Jump to content

Logical proof of a deistic "God"


martillo

Recommended Posts

The Electric and Magnetic Forces are undoubtedly “action at a distance” forces what cannot be denied. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. There's no other way possible!
 
The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:
Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Delta1212 said:

In what way are electromagnetic forces "actions at a distance"?

Basic particles like electrons and protons interact with other ones through electric force (Coulomb's law) and magnetic force (Lorentz force) acting at any distance between them without "touching". May be you could google for "action at a distance force".

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, martillo said:


The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:
Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization 

In China they have already such an "Universal Supra-Computer" Sunway TaihuLight calculating the biggest model of Universe described mathematically. But it doesn't mean humans become gods. Even calculating it for an hour only with a help of 10 mln of processing cores does not mean it. 

So it's not enough. There should be smth else 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Basic particles like electrons and protons interact with other ones through electric force (Coulomb's law) and magnetic force (Lorentz force) acting at any distance between them without "touching". May be you could google for "action at a distance force".

Maybe you should read up on fields and, in particular, quantum field theory. Science can explain these forces without resorting to magic or gods. So your "logic" violates Occam's razor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Maybe you should read up on fields and, in particular, quantum field theory. Science can explain these forces without resorting to magic or gods. So your "logic" violates Occam's razor. 

May be you are referring to "force carriers" in subatomic particles. I never heard about them explaining the magnetic force between common piece of magnets neither in the electrostatic attraction/repulsion of charged spheres in our "macro" world.

By the way, for me "Occam's razor" is not any Physics' principle or law and cannot be used to validate or not any proposition in Physics..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Evgenia said:

In China they have already such an "Universal Supra-Computer" Sunway TaihuLight calculating the biggest model of Universe described mathematically. But it doesn't mean humans become gods. Even calculating it for an hour only with a help of 10 mln of processing cores does not mean it. 

So it's not enough. There should be smth else 

If you create some Universe in some computer you will be the God of such Universe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, martillo said:

Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

Which "Superior Intelligence" created the "Superior Intelligence" which you chose to call "God"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, martillo said:

May be you are referring to "force carriers" in subatomic particles. I never heard about them explaining the magnetic force between common piece of magnets neither in the electrostatic attraction/repulsion of charged spheres in our "macro" world.

By the way, for me "Occam's razor" is not any Physics' principle or law and cannot be used to validate or not any proposition in Physics..

Where's your "proposition in Physics"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sicarii said:

Which "Superior Intelligence" created the "Superior Intelligence" which you chose to call "God"?

And which "Superior Intelligence" created the "Superior Intelligence" which created the "Superior Intelligence" which you chose to call "God"?

And which "Superior Intelligence" created .........

Edited by Manticore
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manticore said:

And which "Superior Intelligence" created the "Superior Intelligence" which created the "Superior Intelligence" which you chose to call "God"?

And which "Superior Intelligence" created .........

Yes, we could be leaved to that recursive questioning. The interesting point is that the question of how could be the origin of our Universe have the proper answer in that happened in a "Universal-Computer" when the "Superior Intelligence" decided. But of course rise the questions of how that intelligence born and how would be the beginning of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sicarii said:

Where's your "proposition in Physics"?

May be that our Universe runs in a "Universal Supra-computer"... The proposition of a deistic creator God would belong to Metaphysics isn't it?

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, martillo said:

May be that our Universe runs in a "Universal Supra-computer"... The proposition of a deistic creator God would belong to Metaphysics isn't it?

Deism comes from Deistic belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
 
The none intervention part I think everyone would agree with. Your god does not intervene or help anyone.
 
But
 
Can you explain just exactly what this god thing is you are talking about. Is it quantum froth, space or what. For something to exist it must be something even if it is undetectable by todays technology?. If you are suggesting a Universal super computer, are we talking a quantum computer in all of space and all around us or what ?.  
 
Space (Quantum Froth if you believe in such stuff) came out of an unbelievable big bang and then expanded. etc etc
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Handy andy said:
Deism comes from Deistic belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
 
The none intervention part I think everyone would agree with. Your god does not intervene or help anyone.
 
