Proof there is a God

[sideshowbob]

Spellbound did not say or even imply that counting atoms describe atoms themselves.

I know he didn't say that. I was correcting him: all counting atoms does is describe them, just like any other language.

So, what experiment would you use to falsify your hypothesis?

 

[Write4U]

I know he didn't say that. I was correcting him: all counting atoms does is describe them, just like any other language.

So, what experiment would you use to falsify your hypothesis?

Now you are just repeating your question.

The number of atoms has nothing to do with describing an atom. The number of particles that make up the atom does.

The number of particles contained IN an atom defines the atom as a specific element, with different atomic weight, properties, and functions. This has proven to be mathematically true, by our prediction of "missing elements" in the early *table of elements*, which were later found (as predicted) and fitted exactly in the gaps in the table, where they were expected to be found..

 

[Write4U]

@ Sarkus,

I would like your opinion on this article.

Fibonacci in Nature
The Fibonacci numbers are Nature's numbering system. They appear everywhere in Nature, from the leaf arrangement in plants, to the pattern of the florets of a flower, the bracts of a pinecone, or the scales of a pineapple. The Fibonacci numbers are therefore applicable to the growth of every living thing, including a single cell, a grain of wheat, a hive of bees, and even all of mankind.

Plants do not know about this sequence - they just grow in the most efficient ways.

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680/Parveen/Fib_nature.htm

Thus what we have *named* the FS, is in fact a natural function of mathematical efficiency?

 

[sideshowbob]

Now you are just repeating your question.

Indeed I am. Are you ever going to answer it?

The number of particles contained IN an atom defines the atom as a specific element, with different atomic weight, properties, and functions. This has proven to be mathematically true, by our prediction of "missing elements" in the early *table of elements*, which were later found (as predicted) and fitted exactly in the gaps in the table, where they were expected to be found..

It's the understanding of the physical structure of the atom that makes it possible to predict "missing" elements. The numbers are incidental. They're just a means of keeping track of how many elements there can be - i.e. they're just a description. You could just as well look at a hole in the ground and predict what should be in it. You don't even need numbers for that.

So, let's try again. You have a hypothesis that mathematics "is" the essence of reality? Never mind trying to confirm your hypothesis. How would you falsify it?

 

[Sarkus]

@ Sarkus,

I would like your opinion on this article.
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680/Parveen/Fib_nature.htm

Thus what we have *named* the FS, is in fact a natural function of mathematical efficiency?

There is undoubtedly a function within a number of forms of life that follow a function along the lines of F(n+1) = F(n) + F(n-1).
I would say that the FS is the simplest mathematical representation of that function starting from 0 and 1, but the function in life I would say is a certainly physical one. But a function of mathematical efficiency? I do not think this follows from the examples given in the article.

1. Do we know why life follows that function? Is it for efficiency or is it to ensure increasing diversity? Or some other reason? Efficiency would surely be to copy the previous iteration (i.e. F(n+1) = F(n))? So I think "efficiency" is not the word that applies here.

2. That the function can be described mathematically does not mean that the function inherently is mathematical - 'cos surely that is what the debate you and Sideshowbob have mostly been having - and I wouldn't want to think you are question-begging.

That the FS appears in life is evidence of some underlying function within a wide spread of DNA, suggesting common ancestry perhaps, even if that commonality is within only the first few generations of life. The FS itself is purely a sequence of numbers arrived at through a mathematical function. That function, in some physical form or other, is what is found in life, although when aspects of that function are looked at it does correspond with that mathematical function. But the function itself is physical.
Thus I would say that there is a commonality behind both the physical and mathematical, although as yet I am not sure exactly what I would say "mathematics" actually is, so my conclusion is subject to change with this, and thus I feel it could all be a matter of semantics.

 

[Write4U]

Indeed I am. Are you ever going to answer it?
It's the understanding of the physical structure of the atom that makes it possible to predict "missing" elements. The numbers are incidental.

False argument.. The "understanding" is that the amount and type of particles is crucial and determine the physical structure of the atom and its properties. No exceptions. Purely mathematical.

They're just a means of keeping track of how many elements there can be - i.e. they're just a description.

Human symbolic maths are descriptive of the mathematical universal "functions" of the universe, to humans only. You have your priorities reversed.

You could just as well look at a hole in the ground and predict what should be in it. You don't even need numbers for that.

