Mathematical Proof of God?

[wellwisher]

Its no problem, its well understood..

Just a note, the speed of light is only constant in vacuum. If travelling through various mediums gas, water, liquid sodium etc it's speed reduces considerably.

Around 23 years ago scientists succeeded in reducing its speed to around 38 miles per hour by passing laser light through extremely cold liquid sodium.

Scientists slow speed of light to crawl; research had Stanford underpinnings

When light travels through other mediums, besides a vacuum, we will get the honey bee affect. Honey bees do not go from point A to point B, directly. They will stop along the way to smell the flowers. This will take longer than expected to get to point B.

When light bends going from air to water, the second longer path is connected to the meandering of light among the flowers; water molecules. Light would be hard pressed to miss every atom in a dense medium, like it can in a vacuum.


Relative reference is well understood. However, most theory in cosmology and astral physics does not have a relative reference disclaimer, attached, so the layman does not just assume these theories are good for the entire universe.

The work around this limitation for the heavenly sciences is to use Einstein observation that the speed of light is the same in all references. If we used the speed of light as the frame of reference, for all heavenly science observation, we could say we now have universal theories, without the need for any relative frame disclaimers.

A few years back I developed a theory that the speed of light reference, was the ground state of the universe. I called it the ground state because the forces of nature spontaneously head in that direct. Gravity, for example, curves space-time in a direction toward the speed of light; more and more curved. The speed of light frame is finally achieved by black holes; time and space become points.

The forces of nature begin with inertial matter. As they act they will give off energy; photons, that travel at the speed of light. We constantly see a partial conversion of inertial matter back to the speed of light ground state; photons. The sun uses gravity to induce fusion with a lot of c reference generated; light.

Currently, we treat the speed of light like a ceiling, but is is actually more like the floor of universe, as inferred by the direction of potential flow via in the four forces. If we used up all the potential in the four forces connected to matter, we would have only energy and a speed of light frame.

Photons travel at the speed of light, but they also show finite attributes that we called wavelength and frequency. If use Special Relativity, and we traveled neat the the speed of light, all measures of time would dilated become. Photon clocks; frequency, is not homogenized by the speed of light. Photons are not fully in the speed of light reference, but have two legs, with one leg in the inertial frame; stays finite.

The expansion of the universe, by causing a red shift is there to lower the value of the inertial legs of emitted photons; longer wavelength means less inertial energy potential per photon. This is consistent with the speed of light floor; pure speed of light reference without any space-time addendum. The Big Bang was the ceiling of the universe and since then we are heading back to the ground state at c.

 

[ChristineM]

When light travels through other mediums, besides a vacuum, we will get the honey bee affect. Honey bees do not go from point A to point B, directly. They will stop along the way to smell the flowers. This will take longer than expected to get to point B.

Light does not stop to smell the flowers.

Yes of course slower takes longer than faster.

 

[setarcos]

Do you have evidence of this? Because as far as i know, dr Mersini Houghtons hypothesis had nothing to do with intelligent design but rather come conclusion of 3 observed phenomenon.

In answer it’s important to note prior discoveries in science which precluded the development of a “multiverse” conception of cosmological beginnings. From sciences religious beginnings to sciences current secular conclusions the concept of “intelligent design” crops up time and time again throughout the history of cosmology.

Whether inadvertently or deliberately in comparison to other hypothesis it inescapably pops its hypothetic head up.

From Euclid to Einstein …Hoyle to Hawking…Fermat to Feynman… the God hypothesis was there and has become increasingly and even militantly fought for or against.

Since the discoveries of the incredible fine tuning of the universe and the proposal of the big bang theory and indications that the universe may have had a beginning the proposal of the universes intelligent design or purposeful creation has been a credible question. A question that materialists detest and even refuse to give credence to.


I wonder why the consideration of intelligent design is so abhorrent to so many people? Here is some quotes from interesting scientists about God…or intelligent design…

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people.” Max Born

I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. Albert Einstein

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg


Never the less the question remains and a little perspective on the questions involved is shown in an interview done with Dr. Houghton for instance, whom you referenced, in which she apparently said this below shows why…


Dr. Mersini-Houghton says that the chances of a Big Bang happening by chance are 1 / 10^{10^123}, which is infinitely impossible. What selected this initial condition? From the Duke research blog


Roger Penrose calculated the same probability which she may be referencing here.


