A Mathematical Proof of God

[Kurt31416]

There are epeople on this forum that understand quatum theory! I am impressed. So the uncertainty principle-could it be that pi will always be unknown(exactly) therefore position and speed can therefore be known exactly and so the uncertainty isn't uncertain?

Heh heh.

A lot people don't know that you can leave the Pi out. You can just say it's bigger than planck's constant. It's only approximate as Heisenberg and others at the time said. You'll see them deriving it using statistics from the Quantum Theory itself, but technically, if memory serves. the one where you can steal energy for a limited amount of time the math doesn't permit it. Something about not being bounded from below, and there's no such thing as negative energy.

Well, there's always Planck's constant.

Rick

 

[Kurt31416]

OK lets hear it, the simplified version please - I almost fell saleep reading wikipedia.

It's the exact same thing as the movie, Back to the Future. Many Worlds, where in some Biff is the big businessman, some where he's washing cars and some where he's dead. A Multiverse. Everything that can happen, does happen, like the branches of a tree, and generally, youv'e on more than one branch at a time until you look.

Rick

 

[McBell]

It's the exact same thing as the movie, Back to the Future. Many Worlds, where in some Biff is the big businessman, some where he's washing cars and some where he's dead. A Multiverse. Everything that can happen, does happen, like the branches of a tree, and generally, youv'e on more than one branch at a time until you look.

Rick

Now thats a thought that can make a mind wander in many directions at once.

 

[ghunter1]

HA HA lets all go to the pictures, its the answer to all lifes questions. As far as negative energy goes, how do ou know there is no such thing? That leads down the path of what energy actually is - well as far as we can comprehend what it is.

 

[darkendless]

HA HA lets all go to the pictures, its the answer to all lifes questions. As far as negative energy goes, how do ou know there is no such thing? That leads down the path of what energy actually is - well as far as we can comprehend what it is.

Why would we want to define energy as negative?

 

[McBell]

HA HA lets all go to the pictures, its the answer to all lifes questions. As far as negative energy goes, how do ou know there is no such thing?

Who claimed that there was no such thing?

That leads down the path of what energy actually is - well as far as we can comprehend what it is.

What are you talking about?

 

[ghunter1]

You dont have to, that comes down to the human condition - if there is a positive then there must be a zero and therefore a negative. If you dont however what happens to the mass energy equivalence? If there is no movement then there is no kinetic energy at absolute zero. So what happens to the mass enrergy equivalence of the 'material'? And how do you quantify it?

 

[Kurt31416]

Now thats a thought that can make a mind wander in many directions at once.

It's science laying down the law on the meaning of life. Or shall I say, eternal life. No matter what, Biff lives forever in some worlds, (and lives all the infinite number of possible lives he could live.)

Blessed are the Poor, for next time they'll win the lottery.

 

[Kurt31416]

Why would we want to define energy as negative?

You'd be able to prove the energy version Uncertainty Principle from the Quantum Theory in general, like the others. Until then, it's an approximation, and Pi is unnecessary, which was the point. (Putting the pressure back on momentum, distance, time, energy like God intended.)

 

[ghunter1]

Ahmen to that.
Maybe in one of those other worlds I did. Now thats a comforting thought

 

[Kurt31416]

You dont have to, that comes down to the human condition - if there is a positive then there must be a zero and therefore a negative. If you dont however what happens to the mass energy equivalence? If there is no movement then there is no kinetic energy at absolute zero. So what happens to the mass enrergy equivalence of the 'material'? And how do you quantify it?

There's no negative mass either. Mass/energy is what makes STUFF, like you and me, and from GR, it's gravity creates space itself. If there was negative mass somewhere, it would make space go away or something equally wierd/and or unpleasant.

 

[Kurt31416]

Oh hell yeah, you get another chance.

 

[Kurt31416]

Apparantly Cern is spitting out black holes that devour the earth. The experiment that would demonstrate that to us is if they can never ever, no matter what, make it workl. They'll be destroying almost every branch on the tree but one twig, this one, wher no matter what, they can't seem to get it to work, one excuse after another.

 

[ghunter1]

I know I am being a pest but you say there is no such thing as negative mass but going back to my earlier statement - positive and negative are labels we ascribed to 'things'. Energy, another label. Cern aint spitting out anything except what the sensors perceive. We interpert the world around us from what we percieve. Perhaps the assumptions and interpretations from much earlier experiments should be re-evaluated. You suggest that space would go away if there was negative mass, how do you know it doesn't? How would you know? How would you measure it? Is there a mass/dark matter equivalence?

