Multiverse theory and god(s).

[Kent856]

But what is there that can be 'created'? Matter is virtual.

Matter is not "virtual" it is real. Even if matter exists because of a support process that exists on a smaller scale, that does not mean it doesn't exist in itself. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[YmirGF]

It does'nt matter in terms of the topic, which is whether something we call 'matter' was 'created', because we DO know that ALL of the mass of the atom is made up via fluctuations in both the Higgs and Quantum Fields.

I'd much prefer what @LegionOnomaMoi may have to say about that as your understanding is less than stellar.

Ultimately, there can be no separation in the Uni-verse, so the Higgs, Quantum, electromagnetic, gravity, and all other fields must be aspects of a greater whole.

Why? They could simply be complimentary or opposing natural forces. The point is we don't currently know and may not for some time to come.

Science is calling that 'The Unified Field', while it has been called 'the ground of all being' in the East.

Personally, I think it's more than a bit dishonest to marry the two, as if they were the same thing, but that's just me.

 

[godnotgod]

I'd much prefer what @LegionOnomaMoi may have to say about that as your understanding is less than stellar.

So your question was already colored when you asked it, so why ask in the first place? Now run along to your idol and ask him, OK? Scoot.

(There is some partial proof of what I am saying here

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

Why? They could simply be complimentary or opposing natural forces. The point is we don't currently know and may not for some time to come.

But we do know that the SOURCE for all of them is the same. Yin and Yang are both complementary and opposing, for example, but are unified into a single whole. The Universe is totally integrated as 'The Universe'. There is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. Is there?

Personally, I think it's more than a bit dishonest to marry the two, as if they were the same thing, but that's just me.

You really want me to be the bad guy, don't you?

Is the Unified Field considered to be at the root of all existence? Well, isn't 'the ground of all being' saying that?

 

[godnotgod]

Matter is not "virtual" it is real. Even if matter exists because of a support process that exists on a smaller scale, that does not mean it doesn't exist in itself. Wouldn't you agree?

No. The gross world is an illusion. But if you insist, then can you tell me what you mean by 'matter', and what makes it 'real' in your mind?

Were you to dream that you discovered a magic elixir which gave you youth, power, and wealth, it would be real on that level of consciousness. But upon awakening, you would say that it was merely a dream, and no such elixir actually existed. Now what if your 'awakened' state were also just a dream, but one of a higher calibre of 'realness'. All of your senses tell you it is real. Science tells you it is real. You can predict its behavior via its repeatability. But when you awaken onto the next higher level of consciousness, you now see clearly that what you truly thought was real, is just an illusion, and that the only true Reality is this newly discovered state of consciousness.

re: 'virtual mass':

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

Do not confuse form with matter.

 

[godnotgod]

You do realize that not a lot of progress has been made to validate the illusive Unified Field Theory, right?

As I understand it, currently the hot topic is 'Field Theory', because particles cannot exist without fluctuations in the field which surrounds them. IOW, 'particles' are the product of these fluctuations in the field itself. More on this later.

You could not exist without the field around you which we call 'the environment'. It sustains and supports you both inside and out 100%.

(BTW, that's 'elusive', not 'illusive')

 

[godnotgod]

Matter is not "virtual" it is real. Even if matter exists because of a support process that exists on a smaller scale, that does not mean it doesn't exist in itself. Wouldn't you agree?

"The basic particles in The Unified Field are oscillating and vibrating inconceivably rapidly, so rapidly that there is no apparent space between them.

The electro-magnetic oscillation is the groundstate of the Universe.

This continuous oscillation is so rapid that it makes matter appear to us as a steady state."

(IOW, all matter is the result of these continuous oscillations of energy.)

"The Universe is not a collection of objects, but is an inseparable web of vibrating energy patterns in which no one component has reality independently from the entirety.

Included in the entirety is the observer."

Paul Davies, physicist

 

[godnotgod]

I'd much prefer what @LegionOnomaMoi may have to say about that as your understanding is less than stellar.

Why? They could simply be complimentary or opposing natural forces. The point is we don't currently know and may not for some time to come.


Personally, I think it's more than a bit dishonest to marry the two, as if they were the same thing, but that's just me.

Mouse, I think you'd best watch the video in post #77 above.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, in either case, can we really call it a 'creation' in light of the Quantum Physics observation that the mass of the atom is the product of fluctuations in the Unified Field? All of this mass is virtual mass, so where is the 'matter' that is being 'created'? If we see none, then we cannot refer to the world we see as having been 'created', but instead perhaps 'manifested' or 'projected', which, of course, leads to other questions.

