Whats the proof that god exists?

[phoenixthoth]

the intellectualization of what cannot be grasped by the intellect is impossible.

if there were a way to grasp what the intellect could not grasp, would you grasp it?

what if the truth were 180 opposite what you think it is, and what if there is 'fine print' involved, would you still grasp it?

can one imagine the unimaginable?

nothing is the key to the universe and fools know nothing.

can you be at one with nothing?

i have made love to faith and we slept afterwards. i woke up in the morning to a corpse. yet i danced and drank with doubt all night and found her a virgin in the morning. doubt makes a perfect mistress but a nagging wife. "white is white" is the lash of the master and "white is black" is the watchword of the slave. the master takes no heed.

 

[marco]

The scientific proof of the existence of the soul (and of God)

The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.

Marco Biagini,

Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

 

[nightlight]

Originally posted by marco
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

Your server has your html files misclassified as:

ContentType: text/plain

This causes Mozilla/Netscape to show raw html source as plain text. You need to change the content type to:

ContentType: text/html

If the server is not under your control, you may need to add proper file extension (.htm or .html) and re-upload them (and fix any internal links to reflect the file name change).

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by marco
The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.

Marco Biagini,

Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

Well, welcome to the particle zoo. It appears that our local zoo is not the only place that we give names to animals. Now is it, that a Zebra is a Zebra and a electon a electron only because someone was there first? So what's more real the Zebra or the particle?

 

[Dawn183]

Whats the proof that god exists

This is an extremely interesting subject and one that can raise many varied views. There are so many religions and they each have their own god or is it the same one but with different rules and if so why are there so many differences in the various religions?
However in my search for wanting to know what life is about and if there is a god why so many bad things seem to happen, I have come across a set of books that seem to be able to answer such questions. They are termed the Seth Material and they provide an understanding that goes way beyond the religions. The Material is backed up by some of the latest findings in Quantum Physics.
There is an excellent website that explains more about this amazing piece of work.
To view it log on to www.sethworx.com
It certainly helps to explain why there are so many answers to this question!

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by marco

The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.
Marco Biagini,
Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

Dr. Biagnini you state:

Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon, of which we have then a full experiemntal evidence (indeed, it represents the foundations of every other experimental observation, since if we were not conscious, we could observe no phenomena); the pjenomenon "consciousness" deserves then to be analysed from a scientific viewpoint.

You make certain assumptions about consciousness and its ability to be observed and/or measured.

What makes you think that our consciousness observes any phenomena whatsoever?

The concept of 'consciousness' is not understood or able to be defined by any construct that we can imagine. How is it therefore able to be analysed from any scientific viewpoint?

Do we only assume our reality exists as our senses perceives it?

Einstein said that particles (matter) are only condensed energy. What do you imagine that this energy really consists of or is derived from? Is energy a particle, a wave or something that is only perceivable from our point of view in this dimension of ours?

My assumption is that all of our solid reality, including that which we consider to be real because of our senses is nothing more or less than an illusion. An illusion within a giant hologram in a timeless dimension with no substance or measurable dimensions.

 

[marco]

Originally posted by nightlight
Your server has your html files misclassified as:

ContentType: text/plain

This causes Mozilla/Netscape to show raw html source as plain text. You need to change the content type to:

ContentType: text/html

If the server is not under your control, you may need to add proper file extension (.htm or .html) and re-upload them (and fix any internal links to reflect the file name change).

Thank you very much for this information!
I had no idea that netscape had some problems with my site.
I have dplicate all files with a file extension .html, so if you have netscape, you can now try the followin address:

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html


Please let me know if there are still any problems.

Marco

 

[marco]

Originally posted by Rader
Well, welcome to the particle zoo. It appears that our local zoo is not the only place that we give names to animals. Now is it, that a Zebra is a Zebra and a electon a electron only because someone was there first? So what's more real the Zebra or the particle?

The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more. Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. For example, every solid object, such as a zebra, apppears to us as if it was uniformly filled with motionless matter, but science has proves that this is only an optical illusion, because every solid objects is occupied mostly by empty space, where small particles rapidely move.

I have explained this in details in my site.


Marco

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by marco
The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more.

Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron. The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names. Now how can it be that a Zebra stays a Zebra all his life and the particle which he is made of change there states and names?

Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra.

Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

For example, every solid object, such as a zebra, apppears to us as if it was uniformly filled with motionless matter, but science has proves that this is only an optical illusion, because every solid objects is occupied mostly by empty space, where small particles rapidely move.

