Logical proof of a deistic "God"

[mistermack]

Electric and magnetic forces are action at a distance? 

Not really. They are action over a distance and time. The action takes time, even if it is fast. Not so different from throwing a stone.

You throw the stone. Time elapses and the stone travels. The window breaks. 

So I wouldn't call it action at a distance. It's action...-process over distance and time....-reaction. 

How that jumps to there being a god hasn't been explained. Why can't the laws of physics exist without a god? Just claiming that it is so isn't very good logic. Logic involves explaining how you get from one statement to the next, and why it has to be so.

[Handy andy]

On ‎07‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 8:15 PM, Mordred said:

Beecee gave a valid correction to your post. However LQC does have DM and the cosmological constant. Yes there is models that try to replace the two but when answering posts it is vital to make sure your responses are accurate and non misleading.

Try not to take corrections personally, in many cases its not the models your referring to but how you are describing those models that needs improving.  

Use the opportunity to learn why you are being corrected. You will find that no one objects to spinfoam or quantum foam. Rather they are correcting how you are applying spinfoam in your descriptives.

Accuracy is extremely important when replying to threads.

For example LQC avoids the singularity issue by applying effective cutoffs called the IR and UV cutoff bounds. IR is your minima UV is the maxima. They avoid any infinities by using these cutoffs in their mathematics. However those same cutoffs allow the renormalization of spacetime. However as we cannot quantize gravity we still have renormalization problems. LQC doesn't provide an answer to this problem but is still working on it just as every other related theory is also doing.

 Fundamentally LQC is fully compatible with LCDM, with the exception that LCDM doesn't address how the universe started as it is no longer accurate prior to 10^-43 seconds.  LQC doesn't address this problem either except for applying the cutoffs and having the bounce avoid the singularity issues due to infinities.

In other words LQC doesn't solve the singularity issues it avoids them with renormalization cutoffs.

Which is in essence the renormalization problem inherent in quantum field treatments. With the electromagnetic fields we know photons are discrete, we have yet to confirm this is true with spacetime itself.  Every attempt to show that spacetime is lumpy (discrete) has shown it is smooth as in not discrete. ( a means to learn the cutoffs in QFT treatments is to study  Observable operators and propogators which are not observable.

To be observable requires a minima of a quanta of action. The effective maxima in QFT is the Planck temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature

Relativity doesn't apply these cutoffs and won't until we solve the quantizing of spacetime issue. Though even if the cutoffs eventually get accepted as accurate relativity will still work as accurately. Within the range of cutoffs, that is the issue. Where do we establish the range where where a metric remains valid and when does it become invalid due to infinities. Spinfoam doesn't address this issue as a spinfoam uses operators in its renormalizations for each Hilbert space. In other words the external lines on a Feyman diagram. The internal lines being your virtual particles or fluctuations as opposed to an excitation.

To get a better handle on this read

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106004-useful-fundamental-formulas-of-qft/

I go into extensive detail on the operators vs propogators though I haven't done the path integrals for Feyman diagrams as of yet. (Still trying to figure out how to simplify)

 

 

I take nothing personally  Thank you for taking the time to reply, contrary to popular belief I am learning.  

I have problems believing in gods, singularities, time travel, and a single big bang as the origins of all matter in the universe.

I also have problems with gravitons radiating from particles in black holes for instance causing things to be pulled in. A contraction or absorption of space towards a mass seems more logical rather than a particle transmitting a force. Quantum foam fits this idea I think, I still need to study your links above, and I need some time to really sit down and get to grips with it.

Matter when it is compressed is heated and eventually breaks down and can decay into antimatter and matter. Black holes emit gamma ray bursts, which may be due to this process. The concept of a single big bang giving rise to all the galaxies in the universe, seems a little bizarre. There lots of galaxies assumed to have black holes at the centre. Supernovae maybe a small version of a big bang but driven by matter antimatter collisions. If each galaxy has a black hole in the middle, then it is possible that the contraction of space in a galaxy in the black hole results in a big bang which starts the whole process over again of recreating galaxies, a kind of rebirth or recycling,(this is the religious forum).