That is just pure nonsense. The size of the hole determines what you can put in it. If you look at a hole in the ground, you first have to measure its dimensions before you can even begin to predict what could be placed in the hole. Mathematics.

But one thing is clear that if you place a person in that hole then it becomes a grave. Do you seek falsification of that? Ah, yes, if the hole is too small to hold a human body it cannot function as a grave, except perhaps for your cat. Wanna falsify that?

Our ability to count the amount of particles in an atom are not descriptive of "what can be", but of what is and how it functions. If you manipulate these amounts you change the element and how it functions.. That is the falsification..

So, let's try again. You have a hypothesis that mathematics "is" the essence of reality? Never mind trying to confirm your hypothesis. How would you falsify it?

Ok, HS 101

Essence, noun

1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character: Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press

If everything in the universe functions in a mathematical way, then it may be said that mathematical functions are the essential to the existence of this Universe. That we have able to invent symbolic representations of these functions is irrelevant to the universe. The falsification is, if you try to change values and functions artificially, it no longer functions as the original. Mathematics.

Max Tegmark has the hypothesis, which is backed by several eminent scientists (including some ancients).

He has come to the conclusion that EVERYTHING works in a mathematical fashion..He has provided plenty of evidence and if you disagree, then you must prove his evidence is false. I don't need to do anything..

I just report on a hypothesis that seems correct to me. If you disagree with Tegmark, then first learn who this scientist is, what he does and how he does it, before you start challenging me on my reporting and asking me to falsify his hypothesis. In fact I doubt that you have even looked at anything about Tegmark, but you are the skeptic, you prove him false.

Can you come up with an alternative hypothesis? If so, present that and stop this strawman arguing.
Try to falsify how you function as a human being. Mathematically or randomly, or perhaps by magic?

If you would get to a friend's computer you could watch Tegmark's presentationt and actually understand what he is talking about. Tegmark IS the scientist and has the evidence. But you are too lazy to do your own research and expect a layman to prove ot falsify his work, which, you would probably not understand anyway.

My entire argument rests on the original link which I have posted numerous times as well as additional literature which describes his work. Have you read any of that, in view of your total ignorance of what is actually being proposed?

Everything in the Universe functions in a relatively simple mathematical fashion. Do you disagree with that? Prove it wrong! You only need one example for falsification. If you are so sure that the hypothesis is wrong, provide ONE example. Should not be too difficult in view of your strong objection to the mathematical function.

 

[sideshowbob]

The "understanding" is that the amount and type of particles is crucial and determine the physical structure of the atom and its properties. No exceptions. Purely mathematical.

Purely physical. The mathematics is just a description of the physical.

Human symbolic maths are descriptive of the mathematical universal "functions" of the universe, to humans only. You have your priorities reversed.

So who else is there?

The size of the hole determines what you can put in it. If you look at a hole in the ground, you first have to measure its dimensions before you can even begin to predict what could be placed in the hole.

Never mind what you can put in the hole. Let's look at what came out of the hole. After all, a hole is usually defined as a place that something came out of, not just an opportunity to put stuff in.

Was the hole dug by a mechanical excavator? Or drilled by an auger? Or dug by pick and shovel? Or by an animal's paws? Or eroded by water? What can mathematics tell you about those questions?

The falsification is, if you try to change values and functions artificially, it no longer functions as the original.

I keep asking you for an experiment and you keep giving me rhetoric. If mathematics is just a description of reality, then yes, there's no big surprise that it matches reality - and if you change it, it will no longer match reality. The question is, is there a real connection to reality or is it just a made-up description, like an English description. (It seems to me that English could give a better description of a hole in the ground than mathematics can.)

Max Tegmark has the hypothesis, which is backed by several eminent scientists (including some ancients).

He has come to the conclusion that EVERYTHING works in a mathematical fashion..He has provided plenty of evidence and if you disagree, then you must prove his evidence is false.

Tegmark recognises it as a hypothesis. You seem to tout it as an obvious fact.

Several scientists back his hypothesis. Apparently, some do not. They don't seem as impressed by his "plenty of evidence" as you do. And science is not done by challenging other people to disprove your hypothesis.

Maybe it's time to tone down your arrogance a notch or two.

Everything in the Universe functions in a relatively simple mathematical fashion. Do you disagree with that?

What's the mathematical function for a hole in the ground?

