Logical explanation for no God

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a consequence of Relativity that the universe, considered over all 4+ dimensions, is static.

Define change without time, ...

You try so hard to be a clever wit but only half succeed.

As interesting as your second comment might be, it has absolutely no relationship to the first (except, of course, in your mind). Parenthetically, attempts to envision change "without time" or, at least, 'before' the Big Bang is a thriving endeavor of brane cosmology. I certainly do not claim to understand it, but I am at least aware of it.

 

[Photonic]

You try so hard to be a clever wit but only half succeed.

As interesting as your second comment might be, it has absolutely no relationship to the first (except, of course, in your mind). Parenthetically, attempts to envision change "without time" or, at least, 'before' the Big Bang is a thriving endeavor of brane cosmology. I certainly do not claim to understand it, but I am at least aware of it.

I've had a bit of contact with brane theories and I won't validate them but it is certainly something worth reading. Much of it is based on string theory though...so...take of that what you will.

 

[9Westy9]

It does, unfortunately. If you want to call God 'nothing', you either have to be very Zen-like and that nothing exists, or God can't exist.

Only if existence requires material being.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've had a bit of contact with brane theories and I won't validate them but it is certainly something worth reading. Much of it is based on string theory though...so...take of that what you will.

You try so hard to sound like you know what you're talking about. It's alsmost charming in a youthful sort of way. Almost.

 

[Photonic]

You try so hard to sound like you know what you're talking about. It's alsmost charming in a youthful sort of way. Almost.

Ironic.

 

[PolyHedral]

As interesting as your second comment might be, it has absolutely no relationship to the first (except, of course, in your mind). Parenthetically, attempts to envision change "without time" or, at least, 'before' the Big Bang is a thriving endeavor of brane cosmology. I certainly do not claim to understand it, but I am at least aware of it.

No, the second makes perfect sense in the mathematical context of what a "change" is.

Imagine a circle, on a plane. Imagine that the circle starts some certain size, and as time goes on, it shrinks, until it vanishes completely. It might shrink faster, or slower, or possibly the rate at which it shrinks varies, and we can measure that quite easily.

But our circle only inhabits two dimensions. What we can do is to take all of the 2D circles, and then stack them on top of each other. You would surely have to agree that the resulting cone does not change? (And if you think it does, please say how. )

 

[religion99]

I have an interesting thought on a argument for God not existing.

Believers will say that the universe can not have created itself, there must be a creator. Well if you are admitting that something in existence must have been put into existence, you have to ask where did God come from. Wherever he came from, that entity or item must have also been created. So you can back track for eternity. This way you can come to the conclusion that it is impossible for there to be an original creator, if you submit to the fact that something in existence must be created. The universe is therefore eternal in and of itself

How about indifferent God(s)?

 

[atanu]

No, the second makes perfect sense in the mathematical context of what a "change" is.

Imagine a circle, on a plane. Imagine that the circle starts some certain size, and as time goes on, it shrinks, until it vanishes completely. It might shrink faster, or slower, or possibly the rate at which it shrinks varies, and we can measure that quite easily.

But our circle only inhabits two dimensions. What we can do is to take all of the 2D circles, and then stack them on top of each other. You would surely have to agree that the resulting cone does not change? (And if you think it does, please say how. )

Circle's radius will reduce till Planck distance and then will become indeterminate. So, the cone will reflect that.

:sw:

 

[Photonic]

Circle's radius will reduce till Planck distance and then will become indeterminate. So, the cone will reflect that.

:sw:

1/4 the planck distance.

Keep up with the current theories, Sir.

 

[atanu]

1/4 the planck distance.

Keep up with the current theories, Sir.

So you support me?

 

[atanu]

1/4 the planck distance.

Keep up with the current theories, Sir.

OTOH, i will be glad to learn more about this. I know/knew that gravity quantizes around the planck scale; and then there is no metric. Without a metric, how do you define length or anything?

 

[Photonic]

So you support me?

Well, what is being said is that information has a theoretical storage limit of 1/4 of a Planck distance per "bit."

It's hard to say. Given that you can't describe the cone in anything other than 1/4 of a Planck distance at a total minimum. Unless you are speaking in terms of pure mathematics, in which case you could technically describe it forever.

I believe Poly might be referring to a purely mathematical extrapolation of a 3 dimensional cone made of 2-space "slices."

Physics is not so precise as pure mathematics.