Yes it is i agree, but particles do not exist so matter can not either, so what rapidly moves.

I have explained this in details in my site.

The description on yöur site of explicit orders, i can not agrue with but the underlying impicit order that trully may define "reality" is just "Is", why things are the way they are is "not known.

By the way welcome to PF. Chow
Emitte lucem Tuam et veritatem Tuam


Marco

 

[marco]

I wrote:
"The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more."

You replied:

>>>>Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron.

I disagree.In fact, we know many features of these particles, e.g. their mass, their charge, and above all, we know the equations determining their dynamical behavior and their interactions. This is much more than simply "their names"!

>>>The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names.

The point is that science has proved that the zebra is nothing more than a set of elementary particles. Every other concept of zebra is only a subjective concept without any scientific basis.

I wrote:

"Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. "

You replied

>>>>Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

The fact that we have not seen them is absolutelly irrilevant. We have billions and billions of objective experimental data confirming the existence of particles such as electrons, the values of their mass, charge, and their dynamical equations.

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.

Marco.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by marco

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.Marco.

Marco the fact is that you don't need to believe in particles to think with your conscious mind that you have billions upon billions of observations which prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that particles and mass exist as proved by scientific theory.

What is real and what is assumed to exist may be quite different things. There is no way that anyone can prove that particles don't exist or have mass and spin but conversly observations made by conscious awareness may be deceiving.

1) Where does conscioussness arise from?

2) Where is consciousness before the birth of a child or after one's death?

3) What number of scientific observations does it take to prove that particles exist or that particles born in a 'big bang' can become conscious?

Take a look at the Scientific American site detailing an alternative to your senses proving the existence of matter and existence in this universe.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Tell me if you consider this article has any valid basis or change to your theories.





3

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by marco
I wrote:
"The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more."

You replied:

>>>>Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron.

I disagree.In fact, we know many features of these particles, e.g. their mass, their charge, and above all, we know the equations determining their dynamical behavior and their interactions. This is much more than simply "their names"!

Yes and i agree, there is now over 100 particles that we know, not only there names, but mass, charge, spin and angular momentum. Do we know anything about why they have the mass, charge, spin and angular momentum that they do? Do we know why they can appear and disappear and transform into other particles. What we know is there is a lot of particles, that have qualities, that is not known why they have them.

>>>The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names.

The point is that science has proved that the zebra is nothing more than a set of elementary particles. Every other concept of zebra is only a subjective concept without any scientific basis.

What is the scientific bases of the particle? Not sure science can prove anything, although it does give a exellent conceptial world view of objective reality. Science gives the same evidence for Zebras as it does for particles, everything "Is" of the same thing.

I wrote:

"Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. "

You can apply that to particles also. A particle is a particle, particle or wave or a wave and it just might be something, that is not even any of those. Do you know of Bells Theorum?

You replied

>>>>Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

The fact that we have not seen them is absolutelly irrilevant. We have billions and billions of objective experimental data confirming the existence of particles such as electrons, the values of their mass, charge, and their dynamical equations.

There are no exact measurements of a physical reality. Thats just the point, a objective reality just might be non-existent.
We have the EPR experiment and Bells Theorum, that demonstates that the world is stranger than what it appears, to the informed.

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.
Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.



Marco.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Radar

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.

How do you know particles exist?

How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat Earth society during their time here?

Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

You apparently are delusional to think that once you understand the nature of what Zebras are made of, you will begin to visualize the essence of consiousness.

Can you create life from inanimate matter like Baron Frankenstein? That is just about how much chance you will ever get to understand consciousness.

 

[marco]

>>>Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

I disagree. Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamics. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.
Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.



Marco

 

[marco]

>>>>How do you know particles exist?

As I have already explained, I have billions and billions of scientific data confirming the existence of particles and confirming the fact that all macroscopic objects are only sets of particles. This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof. On the other hand, to deny the existence of particles is equivalent to deny all modern science, to get out of science and get into the kingdom of arbitrary opinions and phylosophical speculations. My approach is strictly scientific and I limit myself to analyse the logical implications of modern science.

>>>How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat Earth society during their time here?

Because now we have billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations of the laws of physics. Nothing like that existed in the flat Earth society. It makes no sense to compare our science with the science of the flat-earth society. Quantum Electrodynamics represents a definitive turn in history, because it reveals the principles determining every molecular, chemical and biological process.

Marco

 

[phoenixthoth]

if someone could put a magnet around your head and make you think you were looking at a scientific journal or the billions and billions of data (how long did it take to analyze that, i wonder), does that mean that your evidence is all for naught?

your quote "This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof" indicates the heart of the matter. proof and what constitutes proof, ie sufficient evidence, is just a set of arbitrary criteria.

