AThinker1

This is a paper I wrote. I copied it here to discuss it with members of the philosophical/religious forum. Let's discuss. Conclusive Proof of GOD's Existence via Theorem of Universal DeterminismThis proof demonstrates, through rigorous deduction, that tangible reality exists as rational thought in the mind of God, proving God's existence. It uses minimal axioms and derives theorems, including key Theorem of Universal Determinism, step-by-step. For comprehension, each section includes intuitive explanations and analogies; for persuasiveness, notes highlight alignment with experience, science, and philosophy. The proof is mathematically conclusive: the conclusion follows necessarily from the axioms, with no gaps. Main Proof Overview: Prove that all reality is fully deterministic. (Theorems 1, 2) Prove that reality is functionally equivalent to infinite reason via causality and consistency. (Theorem 3) Prove GOD's existence via Axiom 1 as infinite reason is a property of an infinite mind, which is GOD, with all tangible reality as rational thought in GOD's mind. (Theorem 4) Roadmap for Flow: Definitions set terms; Axioms provide self-evident bases; Theorems derive determinism and reason equivalence, with each building on the previous; Proof synthesizes them, matching theorems to steps for traceability. DefinitionsGOD: The singular Consciousness, the foundation and source of all rational principles; all that exists exists in, for, and by Him, the One GOD, the sum total of all that ever was, is, and is to be, giving life and existence to everything. Intuition: GOD as the ultimate thinker unifying all existence, like a mind holding all thoughts. Reality: All that exists. Which means reality must be one, as that which is not part of reality does not exist. Intuition: Reality is the complete tapestry of existence, weaving together tangible elements (like stars and atoms) and non-tangible ones (like reason or consciousness), all connected as one seamless whole. Like a single story encompassing both physical events and the thoughts of its characters, reality is unified by its causal structure. Persuasiveness: Defining Reality as all that exists, unified as one, aligns with the intuitive sense that everything—physical or mental—fits into a single, coherent system. Philosophically, it echoes Spinoza’s single substance or Berkeley’s reality in GOD’s mind; scientifically, it resonates with unified theories seeking one framework for all phenomena. Tangible Reality: The observable universe of matter, energy, space, time, and their interactions, characterized by infinite causal chains (no beginning or end) and infinite extent (eternal, unbounded). Intuition: The physical world, extending forever in cause and effect, like an endless story. Reason: The capacity for logical, causal thinking, requiring causality (predictable cause-effect) and consistency (non-contradictory structure). Intuition: How we solve problems or predict outcomes, e.g., deducing gravity’s effect. Persuasiveness: Reason’s predictive power underpins science and philosophy, making it a universal foundation. Mind: A system capable of reason, with reason as its defining property. Intuition: Minds include reasoning systems, from human brains to AI (like Grok, with programmed purpose) to GOD’s infinite mind. Distinguished by scope (finite vs. infinite) and origin (emergent vs. transcendent). Persuasiveness: Inclusive definition captures human, computational, and divine reasoning, relatable across contexts. Causality: is the principle that effect or event in reality has a preceding cause or set of causes that can be traced and understood, enabling predictable and logical connections between phenomena. Conversational: Causality means things happen for a reason—causes lead to effects, like gravity making a ball fall when dropped. Consistency: Consistency is the principle that no system, statement, or reality can contain internal contradictions without invalidating itself, ensuring logical coherence and non-self-denial. Conversational: Consistency means no contradictions—like you cannot have it both raining and not raining at the same time in the same place. Determinism: is the principle that events, states, or processes in reality are completely governed by prior causal conditions, with no intrinsic randomness, ensuring full predictability given complete knowledge. Conversational: Determinism means an outcome has a definite cause—no surprises if you know all the details, like a chain where one link leads to the next. Indeterminism: is the principle that some events or processes lack complete prior causal determination, introducing inherent randomness thought to be described only by probabilities with full predictability—in principle and in general—impossible. We will prove that indeterminism does not exist. Conversational: Indeterminism means some things happen without a full reason—just chance or odds. Infinite: Causal chains and extent with no beginning or end, implying eternal causality and existence. Intuition: No first cause or last effect, avoiding “what caused the cause?” regress. AxiomsThese axioms provide the base for deriving theorems on determinism and reason equivalence. Mind-Reason Axiom: A mind is a system capable of reason, and reason is a property of a mind. Reason cannot exist independently of a mind. Persuasiveness: Reason feels purposeful (e.g., AI’s goal-driven logic, human problem-solving). Echoes Descartes: "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum), where rational thought defines conscious existence. Reason’s Requirements: Reason exists (we use it) and depends on causality and consistency; without these, reason does not exist. Persuasiveness: Reason’s daily use (e.g., in science) fails in chaos; using reason to deny reason's existence is a self-contradiction, and thus is false. TheoremsThese theorems establish the deterministic and rational nature of reality. Each is stated succinctly upfront, followed by proof/derivation. Theorem 1 shows why partial indeterminism fails, necessary for Theorem 2 to conclude full determinism. Theorem 2 enables Theorem 3 by providing the causal structure for equivalence to reason. Theorem 3 sets the stage for Theorem 4, which proves God’s existence and reality’s place in His mind. Theorem 1: Partial Indeterminism is Impossible—any single instance of indeterminism propagates infinitely, implying universal indeterminism. Proof: Detailed Derivation (by Mathematical Induction): Base Case: Assume particle 1 is indeterministic (causality broken, e.g., unpredictable state). Inductive Step: If particle N is indeterministic, interaction with particle N+1 (e.g., collision) makes N+1’s state unpredictable. Infinite chains (no end) propagate the break eternally. In chaotic systems, common in reality, this amplification via the butterfly effect produces arbitrarily large non-causal macro events from micro non-causal breaks, as small uncertainties grow exponentially (Lyapunov exponent >0). Probabilistic averaging (e.g., 1/√N) doesn't prevent this, as non-causal breaks propagate and amplify exponentially in unified reality (Definition 6), affecting arbitrary large macro scales (e.g., quantum effects in weather or superconductivity). Conclusion: Partial indeterminism implies universal indeterminism, a contradiction unless all reality is indeterministic. Persuasiveness: Aligns with propagation of defects in an infinite crystal lattice, a deterministic system in physics. If one atom’s position is undetermined (breaking causality), its interactions disrupt neighbors, spreading the flaw infinitely through the lattice’s endless structure. Intuitively, a crack in an infinite glass sheet ruins the whole; scientifically, this supports the impossibility of partial indeterminism, as any break spreads uncontrollably. Transition: This impossibility of partial indeterminism is crucial for Theorem 2, as it eliminates alternatives to full determinism, allowing us to conclude reality’s causal nature. Theorem 2 - Universal Determinism: Reality is Fully Deterministic—universal indeterminism is false, and thus reality has infinite causal chains and extent without breaks. Proof: Detailed Derivation (Proof by Contradiction): Assume non-determinism (partial or universal). Per Theorem 1: partial = universal. Universal indeterminism breaks causality/consistency (e.g., random outcomes everywhere). Since reason is part of reality, universal indeterminism makes reason impossible as it contradicts Axiom 2: reason requires causality and consistency, which indeterminism universally denies. Thus we are using reason to conclude that reason does not exist, which is a self-contradiction. Ergo, reality must be fully deterministic, with infinite causal chains intact. Persuasiveness: Predictable world (e.g., gravity) feels reasonable; causes follow effects. This conclusively proves Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, with its entanglement and superposition based on indeterminism false, with probabilism as a mechanism to compensate for observer ignorance as