You only need one example for falsification.

Better yet, two holes in the ground. How do you distinguish one from the other mathematically?

 

[Spellbound]

sideshowbob is an idiot who can't see past his own nose. Proportions (i.e. equations) exist. They equate to mathematics. Hence its purely mathematical. If the universe were empty, stpid, then there would be 0 contents. If the universe had 1+1 balls in it, then 2 would exist. Hence, mathematics is not blind and stupid like you are.

 

[Spellbound]

sideshowbob,

There are two kinds of object: abstract (mathematical, thoughts, etc.) and concrete (physical, animate matter, etc.).

Didn't mean to get heated earlier, but I found your responses to be consistently ignorant.

 

[river]

↑
The "understanding" is that the amount and type of particles is crucial and determine the physical structure of the atom and its properties. No exceptions. Purely mathematical.

Purely physical. The mathematics is just a description of the physical.

True

 

[Kristoffer]

but I found your responses to be consistently ignorant.

This sums up my feelings about your posts perfectly, Spellbound.

 

[Spellbound]

This sums up my feelings about your posts perfectly, Spellbound.

Feel this.

 

[Write4U]

Purely physical. The mathematics is just a description of the physical.

Human mathematics are symbolic descriptions of HOW the a priori physics worked in Nature long before we symbolized the numbers and equations. Priority

So who else is there?

No who!!!! Only HOW! And the how is always mathematical!

Never mind what you can put in the hole. Let's look at what came out of the hole. After all, a hole is usually defined as a place that something came out of, not just an opportunity to put stuff in.

Well, that's a revelation!

Was the hole dug by a mechanical excavator? Or drilled by an auger? Or dug by pick and shovel? Or by an animal's paws? Or eroded by water? What can mathematics tell you about those questions?

I wonder why we even have scientific calculators, if regional alphabetical linguistics can do it better? How long it would take for each method and which is the most efficient way? Seems important to me.
We landed a rover on the moon without damage because we knew the maths of gravity, air resistance, speed of decent, etc. All mathematical. Look at the link!!!!!
As to machinery digging holes, look at the records of how many cubic feet or yards were removed which gives us good approximation of the size of the hole, all can be calculated in OUR mathematical language.

I keep asking you for an experiment and you keep giving me rhetoric. If mathematics is just a description of reality, then yes, there's no big surprise that it matches reality

And which came first, the mathematical function or our HUMAN description of that function? Get your priorities straight.

- and if you change it, it will no longer match reality. The question is, is there a real connection to reality or is it just a made-up description, like an English description. (It seems to me that English could give a better description of a hole in the ground than mathematics can.)

Nonsense. An excavator can do in an hour what may take days digging by hand. Simple mathematics which will tell you the most efficient and effective way of digging that hole.

Tegmark recognises it as a hypothesis. You seem to tout it as an obvious fact.

Stop making up things I did not say..

Several scientists back his hypothesis. Apparently, some do not. They don't seem as impressed by his "plenty of evidence" as you do. And science is not done by challenging other people to disprove your hypothesis.

Ok, come up with a counter argument (from another scientist) to Tegmark's hypothesis.

Maybe it's time to tone down your arrogance a notch or two.

If you have a problem with my attitude, deal with it , or not. I am probably the least offensive poster on this site and have patiently answered all your questions,. and DID MY RESEARCH. Have you? I have yet to see a link from you.

What's the mathematical function for a hole in the ground?

Depends on why the hole was dug in the first place. You can mathematically calculate how much dirt needs to be removed, or do you prefer *eyeballing* it? Something like; "ok, that seems big enough".
Of course if we used the dirt from the hole for some purpose, then we carefully measure the required amount to be removed. In that case, the hole would have no function in and of itself, but would be a result of a function i.e. removal of a mathematically calculated amount of dirt..

Better yet, two holes in the ground. How do you distinguish one from the other mathematically?

Measurements, which will give you mathematical data that can be compared and tell you which is the bigger hole..the Universe works mathematically, regardless of what HUMAN mathematical language we use. But by all accounts HUMAN maths seem to work, whereas alphabetical descriptions of Universal mathematical functions have been demonstrated wrong too many times to count.