 

[marco]

>>>>your quote "This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof" indicates the heart of the matter. proof and what constitutes proof, ie sufficient evidence, is just a set of arbitrary criteria.

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary.
Anyway, there are objective data which can induce us to accept or reject a given idea or theory. We have today billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data confirming the validity of Quantum Electrodynamics in the explanation of chemical and bilogical processes. This is an objectice fact.
Another objective fact is that, according to quantum electrodynamics, consciousness is not a property of matter and it is not generated by molecular, chemical or biological processes.

Now, if you simply make 1+1=2, you understand that the existence of consciousness in man implies the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the psiche or soul.

Marco.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i object

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary...

This is an objectice fact.

do you see how these quotes are directly in contradiction? unless by "objective" you actually mean "subjective", there is a contradiction in saying the concept of proof is arbitrary yet some facts are objectively verifiable. i would say safer to claim that your science claims are as objective as currently possible.

either way, dicussion of proof is important for this topic. indeed, what would constitute proof of God? what would constitute sufficient evidence and a proof? what arbitrary conventions shall we adopt? these things need to be established. other than that, we seem to be off the subject, imo.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Marco

I disagree. Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamics. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.

Who is that collective 'we' who only now in this time and place understand or can confirm all things by the THEORY of Quantum Electrodynamics? Is it possible that billions upon billions of data derived from experimentation equal the sum total of all knowledge?

Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.

How high of an energy is sufficient to render particulate matter (condensed energy) conscious? What if the answer to these questions you are seeking is actually a very simple set of logical rules instead of creating larger and more powerful accelerators which smash particles into more finite particles which in the end proves that sub-atomic particles can be made even smaller. Do you think that accelerators can be made powerful enough to simulate the original big-bang energy released from nothingness?

Can the mind of man comprehend the real nature of consciousness?

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary.
Anyway, there are objective data which can induce us to accept or reject a given idea or theory. We have today billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data confirming the validity of Quantum Electrodynamics in the explanation of chemical and bilogical processes. This is an objectice fact.
Another objective fact is that, according to quantum electrodynamics, consciousness is not a property of matter and it is not generated by molecular, chemical or biological processes.

Now, if you simply make 1+1=2, you understand that the existence of consciousness in man implies the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the psiche or soul.

Actually there is more evidence that the formation of even the smallest particle or larger combinations of things are in fact based on irreducible complexity. In other words, nothing can be possible if one component of anything is not exactly necessary for the next part of the total. If one part is flawed or absent, nothing is formed and that applies to the universe itself. There is no cogent reason that this place of ours should be anything more than amorphous entropy.

You imply that the existence of consciousness in humans are an unphysical or unbiological component. What if consciousness is nothing more than an attribute of 'free will.' This attribute arising from the same place that all the energy of the big-bang derived.

It is probable that humans with all their billions upon billions of facts and data, ingenuity and Quantum Electrodynamics will never be able to understand the nature of consciousness.

 

[marco]

>>>>do you see how these quotes are directly in contradiction? unless by "objective" you actually mean "subjective", there is a contradiction in saying the concept of proof is arbitrary yet some facts are objectively verifiable.

I disagree. The concept of proof is certainly subjective,when applied to a theory or a concept, while the agreement between a given experimental data (represented by a measurment, that is a number) and the solution of a theoretical equation (represented again by a number) is objective. In fact the comparison between two numbers is a mathematical operation, and such operation is objective. Therefore, the systematic and quantitatve agreement between quantum theory and experimental data is objective.


Marco.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by marco

I disagree. The concept of proof is certainly subjective,when applied to a theory or a concept, while the agreement between a given experimental data (represented by a measurment, that is a number) and the solution of a theoretical equation (represented again by a number) is objective. In fact the comparison between two numbers is a mathematical operation, and such operation is objective. Therefore, the systematic and quantitatve agreement between quantum theory and experimental data is objective.

I too disagree. For one to compare experimentation or comparison between two numbers is a subjective function of the observer. Objectively, the numbers or experiments would have to compare themselves, one to another.

 

[marco]

>>>I too disagree. For one to compare experimentation or comparison between two numbers is a subjective function of the observer. Objectively, the numbers or experiments would have to compare themselves, one to another.