That is why mathematics is the only thing that can probe such a tiny level right now. Human technology is simply not equipped to navigate such an extreme currently.

 

[atanu]

Well, what is being said is that information has a theoretical storage limit of 1/4 of a Planck distance per "bit."

I see. Theoretically smaller lengths than the Planck length can be conceived. But we cannot measure physically or resolve theoretically anything with a λ shorter than h. It is a limit since metrics break down at h.

That is why mathematics is the only thing that can probe such a tiny level right now. Human technology is simply not equipped to navigate such an extreme currently.

This was a discussion in another thread. It is not about limit of technology. It is about unprovabilty of some truths within a strong formal system. That is a mathematical limitation.
...................

We, however, can say the same thing much more simply.

 

[Thief]

So much head game...no thought.

For the singularity to be truly singular....a second point cannot be allowed.
With two points you can draw a line, and immediately an infinite number of points exist between the two of them.

Infinity is simultaneous and coincidental.

But at the 'point of creation' there is only the void.
No light, no dark...no sound, no echo,....nothing.

So....science can't go there.
No numbers, no equations...no movement, no time....nothing.

Cause and effect?.....yes, of course.

We are here.

God?...yes, of course.

Someone had to be the First.

 

[atanu]

So much head game...no thought.

For the singularity to be truly singular....a second point cannot be allowed.
With two points you can draw a line, and immediately an infinite number of points exist between the two of them.
Infinity is simultaneous and coincidental.
But at the 'point of creation' there is only the void.
No light, no dark...no sound, no echo,....nothing.
So....science can't go there.
No numbers, no equations...no movement, no time....nothing.
Cause and effect?.....yes, of course.
We are here.
God?...yes, of course.

Someone had to be the First.

Thank you Thief.

I would generalise a bit and say that the first cause -- whether it is someone or whether it is something, is given, since we are here.

I contest the stand of some that the truth about the first cause can be known completely from within the system of the caused.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Someone had to be the First.

Close. Something had to be first.

 

[Thief]

Close. Something had to be first.

So now it comes to which came first?...spirit or substance.

If you say substance...
then you are the sum of your chemistry...and you are terminal.
No hope of a spiritual existence, as you are the result of your breathing.

If you say spirit first....
then I'm right...your wrong.

 

[atanu]

Close. Something had to be first.

The point however is that the nature of that something is beyond logic from within the realm of the created intelligence that science holds. And thus we can neither say that that something is intelligent nor can we say that it is non-intelligent.

But we can say, given the evidence of now, that that something's very nature is awareness.

 

[PolyHedral]

Circle's radius will reduce till Planck distance and then will become indeterminate. So, the cone will reflect that.

Regarldess of the impossibility of building a zero-width section, you'd surely agree that the cone is unchanging?

OTOH, i will be glad to learn more about this. I know/knew that gravity quantizes around the planck scale; and then there is no metric. Without a metric, how do you define length or anything?

The metric doesn't disappear at that scale. It just becomes rather useless to talk about.

For the singularity to be truly singular....a second point cannot be allowed.
With two points you can draw a line, and immediately an infinite number of points exist between the two of them.

Only on the continuum.

But at the 'point of creation' there is only the void.
[...]
Cause and effect?.....yes, of course.

Then there's two points already! "Now" and "next"

I would generalise a bit and say that the first cause -- whether it is someone or whether it is something, is given, since we are here.

Only if you assume causality. This is not necessarily a good assumption.

I contest the stand of some that the truth about the first cause can be known completely from within the system of the caused.

Then show us.

That is a mathematical limitation..

It is a physical limitation, not a mathematical one. Mathematics can deal with it fine, the results are just not physically meaningful.

The point however is that the nature of that something is beyond logic..

therefore the gimbles gyre in the wabe. "Beyond logic" is not a meaningful thing to say. "is" is a logical concept. Try again.

 

[atanu]

Regarldess of the impossibility of building a zero-width section, you'd surely agree that the cone is unchanging?

The first cause remains unchanging. The cone is however not that.

The metric doesn't disappear at that scale. It just becomes rather useless to talk about.

Word play.

Only if you assume causality. This is not necessarily a good assumption.

As if singularity propounded is not the substratum of the sprouted universe.

Then show us.

No point in showing to you. It has been shown umpteen times.

therefore the gimbles gyre in the wabe. "Beyond logic" is not a meaningful thing to say. "is" is a logical concept. Try again.

Word play.