One thing, you keep equating HUMAN mathematical language with UNIVERSAL mathematical functions.
If the description of a predicted mathematical function works, that proves we can translate UNIVERSAL mathematical functions with HUMAN invented symbolic maths.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Since the moderator of this sub-forum has apparently taken to refusing to moderate reports from this thread and he has assigned it to me, here we go..

Spellbound has been temporarily banned for personal insults towards others. That said, going back, there are numerous posters who are also guilty of personal insults and abuse. If you cannot post without personal insults, please refrain from posting. This applies to everyone. Yes, I understand it is frustrating sometimes and yes, I am often guilty of failing to heed my own advice numerous times, because some people just push your buttons that way, but please try. How about we all try. If participants in this thread fail, I will shut this thread and cesspool it if I need to. At the very least, if the behaviour persists, I may resort to thread banning people from participating. So let's wind it back folks. Reset. Deep breaths and all that.

Thank you, now carry on.. with less insults of course.

 

[sideshowbob]

I wonder why we even have scientific calculators, if regional alphabetical linguistics can do it better?

There are some things that calculators can do better. There are some things that words can do better. There are some things that shovels can do better.

As to machinery digging holes, look at the records of how many cubic feet or yards were removed which gives us good approximation of the size of the hole, all can be calculated in OUR mathematical language.

You're fixated on the size of the hole. You can't just assume that the Grand Canyon was dug by machinery because it's big. The shape of that hole tells us more about how it got there than its volume does. Can you use mathematical equations to tell the difference between an eroded hole and a dug hole?

And which came first, the mathematical function or our HUMAN description of that function? Get your priorities straight.

As I've said all along, the physical function came first. The mathematical description of the function came when humans made it up.

An excavator can do in an hour what may take days digging by hand. Simple mathematics which will tell you the most efficient and effective way of digging that hole.

You're answering something I didn't ask. I said, "It seems to me that English could give a better description of a hole in the ground than mathematics can." Never mind the size. Give a mathematical description of the Grand Canyon that can distinguish it from a mechanically-excavated hole.

Ok, come up with a counter argument (from another scientist) to Tegmark's hypothesis.

Again, that isn't how it works. The proponent of a hypothesis is responsible for defending it - and, if he is honest, he is also responsible for trying to falsify it.

Depends on why the hole was dug in the first place.

There doen't even have to be a "why". There are erosion ditches a million times smaller than the Grand Canyon. The size is irrelevant. How do you tell the difference, mathematically, between an eroded hole and a purposely-dug hole?

One thing, you keep equating HUMAN mathematical language with UNIVERSAL mathematical functions.

I don't accept that universal mathematical functions exist, only physical ones.

If the description of a predicted mathematical function works, that proves we can translate UNIVERSAL mathematical functions with HUMAN invented symbolic maths.

Not at all. It only shows that the mathematical function is a good approximation of the physical function.

 

[Write4U]

There are some things that calculators can do better. There are some things that words can do better. There are some things that shovels can do better.

Calculators can always do mathematical calculations faster and more accurately than the human brain (especially if dealing with large numbers).

Of course, if i want to plant a flower I don't need an excavator, because it would create a hole much too large to plant a single flower. That's why we have planting shovels. But these are determined by the maths of the goal.

You're fixated on the size of the hole.

YOU brought up *holes* in an attempt to falsify the mathematical function. I merely pointed out you are wrong in that example.

. You can't just assume that the Grand Canyon was dug by machinery because it's big.

Where did I make that claim? Stop this *spinning* of what I actually said.

The shape of that hole tells us more about how it got there than its volume.

Yes it does to a casual observer. But you are moving the goal posts again. First it was volume, now you changed it to shape. And that can be calculated using fractal maths down to Planck scale (mathematics), in particular Pi, which is explained in the "link".

Can you use mathematical equations to tell the difference between an eroded hole and a dug hole?

Of course you can. Do train tunnels occur just at the right coordinates to allow a train to go through a hole in the mountain, or did we specifically blast the tunnel, with very carfully calculated amounts of dynamite, so that we don't bring down collapse of the tunnel itself?

As I've said all along, the physical function came first. The mathematical description of the function came when humans made it up.

IMO, that is an incorrect assumption at several levels. We don't make up maths to match the natural phenomena, we use maths to calculate the amount of erosion in several ways. Just check the meandering of rivers . If physial action was the only way to describe a river, it would have to run in a straight line, but why do rivers meander?