It is evident that we have a different concept of the word "subjective". With "subjective" I mean something that is a matter of personal arbitrary opinion.
Of course the comparison between numbers is not matter of arbitrary opinion. It is an objective fact that eah person can check.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by marco

It is evident that we have a different concept of the word "subjective". With "subjective" I mean something that is a matter of personal arbitrary opinion.
Of course the comparison between numbers is not matter of arbitrary opinion. It is an objective fact that eah person can check.

In the world of medicine and history/phsical taking these two words have very distinct meanings.

When we question a patient about their symptoms and complaints, we subjectively examine and observe the patient by physical examination.

When we ask the patient's for his or her objectivesymptoms, they relate to us what they are experiencing or noticing about themselves.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is, to the programming of their brain.

Any software structure can be coded by some large set of natural numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.

Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.

 

[elwestrand]

russ!

hey Russ, What a strange thing to see you here. Did you get my email? Does the CTMU support plant sentience?? Of couse "sentience" is intrinsic in all matter and energy, living or dead. Matter is solidified consciousness.

Isn't the existence of subjectivity in itself a universal objective phenomenon?

 

[Rader]

particle existence

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.

How do you know particles exist?

Whats was said is that i know of particle existence and that does not imply that i believe particles exist. A personal experience does not imply anything exists, except for me.

How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat Earth society during their time here?

Nor can i nor you be sure of anything. Its suffix to be sure for me.

Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

You apparently are delusional to think that once you understand the nature of what Zebras are made of, you will begin to visualize the essence of consiousness.

Then we all have our delusions do we not. All the evidence at hand indicates that Zebras and particles are made of the same thing. That not known quantum, to describe it simple is "Isness" Consciousnes is that "Isness" that manifests itself though matter in diffeent ways, on differet evolutionary levels.

Can you create life from inanimate matter like Baron Frankenstein? That is just about how much chance you will ever get to understand consciousness.

No but if i could create life from inanimate matter, i would prefer Marilyn Monroe to Baron Frankenstein.

What i believe, is the world is not what most believe it is.

Quantum phenomena provides “prima facie” evidence that information get around in ways that do not conform to classical ideas. Thus, the idea that information is transferred superluminally is, “a priori” not unreasonable. Everything that we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located in space-time. One of the implications of Bells Theorum is that, at a deep and fundamental level, the “separate parts” of the universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way. Also the implications of Bells Theorum is, that if, statistical predictions of quantum theory are correct, then some of our commonsense ides, about the world, are profoundly mistaken. In what way, it was just not clear, until Clauser and Freeman in 1972, performed an experiment which confirmed statistical predictions upon which Bell based his theorem. Repeated experimental data from the EPR two split experiment, Einstein-Podolosky- Rosen experiment `` using spin states`` thought up by David Bohm, EPR experiments using “polarized photons” seems to indicate, that information can be communicated at superluminal speeds contrary to the classical accepted ideas of physics. Bells theorem is the most profound discovery of science. In 1982 Alain Aspect, conducted an experiment which was similar to Clauser-Freeman experiment, with one important difference, at the last microsecond, the measuring devices could be changed, and this satisfied the conditions upon which the logical analysis leading to the phenomena of superluminal transfer of information, is based. Bells Theorum implies that what occurs at a certain time, is not a matter of chance. Like everything else, it depends upon something that which is happening elsewhere. The nonlocal aspect of Nature illuminated by “Bells Theorum” is accommodated in QM by the collapse of the wave function. This collapse is a sudden global change of the wave function, of a system. It takes place when any part of the system is observed. That is, when an observation on a system is made in one region, the wave function changes instantly, not only in one region but also in far away regions. It reflects the fact that, the parts of the system are correlated with each other, hence that a increase of information here is accompanied by a increase of information about the system elsewhere. However in quantum theory this collapse of the wave function, is such that what happens in a far-away place must, in some cases, depend on what an observer here choose to observe, what you see there depends on what I do here. This is a completely a nonclassical effect. The principle of local causes says, that what happens in one area, does not depend upon variables, subject to the control of the experimenter in a distant space-like separated area. The simplest way to explain the failure of the principle of local causes is, to conclude that what happens in one area does depend upon variables subject to the control of an experimenter in a distant space-like separated area. If this explanation is correct, then we live in a nonlocal universe, characterized by superluminal connections between apparently “separate parts”.
Emitte lucem Tuam et veritatem Tuam

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

No but if i could create life from inanimate matter, i would prefer Marilyn Monroe to Baron Frankenstein.

And if I could create life, then I would have violated the reality that particulate matter can create consciousness.

What i believe, is the world is not what most believe it is.

Brother you can say that again.