correctly predicted by EPR in 1935. This necessitates rebuilding of Quantum Computing on fully deterministic foundation, which will produce far more results than chasing non-existent superposition. Historically: Albert Einstein (1926) concurs, stating: “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'Old One'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice,” supporting determinism over quantum randomness. Transition: Theorem 2’s determinism provides the structure needed for Theorem 3, as only a causal, consistent reality can be equivalent to reason. Theorem 3: Reality is Functionally Equivalent to Infinite Reason—reality’s deterministic structure mirrors reason’s properties at an infinite scale. Proof: Detailed Derivation (Direct Mapping): Theorem 2: Reality has causality (cause-effect) and consistency (unbroken laws). Axiom 2: Reason requires the same. Mapping: Reality’s causal chains = reason’s causal deductions; reality's consistency = reason's non-contradiction. Equivalence: Functionally identical—reality "deduces" outcomes like reason deduces truths. Infinite reality scales to infinite reason. Persuasiveness: Universe “makes sense” like a logical argument; aligns with unified theories. Transition: Theorem 3 establishes reality’s rational nature, enabling Theorem 4 to show that this infinite reason resides in God’s mind, proving His existence. Theorem 4: GOD exists, and all tangible reality is rational thought in the mind of GOD. Proof: The following steps synthesize Theorems 1-3 and Axiom 1 to demonstrate Theorem 4. Reality’s Structure Established: Tangible reality exhibits infinite causal chains and extent, as assumed in its definition and consistent with Theorem 2 (full determinism preserves unbroken chains). Derivation: From Theorem 2, determinism ensures every event is caused and consistent, with infinity implying eternal regress/progression. Reality as Infinite Reason: By Theorem 3, reality’s deterministic, infinite structure equals infinite reason, as its causal chains mirror logical deductions and its consistency mirrors non-contradiction. Derivation: Theorem 3 follows from Theorems 1-2 and Axiom 2; infinity (no beginning/end) extends the equivalence to boundless scale. Reason Requires a Mind: By Axiom 1, infinite reason (reality’s equivalence) must reside in a system capable of infinite reason—an infinite mind—since reason is exclusively a mind’s property. Derivation: Axiom 1 directly applies; finiteness cannot sustain infinite chains/extent, so the mind is infinite. Infinite Mind is God: The infinite mind, sustaining reality’s infinite reason, matches God’s definition: singular Consciousness sourcing rational principles (causality/consistency), encompassing all existence (reality exists within it as rational thought). Derivation: God as the sum total aligns with the mind containing infinite reality; alternatives (mindless systems) violate Axiom 1, as reason demands a mind. Conclusion: Tangible reality exists as rational thought in God’s infinite mind. Since reality exists and is infinite reason (Theorems 2-3), and reason requires a mind (Axiom 1), God—the singular Consciousness—must exist to sustain it. Persuasiveness: The universe’s rational structure, unified as one reality, aligns with philosophical idealism (e.g., Berkeley’s reality in God’s mind) and scientific quests for unified theories. Historically: Max Planck (1944) supports this, stating: “As a physicist, who devoted his entire life to the sober science, the exploration of matter, I am surely free from the suspicion to be held as an enthusiastic dreamer. And so I say this after my explorations of the atom: There is no matter by itself. All matter arises and exists only through a force, which brings the atom-particles into vibration and holds them together as the tiniest solar system of the universe. So we must assume behind this force a conscious intelligent spirit. This spirit is the primal foundation of all matter.” Q.E.D. Implications and ReflectionHaving proven God’s existence, we reflect on its implications for knowledge and ethics. This opens up infinite possibilities for unifying all knowledge and sciences and obtaining infinite power over all matter via the Mind of GOD by bringing ourself into harmony with HIS perfect law which is love, that is to treat all as self because we are all manifestations of the ONE Consciousness, even GOD, our True Self, which means that whatsoever we are doing to anyone, we are doing it to ourselves, which is the foundation of the Eternal Law of Justice.