Martillo's deist idea of god interested me but lacked range, and clearly he was going to lose. The religious folk on the forum don't put up much of a fight and get mawled regularly I thought it might be interesting for him to try quantum foam as an Omnipresent Deist god, rather than a magnetic or electric field  

I tend to think in pictures, rather than maths or words although I do get by in multiple languages including maths, but like all languages if you don't use them you get a bit rusty. High level maths is like Latin spoken by priests, which few people understand. Good luck with the simplifications.

 

[martillo]

Handy Andy wrote:

Quote

Martillo's deist idea of god interested me but lacked range, and clearly he was going to lose. The religious folk on the forum don't put up much of a fight and get mawled regularly I thought it might be interesting for him to try quantum foam as an Omnipresent Deist god, rather than a magnetic or electric field  

I don't consider me losing. I just gave my thanks for all posted opinions in the thread even if all were disagreeing with my proposition on the OP. I appreciate all criticism but I didn't say I changed my mind or abandoned my idea. Is just that I could perceive that I would get no constructive income and so it doesn't worth continue the discussion.

By the way I don't think in a "Omnipresent Deist god" as some "electromagnetic foam" as you seem to say I do. The "God" I think does not have omnipresence nor omniscience nor omnipotence for instance. It is deistic, it had the capability to create and run this Universe we live developing the "Universal Supra-computer" that runs the physics laws over all the particles created in it. Of course he knew the kind of worlds and living beings that physics and particles would produce.

But it doesn't worth to discuss anymore.

Edited August 9, 2017 by martillo

[martillo]

Edited post to avoid misunderstandings...

Edited August 10, 2017 by martillo

[Strange]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

I demand Physics Science Community to present convincing experimental evidence of the presence of photons in all well known phenomena and experiments involving interactions between pieces of charged objects, pieces of magnets, wires and inside of all kind of running electric motors.

Maxwell's equations describe the electric and magnetic fields, which remove the problem of action at a distance. 

Special relativity unified these into a single field. 

Planck (to explain the black body spectrum) and Einstein (to explain the photoelectric effect is quantised) showed that the electromagnetic field is quantised. 

The fact that quantum field theory works is all the evidence you need. 

You should probably learn a little history of science as well as some basic physics. 

But there are no photons present in the interactions you describe; only virtual photons which are completely different things. 

[swansont]

On 8/7/2017 at 4:49 AM, Handy andy said:

 

But

 

Can you explain just exactly what this god thing is you are talking about. Is it quantum froth, space or what. For something to exist it must be something even if it is undetectable by todays technology?. If you are suggesting a Universal super computer, are we talking a quantum computer in all of space and all around us or what ?.  

 

Space (Quantum Froth if you believe in such stuff) came out of an unbelievable big bang and then expanded. etc etc

 

!

Moderator Note

STOP BRINGING UP YOUR DISSATISFACTION WITH MAINSTREAM SCIENCE IN OTHER PEOPLES' THREADS

 

!

Moderator Note

I have split some OT posts to the trash can. If you are not discussing the OP or directing questions to the OP, you are hijacking. You do not get to raise new issues in someone else's thread. Take it somewhere else.

Everyone involved has been here long enough to know this.

 

 

[martillo]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Maxwell's equations describe the electric and magnetic fields, which remove the problem of action at a distance. 

Special relativity unified these into a single field. 

Planck (to explain the black body spectrum) and Einstein (to explain the photoelectric effect is quantised) showed that the electromagnetic field is quantised. 

The fact that quantum field theory works is all the evidence you need. 

You should probably learn a little history of science as well as some basic physics. 

But there are no photons present in the interactions you describe; only virtual photons which are completely different things. 