Quantum phenomena provides “prima facie” evidence that information get around in ways that do not conform to classical ideas.

Actually there is no prima facie evidence that Quantum physics is anything more than an illusion. I believe that you are correct in your assumption that Bells Theorem has the premise that all so-called matter both communicates with and in some way effects all the matter in the universe.

Then we have another conundrum. Perhaps you are fascicled from the particle wave duality or from Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, but this what we will see in the following experiment. That experiment which begins is actually very simple and reproducible. With a light source, a wall with two holes and a screen the following effect has been done by many researchers. On side of the wall there is the light source and on the other side there is the screen. When light passes the wall we can see an interference sample on the screen. The maxima are not behind the holes on the screen, but there is one maximum between the two holes on the screen, otherwise it would not be an interference sample. On the right and on the left of this maximum there are dark areas and then again bright areas, but these bright areas are not as bright as the maximum in the middle. Then we have got two dark areas again and so on. This result should not wonder us, because this are waves and because some waves have got a longer way from the light source to the screen than other waves some waves strengthen each other and other waves extinguish each other. When two wave combs clash then they strengthens each other and when a wave comb and a wave valley clash then they extinguish each other. When one hole is closed the maximum is behind the opened hole. Now we will replace the light source through an electron source and we will make the experiment again. This time we get the same interference sample when both holes are opened. This proofs the wave character of the electrons. But it is important that light or electrons cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. Now it becomes interesting, we do not let many electrons through out the wall, but only one after the other. When one electron passes the wall it cannot handicap himself and because it can only go throughout one of the holes it would be logical that the maxima are behind the two holes. But when we wait until many electrons have passed the wall we saw an interference sample again. When we repeat this experiment and we close one hole the maximum is behind the open hole. It seems that each electron somehow knows whether both holes are opened or only one. When we try to measure throughout which hole an electron goes we get two maxima behind the two holes. So it is wrong to say that the electron goes throughout one of these two holes, because we can say that it goes throughout both holes or we can also say that it goes throughout not hole, both answers are correct.

This implies that all particles or photons have a form of independent wisdom. What are the implications of Bells Theorem that all particles somehow communicate with every other particle in the universe and that every particle has some form of independent wisdom.

I think that the most probable explanation for both conundrums can be found at the following site. Also the age old question of what is on the other side of our universe looks like might be explained on this site.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Russell E. Rierson
A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is, to the programming of their brain.

Any software structure can be coded by some large set of natural numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.

Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.

"All things are numbers" that is Pythagorean philosophy. So information might be indestructable.

 

[Philophysicist]

Logical Proof that God Exists

Philophysicist


This is a logical Descartian kind of proof, but hard to refute

I think therefore I Exist (Descartes).
I am not God since I do not have unlimited knowledge and power.
I did not create myself.
The entity who created me(not necessarily God) is thus greater(more powerful) than I am.
Therefore by induction, God exists.

Induction means first we prove that a greater entity than ourselves exists. Then we apply the argument to that entity and so forth up the chain of existence to God.

Note the main argument does not depend on the nature of your external reality (ie you could be thinking you exist on someones computer, somewhere).
This argument is strictly between you and God.

A weaker proof is to take small steps by establishing a chain of superiority. A frog is superior to an amoeba, but a human is superior to a frog and so forth up the chain. This argument is weakened by the fact that we have to include our observed reality in the argument, a reality that may or may not be correct.

 

[phoenixthoth]

the induction would apply to God saying that something greater than God created God.

 

[FZ+]

the induction would apply to God saying that something greater than God created God.

Exactly. This argument in fact disproves the existence of an ultimate being, since there is always a more ultimate being beyond it. If the argument is correct, of course.

The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god.

 

[Rader]

Deum

Think of it this way. Where is the beginning of a circle?

 

[phoenixthoth]

this argument would be like concluding that there is a greatest number because every number has a number greater than itself.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
this argument would be like concluding that there is a greatest number because every number has a number greater than itself.

So that would mean that, a God would get exponentially more powerfull. Are numbers not information and informtion infinite. Just asking you are the math wizard.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i'm not terribly fond of comparing God to numbers but yeah, i think that's right. and even if you say, well, what about the set of natural numbers itself, that's in a way bigger than every number so maybe that's like God. but the set of natural numbers is just the smallest of an infinite ascending chain of infinities with no end. however, i am working on a theory in which that infinite chain does end with what i call the universal set. quine and others (eg russell and his types theory) have already worked on this but I'm using three valued logic. still, no induction gives away anything about there being a "stopping point".