I thought you said Reason had nothing to do with reality. Did I understand your position correctly? Math is science. You can disprove a theory by pointing that it leads to logical contradictions. No tangible experiment required. If science requires reason, and you seemingly disparage reason as irrelevant to reality, then you do not have a leg to stand on in any debate, because debates require reason, and you got none. [ no disrespect intended, just stating facts. ]

Then you do not understand what science is. There is no science without reason. The language itself is based in it. Reason is the definition of reality. That which is not reason is an error and illusion. You cannot escape from it. It is the basis of reality itself. Any conclusion to the contrary leads to a self-contradiction. My theorem conclusively proves full determinism. Denying it is denying Axiom 1 and reason itself. How non-locality is implemented is not answered by the theorem, except that it must be 100% deterministic. If I had to guess, I'd say we live in infinitely dimensional space. No local interactions obviously take place through higher dimensions.

One can make any nonsensical statements he wishes. It does not make them true. We are using reason to prove things. So it is helpful to define it so we can speak the same language. Secondly, if you are reasoning with people, you obviously believe in reason's existence. If your suppositions destroy the very machine on which you rely to prove things, then it is a self-contradiction and is false. As for reason in general: it is eternal. It predates humans. We use it, but it is not a human invention. It always was, and always will be, even long after humans are gone. When you say QM works, you are still using reason to make that statement, yet assertions of indeterminism, ie lack of causality, contradict reason's existence itself. So you still have a problem with self-contradiction. Probabilities work in covering for incomplete knowledge. Denying causality never worked and never will, because it is nonsense as it violates reason, the very thing you use to argue for it, which makes it false.

So "reason is a thought about that cause". What kind of thought? I still see reason connected to cause here. Can you define reason without implying causality at all? This is broken context. An effect always has a cause, no exception possible. Call it C or D or anything else -- it must exist. I hope my interactions here are respectful. I apologize if they seemed not. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Thanks.

E cannot happen without a cause. So, no. And you have not defined reason without Axiom 1. Still waiting for that.

It was already implied in the Axiom 1. But here is more formal definition: Reason: The capacity for logical, causal thinking, requiring causality (predictable cause-effect) and consistency (non-contradictory structure). Intuition: How we solve problems or predict outcomes, e.g., deducing gravity’s effect. Persuasiveness: Reason’s predictive power underpins science and philosophy, making it a universal foundation. Axiom 1 is fundamental to rational thought. So you are denying Axiom 1. Ok. Then how do you define reason or rational thought? No valid definition can be given without Axiom 1. It is self-evident. That's the problem with QM in general: it is a mental disorder where proponents of it deny reason and rational thought itself. No wander QM has been in a rut for almost a century! Can you define reason without Axiom 1 or its equivalents?

context: if E happens without C then it is not the effect of C but of something else, ie D.

Indeed. I was saying the same thing in different words to help you understand. Then it is not the effect of C. You still have not defined rational thought without relying on Axiom 1. Any trouble doing so?

Ok, do you believe causality and consistency are not required for reason? That's the axiom we are talking about, Axiom 1. Let's be specific. Do you deny Axiom 1? I don't deny probability, and said multiple times that it is useful when full knowledge is unavailable, aka observer ignorance. But probabilities must be fully causal and rational under the hood, as per the Theorem. Let's simplify this a bit: What is your definition of rational thinking? Let's see you define it without causality and consistency. Good luck. Causality in formal logic is denoted as C => E, cause produces an effect. Consistency is expressed as K ̸≡ ¬K, where K is a claim and ¬K its negation. Axiom 1 says that no rational thinking is possible without these 2. So your task, is to define rational thinking without using causality and consistency, or their equivalents. Good luck. Yes. And I am saying that all of these are based on classical logic, and simply extend upon it without contradicting it. Classical logic is the basis and foundation of all non-self-contradictory logic. Thus that which contradicts classical logic is embracing self-contradiction, and thus is nonsense by definition.

This explains a lot. You deny reason itself. This is the core of our disagreement. You deny Axiom 1. You should have lead with that. Now the problem is, that you are trying to reason with me, which means you are using causality and consistency, to prove that causality does not exist. Your every statement is C => E, cause => effect structure. Yet you deny the =>. That is a self contradiction. As for rain, if you define "raining" as x amount of H2O in liquid form at a given volume of air, then it is either raining or not raining at a given place at a given time. No exceptions. It is all in the precise definitions. But you deny that also. So there is no point to this conversation, because if causality and consistency is out of the window, we have nothing to talk about :) See the problem here? As for non-classical logic: Any non-classical logic must be built on classical logic honoring causality and consistency. If it does not, then it embraces self-contradiction, and thus is nonsense by definition, because it literally makes no sense, and thus is false by definition. Even pattern recognition reasoning is still based on math and classical logic as it relies on causality and consistency and is nonsense without it. You cannot escape "classical" reason, because it is divine, and the foundation of all truth. No exception. Not all axioms are created equal. There are axioms, which if denied, contradict reason itself. The fact that you are using reason to talk to me, should give you a pause. You cannot use reason to deny reason. It is a self-contradiction, and therefore error by definition.