Well, actually it was my mistake, someone in other forum talked about photons as "force carriers" leaving me with a serious misunderstanding so I deleted the content of the post.

So, experimentally undetectable "virtual particles" in spite of "action at a distance" concept... I wonder which would be more strange...

Edited August 10, 2017 by martillo

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, martillo said:

I wonder which would be more strange...

What you, or anyone else, think is strange or unbelievable is completely irrelevant both to science and to your illogical argument for god. 

"I don't understand physics therefore god must exist"

"I think the conclusions of science are strange therefore god"

Neither of these is a logical (or even rational) argument. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Strange

[martillo]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

What you, or anyone else, think is strange or unbelievable is completely irrelevant both to science and to your illogical argument for god. 

"I don't understand physics therefore god must exist"

"I think the conclusions of science are strange therefore god"

Neither of these is a logical (or even rational) argument. 

I don't think that way. For "I wonder which would be more strange..." I meant that for me much more strange than "action at a distance forces" do are experimentally undetectable "virtual particles" as "force carriers". For me "action at a distance forces" is something "natural" if we assume some "Universal computing system" running the Physics' laws over the elementary particles. May be it is that way due to my career in Engineering I can admit. 

Note that if Science not tolerate any "God" behind it could sustain that the "Universal computing system" surges spontaneously some way...

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by martillo

[Handy andy]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

STOP BRINGING UP YOUR DISSATISFACTION WITH MAINSTREAM SCIENCE IN OTHER PEOPLES' THREADS

 

!

Moderator Note

I have split some OT posts to the trash can. If you are not discussing the OP or directing questions to the OP, you are hijacking. You do not get to raise new issues in someone else's thread. Take it somewhere else.

Everyone involved has been here long enough to know this.

 

 

My post ref the quantum foam was intended to give Martillo a leg to stand on, otherwise his argument ref his god definition was destined to lose.

I don't have dissatisfaction with mainstream science, just so long as what is talked about keeps up with newer ideas, and does not hang on to some ancient ideas like a hand reaching out from the past, like we see in some religions. As I have pointed out science is not meant to be based on religious belief or attitudes, I know this annoys the crap out of you. You have spent a long time being wrong in many of your posts to me, get over it and move on.

The following competition will annoy you as well, but others may be interested in the possibility of a competition on gravity, by the gravity research foundation ($4000 prize1st prize) https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/ requesting a 1500 word essay on gravity. Your insistence on a smooth space time, and space being an empty nothingness, most likely is going to be laughed out like the flat earth society. Gravity is caused by a flow of space and all waves and forces passing through space are affected by it. Just accept it, like a grown up. Quantum foam fills all of space, without which there would be no gravitational forces space or nothing. You could even go so far as stating quantum  foam is a form of the ether, which I originally annoyed with for amusement. 

Happily for you I have moved to another forum, due to fake advertisements and fake scientists acting as moderators. I can learn more via google and up to date science books than putting up with your crap.

Kind Regards and best wishes with your future.

2018-competition.pdf

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, martillo said:

May be it is that way due to my career in Engineering I can admit. 

What branch of engineering allows complete ignorance of electric and magnetic fields?

51 minutes ago, martillo said:

experimentally undetectable "virtual particles" as "force carriers".

Quantum field theory is a xtremely well supported by experiment. You seem to be confusing your ignorance for a problem with a physics. 

[martillo]

Quote

What branch of engineering allows complete ignorance of electric and magnetic fields?

Electrical Engineering at Unicamp University - Brasil (in the four best of latinamerica).

Quote

Quantum field theory is a xtremely well supported by experiment. You seem to be confusing your ignorance for a problem with a physics.

From "Virtual particles" at Wikipedia:

Quote

The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

From "Virtual particles" at Wikipedia:

Yes, that confirms my point. Quantum field theory is extremely accurate and experimentally confirmed. 

2 minutes ago, martillo said:

Electrical Engineering at Unicamp University - Brasil (in the four best of latinamerica).