First, physical action cannot take place when the natural mathematical function does not allow it (such as in *attraction* and "repiulsion*, "absorbtion "and.*deflection* Physical action can only take place only if the mathematical function *allows* for *exchange of information* which follows strict natural mathematical laws. No miracles

We did not make anything up. We translated the universal mathematical function into a symbolic descriptive language of the functions.

You're answering something I didn't ask. I said, "It seems to me that English could give a better description of a hole in the ground than mathematics can." Never mind the size. Give a mathematical description of the Grand Canyon that can distinguish it from a mechanically-excavated hole.

The amount of natural erosion can be mathematically calculated. Property lines are constantly redrawn, due to erosion of bends in the river.
btw. Water is an abrasive substance, ask any sailor, who needs to repaint the bottom of his boat at regular intervals, to keep the hull protected from erosion. (especially in salt water).

Over long periods of gathering mathematical data of amount and force of water ( over time) can give us a good approximation of the erosion that caused the formation of the Grand Canyon.

Again, that isn't how it works. The proponent of a hypothesis is responsible for defending it - and, if he is honest, he is also responsible for trying to falsify it.

Good scientist do that before submitting any hypothesis for peer review and and falsification.

There doen't even have to be a "why". There are erosion ditches a million times smaller than the Grand Canyon. The size is irrelevant. How do you tell the difference, mathematically, between an eroded hole and a purposely-dug hole?

By the function and based on mathematics of each function employed..

I don't accept that universal mathematical functions exist, only physical ones.

And the physical functions depend on the mathematical possibility (probability that the physical function can be achieved also known as *potential*)

Water is the perfect mixing medium, but try to mix oil and water. You can try by stirring, but after the turbulenc stops, the oil will rise to the top again. Water and oil are not compatible, by their mathematical atomic structure.

Not at all. It only shows that the mathematical function is a good approximation of the physical function.

ok, I agree with that, however you are rversing the process again. The mathematical function has already occurred, which gives us the mathematical data from which we can make future predictions.

You cannot make any prediction when you do not understand the mathematics of the physical function. That why the early verbal *descriptions* had to create symbolic Gods and miracles. And those descriptions were clearly wrong.

It is only after we formalized the symbolic language of mathematics, that we began to understand the *how* physical events happen and there is no mysterious intentional causality. and all physical interactions is all the result of the Universal mathematical function,which logically *must* follow the natural laws of the mathematics nature (essence) of the Universal potentials (the Implicate)[/quote]

You are goingto need to accept that *physical events employ fundamental universal mathematical functions*
As long as you deny this, you will never understand the importance of the "Implicate" (read David Bohm.)

 

[sideshowbob]

YOU brought up *holes* in an attempt to falsify the mathematical function.

I did. And I didn't say a word about the size of the hole. I mentioned the characteristics of the hole that mathematics doesn't help you determine. You still have not given any mathematical equations for distinguishing one kind of hole from another.

But you are moving the goal posts again. First it was volume, now you changed it to shape.

Where did I say one word about the volume of the hole? I'm not moving the goalposts; you're avoiding them.

First, physical action cannot take place when the natural mathematical function does not allow it (such as in *attraction* and "repiulsion*, "absorbtion "and.*deflection* Physical action can only take place only if the mathematical function *allows* for *exchange of information* which follows strict natural mathematical laws.

You're assuming your conclusion.

The amount of natural erosion can be mathematically calculated.

Again... I am not talking about the amount of anything. I am talking about the qualitative differences between holes. How can you tell the difference, mathematically, between a hole dug by machinery and a whole dug by erosion? Assume that their volumes are identical.

The proponent of a hypothesis is responsible for defending it - and, if he is honest, he is also responsible for trying to falsify it.

Good scientist do that before submitting any hypothesis for peer review and and falsification.

That's what I said. And I asked you how you would falsify the hypothesis. How would you?

and all physical interactions is all the result of the Universal mathematical function,which logically *must* follow the natural laws of the mathematics nature (essence) of the Universal potentials (the Implicate)

You still seem to be saying that mathematics causes physics. Origin and result, cause and effect. How is your Universal Potential different from any other god?

 

[Write4U]

I did. And I didn't say a word about the size of the hole. I mentioned the characteristics of the hole that mathematics doesn't help you determine. You still have not given any mathematical equations for distinguishing one kind of hole from another.

