Comment

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 23, 2012 at 11:41am

First, all powerful is a term for theists, they believe in such things so its necessary to explain what that would en tale. If you were sub-quantum in size and had the ability to control the formation of all particles and energy and dimensions you might feel all powerful.

  Second, Science deals only with logic and math not philosophy and spirits unless you ask why.

Third, describing pi (with the current standard model ) is not what I was doing. I am explaining infinities exist like the number of digits required for the exact value of pi. And no nothing ever brings you back to where you began because we live in a four dimensional world, same place in 2 or 3 dimensions is not the same place in time EVER.

Fourth, deep space telescopes have seen areas of space where atomic numbers and the standard model are different, read American Scientific "TIME" issue Jan. 2012. We cannot see into a blackhole but it has been postulated space on the other side of the event horizon is just like ours. And Euler's number has also been proven a "only in our standard number" universe constant. 

Lastly the square root of 2 is an imaginary number like the number of Gods.

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 23, 2012 at 8:22am

"Maybe we should agree there is no everything, everywhere and all knowing in the broadest definition."

Okay, quid pro quo; let's drop "all powerful" as well, …or at least the word, "all" (which is synonymous with "everything")?

See? We're back to not having any god(s) needed.

"Theists only deal with physical and metaphysical ( or spiritual ) realms. Not that is not enough it is still not everything, but they think so. Science is dealing with quantum, sub-quantum, and math."

Ahhh… but science has limits to what it can describe as well, for good reason. Even though what science can describe isn't limited by only "quantum, sub-quantum, and math."

"We deal with the value of pi as it pertains to ( or relates to ) our physical universe accurate enough to give needed results. What I am saying is pi has not perfect ( exact ) value so the universe cannot have an end".

It depends on what property of the universe you're attempting to describe with pi. What property is that anyway?

If you trace the line of a circle's diameter, …you will eventually return to your starting point. That starting point will be in the exact same spot every time, even if it's impossible to square the circle mathematically. 

"And using this fact no pettitio principi or even a place to start exists to begin reasoning unless is defined to the laws of nature."

Without any reference to what observable property of the universe you're describing with pi, you aren't defining any specific "place".  Why pi? Why not  e or  √2? 

"Deep space telescopes have shown at the very beginning of the big bang atomic numbers were different."

Deep space telescopes can't see that far. There's a limit there too, the particle horizon of the observable universe. Anything beyond that event horizon can only ever by assumption.

"This means the standard model did not apply, this would result in an assumption…"

So?

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 22, 2012 at 11:57pm

Maybe we should agree there is no everything, everywhere and all knowing in the broadest definition. Theists only deal with physical and metaphysical ( or spiritual ) realms. Not that is not enough it is still not everything, but they think so. Science is dealing with quantum, sub-quantum, and math. We deal with the value of pi as it pertains to ( or relates to ) our physical universe accurate enough to give needed results. What I am saying is pi has not perfect ( exact ) value so the universe cannot have an end. And using this fact no pettitio principi or even a place to start exists to begin reasoning unless is defined to the laws of nature. 

Deep space telescopes have shown at the very beginning of the big bang atomic numbers were different. This means the standard model did not apply, this would result in an assumption...

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 21, 2012 at 9:50pm

"And I do not think leprechan boot buckle dust is all powerful…"

Which can neither be proved nor disproved, LBBD is just another god.

 

Here, I'll have a whirl using a similar disclaimerpettitio principi:

"The following is my interpretation of a the smallest positive integer, everything, nothing and God"

The God Theory of Everything

For there to be a god, it has to be everything, everywhere.

0 = 0
1 = 1
0 x Everything = Nothing
0 + 1 = Everything
1 x Everything = Everything
0 + 1 = God

1) One = the smallest possible something, no matter how it is measured, the smallest amount of the smallest metric = One.

 

1) One = the largest possible everything.

 

1) There is only One everything as it isn't possible to have more than One everything.

 

1) One = is everywhere connected to everything, always, everywhere.

 

1) Everything includes all possibilities and probabilities of everything.

 

1) Everything is all powerful.

 

1) Only god is all powerful.

 

1) God is everything, everything is one, everything is god.

 

1) …with everything.

Just sayin'...

I bet Deepak Chopra could find a way to make money off it.

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 21, 2012 at 7:49pm

Statistics works when dealing with nature, and quantum mechanics but not why. I am an atheist but I am trying to explain to theists if a God exists he must be by definition all powerful (all theists admit this). Being all powerful he must exist in quantities smaller than math or logic allows, In the book "The Emperors New Mind" by Roger Penrose he claims sub-quantum or collapsing wave functions create conscientiousness in our minds. 

And parsimony deals with possibilities and statistics. Math is sometimes perfect and sometimes you cannot say how a value came to be (why) π (pi) is 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825 3421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502 8410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823 3786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273 7245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305 4882046652138414695194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179 3105118548074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362 44065664308602139494639522473719070217986094370277053921717629317675238. Somethings are like the number of electrons in a carbon atom (not an isotope) and something like the value of π (pi) will never be known, and have no evolution or logic or parsimony.

And I do not think leprechan boot buckle dust is all powerful, and there will never be proof of sub-quantum forces just as there will never be proof there is or isn't a God. 

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 21, 2012 at 3:08am

The premise violates the law of parsimony, switch the term "god" with "leprechaun boot buckle dust", and it's just as (in)valid.

Anytime I see people trying to pass off woo as physics, I ask them for the math. There is none = it ain't physics.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page