First, quantum mechanics involves no fields and no creations (or annihilations) of particles (or particles, for that matter). It is only by mathematically welding the formalisms of quantum mechanics with special relativity (and the mathematical "quantization" of the classical electromagnetic field) that one is able to even address "fields" in quantum theory, still less deal the creation or annihilation of particles, even those as "rudimentary" as the positron. Second, as for "virtual mass" or "virtual" anything in quantum physics, whether virtual anythings exist depends not upon whether we observe them but upon counterfactual indefiniteness:

"It might be objected that we can observe virtual particles, namely if we make a measurement while the interaction is taking place we will find some of the particles indicated by the Feynman diagrams...it does not follow that the particles we detect when we interrupt an interaction would have been there if we had not made the measurement, or were there just before the measurement."
Weingard, R. (1988). “Virtual Particles and Quantum Field Theory” in H. R. Brown & R. Harré (Eds.) Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (pp. 43-58). Oxford University Press.
And of course it isn't a matter of creation or manifestation or projection or whatever that "quantum physics" has shown us anything in terms of what is or isn't "virtual", but rather mathematical structures and timescales:
"In a sense every real photon is actually virtual if one look over sufficiently long time scales." p. 56
Feynman, R. P. (1998). The Theory of Fundamental Processes (Advanced Book Classics). Westview Press.
What we see requires optical nerve pulses triggered by incoming photons and interpreted by neuronal activity. Whatever we "project" upon or into reality consists fundamentally upon individual, consciousness. Quantum physics makes no sense without conscious observers, and thus in a very real sense the indeterminacy that quantum physics yielded was in that it forced us to include ourselves into the pictures, rather than consider systems as isolated from us so as to abstract mechanical "laws" that we then ascribed to hold for the very "things" we determined had no bearing on the experiments whence we derived the laws to begin with.

 

[YmirGF]

First, quantum mechanics involves no fields and no creations (or annihilations) of particles (or particles, for that matter). It is only by mathematically welding the formalisms of quantum mechanics with special relativity (and the mathematical "quantization" of the classical electromagnetic field) that one is able to even address "fields" in quantum theory, still less deal the creation or annihilation of particles, even those as "rudimentary" as the positron. Second, as for "virtual mass" or "virtual" anything in quantum physics, whether virtual anythings exist depends not upon whether we observe them but upon counterfactual indefiniteness:

"It might be objected that we can observe virtual particles, namely if we make a measurement while the interaction is taking place we will find some of the particles indicated by the Feynman diagrams...it does not follow that the particles we detect when we interrupt an interaction would have been there if we had not made the measurement, or were there just before the measurement."
Weingard, R. (1988). “Virtual Particles and Quantum Field Theory” in H. R. Brown & R. Harré (Eds.) Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (pp. 43-58). Oxford University Press.
And of course it isn't a matter of creation or manifestation or projection or whatever that "quantum physics" has shown us anything in terms of what is or isn't "virtual", but rather mathematical structures and timescales:
"In a sense every real photon is actually virtual if one look over sufficiently long time scales." p. 56
Feynman, R. P. (1998). The Theory of Fundamental Processes (Advanced Book Classics). Westview Press.
What we see requires optical nerve pulses triggered by incoming photons and interpreted by neuronal activity. Whatever we "project" upon or into reality consists fundamentally upon individual, consciousness. Quantum physics makes no sense without conscious observers, and thus in a very real sense the indeterminacy that quantum physics yielded was in that it forced us to include ourselves into the pictures, rather than consider systems as isolated from us so as to abstract mechanical "laws" that we then ascribed to hold for the very "things" we determined had no bearing on the experiments whence we derived the laws to begin with.

Oddly, this seems to be at variance with the clap-trap that Godnotgod is selling. Who knew, eh? Thanks, Legion.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Currently, the standard model of particle physics, which serves as the foundation and basis for all unified theories, is at best an approximation that, while clearly wrong, may be on the right track. This field theory is incompatible with general relativity and more generally gravitation. No unified field theory exists which is even testable, contra your YouTube clip, and most lack any predictive capacity. The unification of the special theory of relativity with quantum mechanics resulted in a quagmire of impenetrable nonsense. We couldn't even get such "success" by attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, as this has proved to be impossible.

 

[godnotgod]

Currently, the standard model of particle physics, which serves as the foundation and basis for all unified theories, is at best an approximation that, while clearly wrong, may be on the right track. This field theory is incompatible with general relativity and more generally gravitation. No unified field theory exists which is even testable, contra your YouTube clip, and most lack any predictive capacity. The unification of the special theory of relativity with quantum mechanics resulted in a quagmire of impenetrable nonsense. We couldn't even get such "success" by attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, as this has proved to be impossible.

Other than what science tells you or fails to tell you, is there something that tells you that everything in the Universe is interconnected as a single whole? IOW, is that something you just know for certain?