That is a meaningless question. Which of these *holes* would you want equations to?

hole, noun \ˈhōl\
Full Definition of HOLE
1
a : an opening through something : perforation <have a hole in my coat>
b : an area where something is missing : gap: as (1) : a serious discrepancy : flaw, weakness <some holes in your logic> (2) : an opening in a defensive formation; especially : the area of a baseball field between the positions of shortstop and third baseman (3) : a defect in a crystal (as of a semiconductor) that is due to an electron's having left its normal position in one of the crystal bonds and that is equivalent in many respects to a positively charged particle
2
: a hollowed-out place: as
a : a cave, pit, or well in the ground b : burrow c : an unusually deep place in a body of water (as a river)
3
a : a wretched or dreary place
b : a prison cell especially for solitary confinement
4
a : a shallow cylindrical hole in the putting green of a golf course into which the ball is played
b : a part of the golf course from tee to putting green <just beginning play on the third hole>; also : the play on such a hole as a unit of scoring <won the hole by two strokes>
5
a : an awkward position or circumstance : fix <got the rebels out of a hole at the battle — Kenneth Roberts>
b : a position of owing or losing money <$10 million in the hole> <raising money to get out of the hole. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hole

Oh, and of course there are Black Holes.

Where did I say one word about the volume of the hole? I'm not moving the goalposts; you're avoiding them.

A hole is by definition a space created by an action or a function and the hole is a result of the mathematics of this action or function.

You're assuming your conclusion.

Tegmark had a conclusion (a hypothesis) which I have adopted because by Occam's razor it is the closest yet to a TOE, that I have heard. But then he did have that single last question mark (?) on his wall, which HE predicts will be a simple mathematical equation.

Again... I am not talking about the amount of anything. I am talking about the qualitative differences between holes. How can you tell the difference, mathematically, between a hole dug by machinery and a whole dug by erosion? Assume that their volumes are identical.

See above link about the *qualitative* definitions of holes.

That's what I said. And I asked you how you would falsify the hypothesis. How would you?

I already did and I won't waste anymore time with your obsession with "holes". A fact which you falsely accused me of. That strategy won't work any longer. You are just wasting my time now.

You still seem to be saying that mathematics causes physics. Origin and result, cause and effect. How is your Universal Potential different from any other god?

Give me a definition of God and then we can discuss the differences. Can you define God? If not, then you have posted another meaningless question. The OP asks for proof of God. Can you provide any proof of any God ?

But one thing is clear to me; the definition of Universal Potential is the closest abstract definition of God (sans willfull sentience), which of course in itself is an abstraction.

potential, adjective po·ten·tial \pə-ˈten(t)-shəl\
POTENTIAL: capable of becoming real
potential, noun
: a chance or possibility that something will happen or exist in the future
: a quality that something has that can be developed to make it better
: an ability that someone has that can be developed to help that person become successful
Full Definition of POTENTIAL
1
a : something that can develop or become actual <a potential for violence>
b : promise 2
2
a : any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may be readily calculated
b : the work required to move a unit positive charge from a reference point (as at infinity) to a point in question c : potential difference
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential[/quote]

and

In mathematics, a function[1] is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)[/quote'] [/URL]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics) [/quote

 

[sideshowbob]

Which of these *holes* would you want equations to?

I want equations for all of them - equations that will allow you to mathematically tell how a hole was dug.

A hole is by definition a space created by an action or a function and the hole is a result of the mathematics of this action or function.

The hole is a result of the action or function. The mathematics describes the resulting hole.

Mathematics models reality. At best, it gives an approximation of reality. The only way we can understand reality is by observing reality and modifying our made-up mathematical models to match our observations.

And I asked you how you would falsify the hypothesis. How would you?

I already did....

Where? I asked for an experiment that you would perform that would potentially prove your hypothesis wrong. What was the experiment?

But one thing is clear to me; the definition of Universal Potential is the closest abstract definition of God (sans willfull sentience), which of course in itself is an abstraction.

So how is your woo "Universal Potential" different from a woo God?

 

[Kumar]

Is there proof of God? The equations say so. Let's make this a really popular thread and maybe we can all see why theists differ on their stance against atheists as opposed to how the closet atheists really feel about their "attacks".

First, It is to be better understood, Prime God is either an entity or a concept. Why HE can't be a specific state of all things and beings, and all secondary entities who also possess somewhat that state are God like.