If something couldn’t be created by chance what is left? It would have to be intelligently directed processes or some kind of natural inevitability. Current cosmological efforts including Dr. Houghton’s are attempting to find/prove and describe that inevitable natural process which I believe is important and should be done. But not at the expense of refusing to acknowledge an alternatively evidenced hypothesis.

And Andrei Lindes hypothesis is based on hard mathematics.

Yes “hard” mathematics in which even God had a part to play. At least within Linde’s mind. Here’s Linde being quoted in an article from The Atlantic, Feb 8, 2021…

“I easily understood what Guth [ MIT physicist Alan Guth whose theory Lindes revised] was trying to do. But I did not understand how [inflation] could be done, since we have seen that the inhomogeneity’s [in Guth’s original theory] were large [contradicting observations]. I just had the feeling that it was impossible for God not to use such a good possibility to simplify His work, the creation of the universe…”

Italics added by me.

I have never heard of a multiverse theory. I have heard of several multiverse hypothesise though. Two are mentioned above

You are in essence correct. The concept of multiple universes has arisen in more than one theory of the origin and observation of our universe.

The “hypothesis” - since it is an interpretation of an existent theory - of what I believe popularized the modern term “multiverse” was presented by Hugh Everett in the 50’s. Known as the “many worlds interpretation” of Quantum Mechanics. And is the one I had in mind.

Then there’s “String theory landscape” which incorporates a multiverse concept in an attempt to resolve certain crisis in string theory.

And then of course the ideas of inflationary cosmology such as Alan Guth’s and Dr. Lindes revision of same.

To my knowledge the existence of multiple universes is pure speculation that is untestable or provable. Kinda like the God hypothesis Guth’s theory for instance is untestable. It is unfalsifiable and thus really doesn’t qualify as science. As all incorporations of hypothesis of multiple universes are to date.

 

[setarcos]

There are many independent multiverse models /hypothesis , each of this is independent in the sense that they are not mutually exclusive (2 or can be true at the same time ) and disproving one doesn't disprove the other.

Some multiverse hypothesis are just excuses to avoid theological implications, other hace their own merits based on science

Considering multiverse hypothesis are untestable and hence unfalsifiable how are they science instead of pure speculation?

 

[ChristineM]

In answer it’s important to note prior discoveries in science which precluded the development of a “multiverse” conception of cosmological beginnings. From sciences religious beginnings to sciences current secular conclusions the concept of “intelligent design” crops up time and time again throughout the history of cosmology.

Whether inadvertently or deliberately in comparison to other hypothesis it inescapably pops its hypothetic head up.

From Euclid to Einstein …Hoyle to Hawking…Fermat to Feynman… the God hypothesis was there and has become increasingly and even militantly fought for or against.

Since the discoveries of the incredible fine tuning of the universe and the proposal of the big bang theory and indications that the universe may have had a beginning the proposal of the universes intelligent design or purposeful creation has been a credible question. A question that materialists detest and even refuse to give credence to.


I wonder why the consideration of intelligent design is so abhorrent to so many people? Here is some quotes from interesting scientists about God…or intelligent design…

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people.” Max Born

I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. Albert Einstein

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg


Never the less the question remains and a little perspective on the questions involved is shown in an interview done with Dr. Houghton for instance, whom you referenced, in which she apparently said this below shows why…


Dr. Mersini-Houghton says that the chances of a Big Bang happening by chance are 1 / 10^{10^123}, which is infinitely impossible. What selected this initial condition? From the Duke research blog


Roger Penrose calculated the same probability which she may be referencing here.


If something couldn’t be created by chance what is left? It would have to be intelligently directed processes or some kind of natural inevitability. Current cosmological efforts including Dr. Houghton’s are attempting to find/prove and describe that inevitable natural process which I believe is important and should be done. But not at the expense of refusing to acknowledge an alternatively evidenced hypothesis.




Yes “hard” mathematics in which even God had a part to play. At least within Linde’s mind. Here’s Linde being quoted in an article from The Atlantic, Feb 8, 2021…

“I easily understood what Guth [ MIT physicist Alan Guth whose theory Lindes revised] was trying to do. But I did not understand how [inflation] could be done, since we have seen that the inhomogeneity’s [in Guth’s original theory] were large [contradicting observations]. I just had the feeling that it was impossible for God not to use such a good possibility to simplify His work, the creation of the universe…”

Italics added by me.