As regards the discontinuity between Relativity and Unified Field Theory, the following claims to have addressed that issue, though admittedly, I have not read it, but only picked up the gist of its message. You may find it informative:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2014103011560385.pdf

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Other than what science tells you or fails to tell you, is there something that tells you that everything in the Universe is interconnected as a single whole? IOW, is that something you just know for certain?

As regards the discontinuity between Relativity and Unified Field Theory, the following claims to have addressed that issue, though admittedly, I have not read it, but only picked up the gist of its message. You may find it informative:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2014103011560385.pdf

1) Your source not only fails to unify general relativity and QM, it doesn't attempt to. It states quite explicitly that unifying these theories has failed because physicists haven't given up on them as they should, and concludes "The electrical and gravitational phenomenon have herein not been unified in a manner as was initially envisaged by a great many researchers e.g. notably Professor Faraday and Einstein; were a reciprocal action and interplay between the two fields has been highly anticipated. No, the two fields here seat harmoniously side-by- side in a quasi-independent manner"
2) Nothing tells me everything in the universe is an interconnected whole in any nontrivial sense

 

[godnotgod]

1)....No, the two fields here seat harmoniously side-by- side in a quasi-independent manner"

2) Nothing tells me everything in the universe is an interconnected whole in any nontrivial sense

1) "harmoniously"*

(from the pdf document):
* "It is our feeling that a unified field theory of all the forces of Nature may very well have been achieved in the present installment."

2) Uni-verse

I'll go with Paul Davies on this one:

"The Universe is not a collection of objects, but is an inseparable web of vibrating energy patterns in which no one component has reality independently from the entirety.

Included in the entirety is the observer."

Paul Davies, physicist

 

[dawny0826]

Okay, so multiverse theory states that there are infinite parallel universes where every possibility is a reality somewhere. As for the notion of god, would you say that there is one god that presides over each of these universes, or that each universe has it's own god unique to it? Would you say that some universes have gods while others do not, or that none of the universes have a god? Or is multiverse theory false? Thoughts?

I don't know if the theory is false or not. I don't fully understand it.

I believe in a spiritual realm that we can't see, but, might be able to sense and tap into. I attribute paranormal activity to this and have often pondered the possibility of spiritual realities that exist in parallel to our own. I'm not Catholic, but,agree with the concept of purgatory. What if purgatory manifests as a parallel reality - a reality constructed for the purpose of spiritual learning and atonement before passing on the the next phase, after death? I've pondered if heaven and hell could possibly manifest in a similar way.

I accept there to be one God of creation. If there are multiverses, the same God created and interacts with them.

 

[godnotgod]

First, quantum mechanics involves no fields and no creations (or annihilations) of particles (or particles, for that matter). It is only by mathematically welding the formalisms of quantum mechanics with special relativity (and the mathematical "quantization" of the classical electromagnetic field) that one is able to even address "fields" in quantum theory, still less deal the creation or annihilation of particles, even those as "rudimentary" as the positron. Second, as for "virtual mass" or "virtual" anything in quantum physics, whether virtual anythings exist depends not upon whether we observe them but upon counterfactual indefiniteness:

"It might be objected that we can observe virtual particles, namely if we make a measurement while the interaction is taking place we will find some of the particles indicated by the Feynman diagrams...it does not follow that the particles we detect when we interrupt an interaction would have been there if we had not made the measurement, or were there just before the measurement."
Weingard, R. (1988). “Virtual Particles and Quantum Field Theory” in H. R. Brown & R. Harré (Eds.) Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (pp. 43-58). Oxford University Press.
And of course it isn't a matter of creation or manifestation or projection or whatever that "quantum physics" has shown us anything in terms of what is or isn't "virtual", but rather mathematical structures and timescales:
"In a sense every real photon is actually virtual if one look over sufficiently long time scales." p. 56
Feynman, R. P. (1998). The Theory of Fundamental Processes (Advanced Book Classics). Westview Press.

Bottom line: at this point in the research, does the math, which I interpret to be a representation of reality, tell us that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, even though we cannot directly observe virtual particles?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Bottom line: at this point in the research, does the math, which I interpret to be a representation of reality, tell us that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, even though we cannot directly observe virtual particles?

No.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'll go with Paul Davies on this one

Then you haven't read enough of his work. I've followed him pretty closely, in correspondence, in his work, and in his worldview.

 

[godnotgod]

Then you haven't read enough of his work. I've followed him pretty closely, in correspondence, in his work, and in his worldview.

Does that change what I quoted from him?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Does that change what I quoted from him?

No. It simply means your interpretation of the quote is wrong as is your understanding of Davies' position.