So presumably your ignorance of field theories should not be blamed on the university but on your failures as a student?

[martillo]

Quote

So presumably your ignorance of field theories should not be blamed on the university but on your failures as a student?

We didn't see QED at the course or I missed...

Anyway, what you have to say about a question I rised in other forum:

Quote

Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles. If Science does not admit any kind of intelligence behind because the lack of evidence, it could sustain that in that case the computing system would surge "spontaneously" someway. Why not? If nowadays Science sustain that an entire Universe with even very sophisticated forms of life surged "naturally" why not some "Universal computing system" running the physics laws? This way there would not be problems with the concept of "action at a distance forces". We would just stay discussing if some kind of "God" exists or not.
I know with this my argument on the proposed proof of the OP becomes failing but I must recognize this possibility now...

 

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by martillo

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, martillo said:

Anyway what you have to say about a question I posted in other forum:

It is about as incoherent and illogical as your other posts. 

Why not try presentating a rational argument that is (a) based on evidence and (b) each statement has some sort of logical relationship to the previous. 

A series of disconnected and baseless assertions are not a good basis for intelligent discussion. 

[Moontanman]

On 8/6/2017 at 6:12 AM, martillo said:

The Electric and Magnetic Forces are undoubtedly “action at a distance” forces what cannot be denied. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. There's no other way possible!
 
The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously:
Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws.
That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

 

So there is no other known way the universe could work? Ever hear of an argument from ignorance fallacy? 

[martillo]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

So there is no other known way the universe could work? Ever hear of an argument from ignorance fallacy? 

Yes, seems you missed my last post where I asked for:

Quote

Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles. If Science does not admit any kind of intelligence behind because the lack of evidence, it could sustain that in that case the computing system would surge "spontaneously" someway. Why not? If nowadays Science sustain that an entire Universe with even very sophisticated forms of life surged "naturally" why not some "Universal computing system" running the physics laws? This way there would not be problems with the concept of "action at a distance forces". We would just stay discussing if some kind of "God" exists or not.
I know with this my argument on the proposed proof of the OP becomes failing but I must recognize this possibility now...

 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Yes, seems you missed my last post where I asked for:

 

No one has said that god is impossible, no one says that the idea of gods or gods cannot be speculated on, invisible unicorns farting rainbows is not impossible but we have no reason to assert such an improbable thing is real.

The idea that life can emerge from organic chemicals is not quite the same as saying a being as complex and powerful as a god can emerge from nothing. First of all we can understand how chemicals can self organise and replicate under completely natural conditions.

No one is asserting that complex organisms emerged fully formed from nothing.. well except for theists.

I do not understand why you would assert loaded statements like

Quote

Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles.

 

Complete lack of evidence of such a Universal computing system  not to mention no need for such a system would be reasons to be sceptical of an  Universal computing system  asking why "science would not consider the possibility of a Universal computing system"  is deceptive to say the least and suggests you have an agenda that is less than honest. 

Quote

If Science does not admit any kind of intelligence behind because the lack of evidence, it could sustain that in that case the computing system would surge "spontaneously" someway. Why not?

 

The idea of a fully formed "brain" emerging from chaos is a concept called a Boltzman Brain it is a valid concept but lacks any supporting evidence.  

Quote

If nowadays Science sustain that an entire Universe with even very sophisticated forms of life surged "naturally" why not some "Universal computing system" running the physics laws?

 

Science does not say that "very sophisticated forms of life surged naturally"  The hypothesis is that complex molecules naturally became complex enough to catalyze copies of themselves and slowly over vast amounts of time become simple forms of life. Very sophisticated forms of life evolved slowly into existence over vast time scales.   

Quote

This way there would not be problems with the concept of "action at a distance forces". We would just stay discussing if some kind of "God" exists or not.
I know with this my argument on the proposed proof of the OP becomes failing but I must recognize this possibility now...