You are in essence correct. The concept of multiple universes has arisen in more than one theory of the origin and observation of our universe.

The “hypothesis” - since it is an interpretation of an existent theory - of what I believe popularized the modern term “multiverse” was presented by Hugh Everett in the 50’s. Known as the “many worlds interpretation” of Quantum Mechanics. And is the one I had in mind.

Then there’s “String theory landscape” which incorporates a multiverse concept in an attempt to resolve certain crisis in string theory.

And then of course the ideas of inflationary cosmology such as Alan Guth’s and Dr. Lindes revision of same.

To my knowledge the existence of multiple universes is pure speculation that is untestable or provable. Kinda like the God hypothesis Guth’s theory for instance is untestable. It is unfalsifiable and thus really doesn’t qualify as science. As all incorporations of hypothesis of multiple universes are to date.

Of all the hypothesis concerning the how the universe could have formed, (i know of 32) not one claims or even mentions that a god was involved.

Why intelligent design is dismissed... Well science dismissed all woo.

To my knowledge the existence of god or gods is pure speculation that is untestable. Though the point with cosmological hypothesis is that every one is based on either current knowledge/phenomena and extrapolated (such as dr Mersini Houghtons that addresses 3 previous unexplained phenomena observed in out universe), or sound mathematics such as Dongshan He, Dongfeng Gao, Qing-yu Cai hypothesis which is based on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

Edit. I also think you need to learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, there are no theories of how the universe began.

 

[setarcos]

Wrong. You mean you wish they wouldn't start the discussion with the word "Wrong."

I figured someone would attempt to be smart behind here.
I believe it is indeed possible to reference a single word as a phrase. Depending on its use. The "word" wrong in this instance had a period after it thus composing a sentence whose meaning would be expressed and assumed equivalent to the "phrase" "You are wrong." in the context in which it was being used I was not referencing the grammar, I was referencing the rhetoric.

 

[ChristineM]

Considering multiverse hypothesis are untestable and hence unfalsifiable how are they science instead of pure speculation?

Works for gods too.

However as stated above, these hypothesis must be based on current observations, they simply explain how these observed phenomena could have developed.

Or they are based on sound mathematical principles.

And while they remain untestable they will remain as hypothesis

 

[setarcos]

Of all the hypothesis concerning the how the universe could have formed, (i know of 32) not one claims or even mentions that a god was involved.

Wrong. Lol. The God hypothesis. Used as an explanation of certain observed phenomena like the fine tuning of the universe. Necessarily one would expect there to be far fewer intelligent design theories than naturalistic theories since the hypothesis only addresses the what not the how.

Why intelligent design is dismissed... Well science dismissed all woo.

You didn't read the entirety of my post. Its not dismissed outright. Its mentioned often and many scientists of PhD and Nobel prize winning caliber leave the possibility open. Its more a refusal to consider the hypothesis. Consider the various multiverse hypothesis. Untestable and unverifiable yet for some reason that's science and the God hypothesis isn't.

 

[setarcos]

Works for gods too.

these hypothesis must be based on current observations, they simply explain how these observed phenomena could have developed.

Or they are based on sound mathematical principles.

And while they remain untestable they will remain as hypothesis

Like the extreme fine tuning of the universe discovered by sound mathematical principles and observation which supports a hypothesis of intelligent design? Hmmm.

 

[setarcos]

Gotta go...its been fun. I'll catch you tomorrow maybe. Oh, uhhh, take care.

 

[leroy]

Considering multiverse hypothesis are untestable and hence unfalsifiable how are they science instead of pure speculation?

Disagree

1 in my opinion the bolzman brain paradox falsifies many multiverse hypothesis

2 something can be science and "not falsifiable " falsifiablility is useful but not completely necessary , you can have an unfalsifiable model and this model could still be scientifically valid and sound ...... for example the claim that humans and bannas share a common ancestor is unfalsifiable, but is still a valid claim

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is fundamentally not true, and a subjective religious claim. The 'objective verifiable evidence demonstrates that Natural Laws and natural processes are the cause of everything in our physical existence. There is no evidence that our physical existence is eternal or temporal, or infinite or finite. These are open questions that will likely never be answered. Based on our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics our physical existence is potenially. boundless, eternal, and infinite. Beyond this, any claim otherwise is a vague subjective 'arguing from ignorance.'

Actually, 'change' within the constraints of Natural Laws and processes is fundamentally part of the nature of our existence.