But
 
Can you explain just exactly what this god thing is you are talking about. Is it quantum froth, space or what. For something to exist it must be something even if it is undetectable by todays technology?. If you are suggesting a Universal super computer, are we talking a quantum computer in all of space and all around us or what ?.  
 
Space (Quantum Froth if you believe in such stuff) came out of an unbelievable big bang and then expanded. etc etc
 

We and everything existing in this our Universe would be some software entity of some "program" running in a "Supra-computer". Think we would be some virtual beings in a very sophisticated virtual "3D game". Our "God" would be an intelligence that have have created the program and have run it. I don't know which kind of "computer" would be, if a discrete one or analogue one or "quantum" one, etc.

 

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loop quantum cosmology is the more popular spinfoam model choice. In case anyone is interested.  Its tricky to learn as one needs to understand QFT. For example spinfoams is a type of degree of freedom reduction. (taking complex systems and dynamics and mathematically reducing the number of required dimensions to describe the interactions).

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beecee said:

 

Not really.....The BB theory of the universe is about the evolution of spacetime from around 10-43 seconds after t=0. Speculation has it that the BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam, not the quantum foam arising from the BB.

A future validated  QGT should reveal and describe in more detail this quantum foam.

 

Also obviously after your slip up, your unbelievability in the BB model that is well supported by the evidence, is because you have failed to understand what the BB entails.

You are off thread, but as you mention it, you and various moderators fail to grasp that space is not just an empty nothing. it is full of all manner of waves and particles, without which there is no space. Amusingly using QFT time dilation and dark matter are not required. :) . t=0 is not required either.

What I was trying to do above was to give Martillo who started the thread a chance to get of the hook, and develop some kind of Pantheist idea rather than looking like a complete dick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beecee gave a valid correction to your post. However LQC does have DM and the cosmological constant. Yes there is models that try to replace the two but when answering posts it is vital to make sure your responses are accurate and non misleading.

Try not to take corrections personally, in many cases its not the models your referring to but how you are describing those models that needs improving.  

Use the opportunity to learn why you are being corrected. You will find that no one objects to spinfoam or quantum foam. Rather they are correcting how you are applying spinfoam in your descriptives.

Accuracy is extremely important when replying to threads.

For example LQC avoids the singularity issue by applying effective cutoffs called the IR and UV cutoff bounds. IR is your minima UV is the maxima. They avoid any infinities by using these cutoffs in their mathematics. However those same cutoffs allow the renormalization of spacetime. However as we cannot quantize gravity we still have renormalization problems. LQC doesn't provide an answer to this problem but is still working on it just as every other related theory is also doing.

 Fundamentally LQC is fully compatible with LCDM, with the exception that LCDM doesn't address how the universe started as it is no longer accurate prior to 10^-43 seconds.  LQC doesn't address this problem either except for applying the cutoffs and having the bounce avoid the singularity issues due to infinities.

In other words LQC doesn't solve the singularity issues it avoids them with renormalization cutoffs.

Which is in essence the renormalization problem inherent in quantum field treatments. With the electromagnetic fields we know photons are discrete, we have yet to confirm this is true with spacetime itself.  Every attempt to show that spacetime is lumpy (discrete) has shown it is smooth as in not discrete. ( a means to learn the cutoffs in QFT treatments is to study  Observable operators and propogators which are not observable.

To be observable requires a minima of a quanta of action. The effective maxima in QFT is the Planck temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature

Relativity doesn't apply these cutoffs and won't until we solve the quantizing of spacetime issue. Though even if the cutoffs eventually get accepted as accurate relativity will still work as accurately. Within the range of cutoffs, that is the issue. Where do we establish the range where where a metric remains valid and when does it become invalid due to infinities. Spinfoam doesn't address this issue as a spinfoam uses operators in its renormalizations for each Hilbert space. In other words the external lines on a Feyman diagram. The internal lines being your virtual particles or fluctuations as opposed to an excitation.

To get a better handle on this read

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106004-useful-fundamental-formulas-of-qft/

I go into extensive detail on the operators vs propogators though I haven't done the path integrals for Feyman diagrams as of yet. (Still trying to figure out how to simplify)

 

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, martillo said:

May be you are referring to "force carriers" in subatomic particles. I never heard about them explaining the magnetic force between common piece of magnets neither in the electrostatic attraction/repulsion of charged spheres in our "macro" world.