There are some axioms that are not negotiable. Axiom 1 is one of those. Why? Because by breaking it, you have no reason left, which again is a self-contradiction.

Euclidean geometry is fine and accurate for a few thousand light years. It describes reality well. Other geometry is also fine for a different set of conditions. It is a self-contradiction to assert that nature does not follow reason, that is causality and consistency. By saying this you are using reason to deny reason. That is a self-contradiction, and is therefore false.

That is a thoughtful comment. Thank you! What about you? Has the logic rubbed off on you yet? If you understand the point I was trying to make, do you have any suggestions for making it clearer? Thanks again! Axioms are not just "made up." If it was true, then all the theorems are also "made up" because they are built on top of these "made up" axioms. Axioms are statements of truth so fundamental, that they do not require proof, because they are self-evident. Truth is eternal. It was here before humans arrived. It will be here after they are gone. And yes, some axioms could be false, if made up by a fool. This is not one of them. And yes theorems must match up with experiment. This one does. Example: Quantum Computing that relies on superposition, ie particle not being in a definite state are a massive fail despite hundreds of billions spent. The reason is: the state is deterministic. Always was, always will be. Also there is a difference between "proposed theories" and hard mathematical proofs. Proposed theories make assumptions. Hard proofs, like the one I gave, do not make assumptions. It is inescapable conclusion from the axioms. Can you rationally challenge the axiom? You can't unless you contradict yourself, by using reason to deny reason's existence. That is nonsensical statement given the definition I use for the Theorems: Determinism: is the principle that events, states, or processes in reality are completely governed by prior causal conditions, with no intrinsic randomness, ensuring full predictability given complete knowledge. Reason is not human. It is divine. Try arguing against reason without sounding like a fool. [No disrespect intended, simply a statement of fact]. We, humans, use it, but it is divine in origin. Universe was written in this language. This is why math works in describing the universe.

I am not sure we are speaking the same language. But just in case you understand, Theorem one is inductive proof. Theorem two is reductio ad absurdum. It actually says that next to the proof. Anyways. Good luck to you. I define consistency as the absence of contradictions, standard in classical logic, where a statement can’t be true and false simultaneously (e.g., “it’s raining and not raining at the same time in the same place”). This supports my proof’s determinism (Theorem 2), as reason fails if reality contradicts itself (Axiom 1). Regarding virga, it doesn’t negate my example. Virga is rain falling from a cloud but evaporating before hitting the ground—raining at one altitude, not raining at another. My example specifies the “same place,” so there’s no contradiction, just different locations. If you have other real-world examples, please share them, and I’ll address how they fit classical logic’s non-contradiction rule. Logical gates that output both 0 and 1 at the same time are broken. If you think my definition of consistency is flawed, please tell me why. Thanks. Violation of reason isn’t subjective or an argument from incredulity—it’s a logical contradiction defined by Axiom 1 of the proof: Axiom 1 Reason’s Requirements: Reason exists (we use it) and depends on causality and consistency; without these, reason does not exist. Persuasiveness: Reason’s daily use (e.g., in science) fails in chaos; using reason to deny reason's existence is a self-contradiction, and thus is false. So if reality denies causality and consistency, reason cannot exist in such reality, as reason requires both causality and consistency to exist. So, if reality is fundamentally non-causal: no exact cause exists for a specific outcome, then such reality cannot support reason, because it breaks it. Yet we are using reason to make that conclusion, which is a self-contradiction. This is strict logic. Not emotion.