Existence can not have created itself because it would not have been in existence to do so.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Faur enough.

Okay... you ask for opinions on it: the fact that an official Baha'i publication would publish that nonsense kinda makes me think less of the Baha'i faith and its institutions.

It's irrational crap.

Everyone has their views but to me in this day we need to reconcile our differences and work together for the betterment of the world and the Baha’is have established a world community of people from every background showing humanity that unity is possible if they really want it.

To me I cannot fathom how people cannot see God because I see God in everything and everyone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everyone has their views but to me in this day we need to reconcile our differences and work together for the betterment of the world and the Baha’is have established a world community of people from every background showing humanity that unity is possible if they really want it.

The Baha'i faith is just another religion, sowing division and trying to win converts just like the rest.

To me I cannot fathom how people cannot see God because I see God in everything and everyone.

And I can't fathom your perspective, but I remember the Philip K. Dick quote: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away."

Regardless, you can be completely convinced of God while still recognizing that the argument in the OP is a horrible argument for God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Existence can not have created itself because it would not have been in existence to do so.

First, this assumes our physical existence is in and of itself eternal and infinite; which is unknowable, It is possible that the Quantum World which contains our universe and all possible universes is eternal and infinite,

Second, what can determine the evidence is that Natural Laws and processes are responsible for the nature of our physical existence. There is no evidence that our physical existence created itself, The evidence indicates it simply exists, No other cause has been found.

 

[shunyadragon]

The delusion is strong in you, say ot often enough and you will probably believe it. and i think you have your repeat button stuck.

Post 83 links to newsworthy fragments of various selected hypothesis and sensationalised to grab the unwary, they are not evidence of actual events which are as yet unknown. I told you this. I certainly would not call them references but links to popular media. This is an example of what i would call a reference

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Revisiting your second link, it clearly states.

About attempts to understand the beginning of our universe using different approaches to quantum gravity​

Maybe you forgot to read that bit.

The selective citations you chose do not make sense. There is no such thing proposed in science as spontaneous creation.

References provided. Again in your incomplete selection of phrases I detect an English comprehension issue. There is no dialogue until you read the references and provide references to support your vague subjective4 assertions,

See post #83 for the references you failed to respond to for the beginning of a constructive dialogue.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The selective citations you chose do not make sense. There is no such thing proposed in science as spontaneous creation.

It is an on-going research and the last word has not been said. What, if existence and non-existence are just phases of 'what exists'?
Why there is anything at all - Wikipedia
Why there is anything at all - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong. Lol. The God hypothesis. Used as an explanation of certain observed phenomena like the fine tuning of the universe.

Please provide one... Just one recognised cosmological hypothesis on the bb that says a god was involved in its creation. Just one is all i ask

Oh and the universe is far from fine tuned, only creationists say it is because it fits their agenda. Every object it falling into the gravity well of every other object, this makes the whole thing chaotic and held together only by motion. Of course you only see this on the human scale not the scale of the universe

Necessarily one would expect there to be far fewer intelligent design theories than naturalistic theories since the hypothesis only addresses the what not the how.

Eh? Do you actually know what a scientific theory is?

You didn't read the entirety of my post. Its not dismissed outright.

Only cooks and creationists say otherwise. They don't have any standing.

Its mentioned often and many scientists of PhD and Nobel prize winning caliber leave the possibility open.

Yet have not written any hypothesis to include gods.

 

[ChristineM]

Like the extreme fine tuning of the universe discovered by sound mathematical principles and observation which supports a hypothesis of intelligent design? Hmmm.

See above post.

 

[ChristineM]

The selective citations you chose do not make sense. There is no such thing proposed in science as spontaneous creation.

References provided. Again in your incomplete selection of phrases I detect an English comprehension issue. There is no dialogue until you read the references and provide references to support your vague subjective4 assertions,

See post #83 for the references you failed to respond to for the beginning of a constructive dialogue.

Bull, there are at least 3 scientific hypothesis on spontaneous creation, and they dont need your approval.

Condescending bull poop. No dialogue??? What the hell have you been rabbiting on about for the last few days. You are obsessed with getting your own way ignoring all but the minutiae you favour.

They are not references but links to popular media sites and are extremely selective. Its a great shame you mind is closed and set on that you personally favour. This is an unscientific approach.

And you still have not explained how you know what happened before the BB.