In other words, your idea is based on a worrying level of ignorance as well as a total inability to construct a logical argument. Impressive. 

21 hours ago, martillo said:

By the way, for me "Occam's razor" is not any Physics' principle or law and cannot be used to validate or not any proposition in Physics..

So you think it is sensible to add any number of unnecessary extra things to a theory? So general relativity works very well but I think we should add some pink unicorns. And maybe some invisible gnomes. It will make it a much nicer theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2017 at 5:12 AM, martillo said:

The Electric and Magnetic Forces are undoubtedly “action at a distance” forces what cannot be denied. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. There's no other way possible!
 
The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:
Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

The portion I made bold contains hidden assumptions (1) that there needs to be a "Physics System" and (2) there needs to be a computer to run that system. Remove those two assumptions and your argument vanishes so you have no proof of any sort of god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I see nobody agree with my proposition presented in the OP of the thread. I consider the forum as a good representation of the scientific community and so I take all comments as a very probable response of the community to that proposition and that is at the end what I was looking for. My thanks for that even getting disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might venture that there is a god, but under a certain restriction.  I would also say that there are a near infinite number of other imaginary concepts competing for your attention, should you decide to indulge them. To say that they are imaginary is not a put-down, only a qualifier. In the model of everything existing within the mathematical Bulk, you have the possibility to think of them should you decide to do so, as an expression within the Bulk, accessed  by the phenomena of free will. What happens when you think of your personal god? Do you think of it the exact same way each time? Each perception is only a rough approximation, each approximation is a different alteration. Add in generations of variations since the stone age and I think you can see what I am getting to. The real reward here is that we can perceive these things, not that they are real, but a nice topic for thousands of years giving the human intellect a good workout. The development of these "intellectual lead boots" attached to our societies is a noble attempt of the why anything question, so the "gods" had their use in history, but it seems past time to take off the training wheels...we have arrived, the gods have done their job, let them retire in dignity...

Edited by hoola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hoola said:

I might venture that there is a god, but under a certain restriction.  I would also say that there are a near infinite number of other imaginary concepts competing for your attention, should you decide to indulge them. To say that they are imaginary is not a put-down, only a qualifier. In the model of everything existing within the mathematical Bulk, you have the possibility to think of them should you decide to do so, as an expression within the Bulk, accessed  by the phenomena of free will. What happens when you think of your personal god? Do you think of it the exact same way each time? Each perception is only a rough approximation, each approximation is a different alteration. Add in generations of variations since the stone age and I think you can see what I am getting to. The real reward here is that we can perceive these things, not that they are real, but a nice topic for thousands of years giving the human intellect a good workout. The development of these "intellectual lead boots" attached to our societies is a noble attempt of the why anything question, so the "gods" had their use in history, but it seems past time to take off the training wheels...we have arrived, the gods have done their job, let them retire in dignity...

I wouldn't disagree except to add that the OP'S aim of proving a deity (even of the non-interventionist variety) may have been to attempt to achieve one of the few things that we can (almost)  state as a fact that we cannot do.

When I was young I was taught that we each had our own guardian angel. In my attempt to indoctrinate myself (well they couldn't do it without our help) I actually made space in my bed for the slippery fellow (can't remember if it was male or female) .

As that book says (I think)  "when I was a child,I thought as a child....."

I was very proud of my mother who was a strong believer in Christianity until later in her life and told me close to the end that "there was nothing to fear" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if science proves that the universe is a mathematic equasion set, and if that equation set includes all various gods descriptions, then by default science would do as the poster wishes and prove the existence of all gods....and set accurate limits to their properties giving them "short range" effects on real physical entities, namely the brain that thinks them. The fact that they are irrational imaginary constructs means that they are "in the realm" unlike things that are not yet derived by the Bulk. These things are beyond sentient ability to conceive, as the Bulk has not made them available as of yet, the true unknowables. This sets an upper limit to present day sentient free will, but as the wheel is still in spin, stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.