's now finish this part on Einstien’s response to question we are all asked at least once in our lifetimes. In response to a telegrammed question, 'do you believe God? Stop.' Einstein replied in 25 German words; 'I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.'
Einstein's view of God is almost indistinguishable from atheism. I don't blame you for misunderstanding, it's a common mistake. “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever...This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
This is pantheism, where the term "God" can be subtsituted with "Nature". I.e. The universe obeys natural laws. Spinoza was a strong proponent of determinism. It's not difficult to see why Einstein liked that view of a god since it fitted well and did not conflict with a scientific approach to a deterministic universe, e.g. "God".
I can agree that God is omnicient and omnipotent but because but are necessary for God to be indominable but omipresent has no purpose toward the idea of God not to mention I don't think it's biblicaly supported. The uncertainty principle is often explained as the statement that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum, and vice versa—i.e., that the uncertainty principle is a manifestation of the observer effect. We can not necessarily say that God has to have a certain amount of ignorance. The principle is is the result of (bear with me.) one object in this universe observing another object in this universe. There is a commonality and a mathematical relation as a result that there (even in observation) is a transfer and thus disturbance. However we now get to this idea of God being omnipresent. The bible states implicitly that the location of God is in the heavens. In fact before the universe and the heavens existed God was, and further Jesus was stated to be with God and the first born of creation even before the heavens thus God proved to be litteraly an enviorment for which Jesus to dewell, His own universe completely self sufficient in every way. Equiped with this understanding now we address the relationship this presents to the God theory. The observance from a bible prinicplely would suggest the nautre of his knowledge is not limmited to this universe but exceeds this universe, further the relationship is not an internal universal commonality it is actually an external relationship. Lets say this premise of observation is like a phone with local and long distance service. Those in your calling area are on your plan and unlimmited however there is a limmit to your long distance. Dialing number sequenes on both sides can be the same with the exception of a dial out number. Some of the laws which govern this universe are indeed known and are mathematical however nothing is known about the about the external enviorment to the universe although there is an healthy amount of speculation that conjurs a phenonmenon of similiar to the flucating "foam" of the Planck Era from which many universes could have bubbled forth. In any case new thinking is required to understand this external observation on this universe, if some sort of transformer of energy is necessary to make the transition. I'd be intrested if you developed thoughts exploring that premise. 'I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, i believe there is a very close relationship between the two. Further, i think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.' Albert Einstein I concur. The two principles are disassocated socially however both have much in common. Exploring Science is understanding what has been created not attempting to explain it's existance through mere divine intervention. Anyone who applies this reasoning would equate to a bible thumper.
Saq What do you mean mate by: ''In any case new thinking is required to understand this external observation on this universe, if some sort of transformer of energy is necessary to make the transition. ''
Well I've never been a fan of understanding the principle but from what I understand that there is an influcence from the observer to the observed. I take that to mean that there is somehow a transefer of energy to alters the measurement. The uncertainty principle is often explained as the statement that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum, and vice versa—i.e., that the uncertainty principle is a manifestation of the observer effect. If I've understood this right. The question is... From what we know biblicaly about God there is no external dependance. No cause and effect relation that's why there's no way to track God. If there were...he would have an effect in the way the hisenberg uncertainty priciple would describe and thus he would have to be "ignorant" to a degree. but that defies what some have accepted about the very nature of a god. So how we can apply this principle to that which is independent of the same universal laws? How can we be sure there is any realtive connection at all. If there were then that makes God trackable...in a sense.
Yes, the uncertainty principle is a consequence of the observer effect. There might be energy we need to use when we make a measurement, but it is an intruiging thought that there is some enegy transfer.
Have you ever thought about how light behaves? The whole particle wave problem? I think this is related.
It's related in the sense that a wave is reduced to a particle only upon observation -- the only problem is that there can be natural collapses. The same goes for a natural determination inside the atom using uncertainty when an electron around a nucleus is reduced from ever falling into the neutrons and protons. However, despite this, is goes to reason that we need to ask why the observer effect has the profound influences on reality that it does... and why uncertainty is something which consciousness is foribidden to resolve. One answer, which may be heavily debated around here, is that the fabric of consciousness is in fact macroscopic. -- but this is understandable, since it takes many quantum statistical averages to make up a single quantum event, such as our brains, eyes.. ect.
Too me this gets into the very nature of what space is. I've defined space as a particle continuum given substance by energy. I believe that light passing through the "ghost" or shadow of anhialated virtual particles is the reason why we percieve light as both wave and particle. I see it as ambiant richoceting energy off virutal particles. Now if this is true then even observation will cause a richocet of energy from multiple sources, from the energy withing the retina of your eye to the very EM that the observed object gives reflecting from the observer back. It's like echo location in water. The interference waves can come back multiple times and this may explain the seemingly random nature of quantum physics.
But particles and waves don't richocet off of each other they collide and anhialate each other when they hit.
Think smaller. or rather...don't focus that reasoning on the light wave particles themselves but on the medium on which they're traveling. Perhaps richochet is poor term for what I'm destribing. Let's say it this way. Perhaps we're seeing a strobbing effect. Perhaps light is allowing us to observe the very fabric of the universe when we see it's particle like behavior. Perhaps the photon is just the reflection of a virtual particle illuminated by EM. Do we not have to consider the medium's (space/time) effect on what we're observering? I guess what I'm asking is how would virutal particle behave in that instant existence? How do paricles namesly light interact with space/time?
The scientific community will embrace you with open arms for your insights. Publish now before someone plagiarises your work !
I'm trying to vision what you said saq. Is it like imagining a quanta of energy moving through space but effect by some loosely coupled particles like solitons... waves through a soliton aether?
I'm not sure I would use the term soliton to describe the effect. Let me ask you this how do you view gravity?
Solitons described wave of [[sub-subatomic]] particles that exist below Planck Length. Gravity for me, is probably one closely related to how Dirac postulated gravity. It was very strong at one time, but it varies in spacetime, [most probably to do] with expansion. So the Gravitational Constant is finite. It will continue to get weaker as more time passes, and will then soon be negligable. I don't think the graviton exists. Much like how Dirac postulated the fundmental magnetic monopole, i think that gravity is an instrinsic property of all matter -- a new kind. We say the graviton provides matter through wave communiction and substence. But i don't see it this way. Instead, matter generates its own substence.