As far as I know the problems of action at a distance are not reason enough to start asserting things like the supernatural, gods, or start running around like a chicken crying the sky is falling... 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

asking why "science would not consider the possibility of a Universal computing system"  is deceptive to say the least and suggests you have an agenda that is less than honest. 

I don't get it. In which way I could be being "less than dishonest" on what??? Please clarify.

Edited August 11, 2017 by martillo

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

I don't get it. In which way I could be being "less than dishonest" on what??? Please clarify.

because saying science will not consider any possibility is a strawman... 

[Baron d'Holbach]

Human being are obsess with god. Smh.. We will never get rid of this evil errorness virus. 

 

"The definition of God is the downfall of humanity" 

[martillo]

3 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Human being are obsess with god. Smh.. We will never get rid of this evil errorness virus. 

 

"The definition of God is the downfall of humanity" 

The religious God, not the deistic concept of God which is pure rational I think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) and for which I do not understand why Science not maintain a possibility open since as there's no empirical evidence for it is also true that cannot be rigorously proven to not exist. You may ask why to do so? I would answer with the following page:

Quote

REALITY IS HARD

 

All kind of deseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies... We don't live in any Paradise. But not being human beings fault, what fails is the Physics of the Universe what I argue at the web page: A Physics' flaw

The Physics of the Universe determines everything material and the entire Nature itself including our own organism. Failing, the things are not as they should be. And in this are all of us, living a wrong life from which nobody scapes. What remains for us is try to live the better possible way doing what we know and could do that always, in one way or another, ends being something others are needing. Nothing else remains.

And as I say at the web page:

_ "Hope would exist if some "Superior Intelligence" would exist, responsible for the Universe Physics System and capable to fix it. But it and its systems could also have been affected by their own Physics' problems and so not being able to think and work properly..."

_ "May be we, all humans at Earth with all of our developed knowledge, technology and our imagination, could be helping someway just following our intuition. Everything could be important."

_ "That's what makes sense to me although with the lack of some proofs."

_ "That's my faith."

 

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by martillo

[Sensei]

10 hours ago, martillo said:

for me "action at a distance forces" is something "natural" if we assume some "Universal computing system" running the Physics' laws over the elementary particles. May be it is that way due to my career in Engineering I can admit.

In particle simulation every particle has to be checked against any other to find whether they collided. It's brute force, extremely slow, method.

To accelerate it, programmers use special algorithms which reduce number of particles. They are put into containers. They are partitioned based on their position.

Typical algorithms of partitioning data are Octree and KD-Tree.

You should read about them on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-d_tree

 

If you have 1 million initial particles, and KD-Tree with 10 level depth, after putting them to containers with uniform quantity in each of them, there will be just 10^6/2^10 = 1000000 / 1024 = 976 particles in each container.

[Manticore]

To prove that there exists only one god, you have to show:

1) The Universe is not infinite (since in an infinite Universe there must be either zero or an infinite number of them - depending on whether they can exist at all).

2) Faster than light communication (if you assume that your god can think as fast as the average home computer, then, with the speed of light as a limit, it's maximum possible size is 5cm in diameter - assuming no processing delays).

[martillo]

32 minutes ago, Sensei said:

In particle simulation every particle has to be checked against any other to find whether they collided. It's brute force, extremely slow, method.

To accelerate it, programmers use special algorithms which reduce number of particles. They are put into containers. They are partitioned based on their position.

Typical algorithms of partitioning data are Octree and KD-Tree.

You should read about them on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-d_tree

 

If you have 1 million initial particles, and KD-Tree with 10 level depth, after putting them to containers with uniform quantity in each of them, there will be just 10^6/2^10 = 1000000 / 1024 = 976 particles in each container.

Thanks for the data. I think it could be related about how much powerful a "Universal computing system" would be. Of course that computing system would be in a scale not even imaginable by we humans but this must not be a constraint for it to be possible.

Edited August 11, 2017 by martillo