 

[Kurt31416]

I know I am being a pest but you say there is no such thing as negative mass but going back to my earlier statement - positive and negative are labels we ascribed to 'things'. Energy, another label.

The word "energy" and such are words scientists have learned that if you ascribe to things, you can predict experiments. The notion of negative energy/mass doesn't predict experiments.

Cern aint spitting out anything except what the sensors perceive. ?

Not in the Many Worlds Interpretation of the Quantum Theory. It's the same thing as the Tegmark Suicide Experiment. (A very foolish thing to do, as Tegmark and everyone else says, you'll be crippled.) Except in this case, the black hole does a clean kill.

We interpert the world around us from what we percieve. Perhaps the assumptions and interpretations from much earlier experiments should be re-evaluated. You suggest that space would go away if there was negative mass, how do you know it doesn't? How would you know? How would you measure it? Is there a mass/dark matter equivalence?

No, dark matter has normal gravity/mass, that's why we think it exists. Rotating galaxies and galaxies rotating around each other give the ability to measure the amount of gravity, the amount of mass contained.

 

[darkendless]

You dont have to, that comes down to the human condition - if there is a positive then there must be a zero and therefore a negative. If you dont however what happens to the mass energy equivalence? If there is no movement then there is no kinetic energy at absolute zero. So what happens to the mass enrergy equivalence of the 'material'? And how do you quantify it?

Electricity is always a positive flow of negative charge. Negative charge is actually positive, but Isaac Newton got it round the wrong way

We do not describe energy as negative because you can never have less energy than we started with. Negative representations of energy are positive, but less than the original amount, ever done chemistry?

 

[Kurt31416]

We do not describe energy as negative because you can never have less energy than we started with.

'

That's a good way of stating it.

 

[Kurt31416]

From Heisenberg to Gödel via Chaitin



Authors: Svozil, Karl1; Calude, Cristian; Stay, Michael
Source: International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Volume 44, Number 7, July 2005 , pp. 1053-1065(13)
Publisher: Springer


In 1927, Heisenberg discovered that the “more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.” Four years later Gödel showed that a finitely specified, consistent formal system which is large enough to include arithmetic is incomplete. As both results express some kind of impossibility it is natural to ask whether there is any relation between them, and, indeed, this question has been repeatedly asked for a long time. The main interest seems to have been in possible implications of incompleteness to physics. In this note we will take interest in the converse implication and will offer a positive answer to the question: Does uncertainty imply incompleteness? We will show that algorithmic randomness is equivalent to a “formal uncertainty principle” which implies Chaitin's information-theoretic incompleteness. We also show that the derived uncertainty relation, for many computers, is physical. In fact, the formal uncertainty principle applies to all systems governed by the wave equation, not just quantum waves. This fact supports the conjecture that uncertainty implies algorithmic randomness not only in mathematics, but also in physics.
IngentaConnect From Heisenberg to Godel via Chaitin

At a party, none less than John Wheeler asked Godel if the uncertainty of the Quantum Theory was related to the incompleteness of mathematics. He wouldn't answer.

I'll answer, yeah, it's the same thing, two tips of the iceberg.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Something exists that is eternally beyond the reach of science, and
if, like Jesus, you call it God, then you have proven the existance
of God with the most formal, picky mathematics in existance.

This is the point of the complete post. But actualy it states nothing really extraordinary.
By the same statement i could say:
Something like a stone exists and if i call it God then i have proven the existence of God even empirically.

What use should i make of such a thing ? None.

Thats also one of the reasons why i think people that use the first cause argument as a way to "prove" god are somewhat "strange".

You actually didn't "prove" anything, you just defined it. And that definition certainly collides with the definitons and details any scripture would normally give you about God.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

This is the point of the complete post. But actualy it states nothing really extraordinary.
By the same statement i could say:
Something like a stone exists and if i call it God then i have proven the existence of God even empirically.

What use should i make of such a thing ? None.

Thats also one of the reasons why i think people that use the first cause argument as a way to "prove" god are somewhat "strange".

You actually didn't "prove" anything, you just defined it. And that definition certainly collides with the definitons and details any scripture would normally give you about God.

Sorry, we've all said it - He won't listen.

GhK.