Mathematical expression of possible God...

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I am using many different ones.

There is no one singular definition of a god for all of earth in all it's course of history.


If you read over the posts you might get a better sense of how I am calculating this.

the only definition of God can be creator of the total realm of universe.... the idea God,, was created to label the idea of an entity creating this universe...

if you do not mind the creation of the universe,, how does it work that the universe naturally arises,,, and then it naturally and accidently produces life,,, which evolves to have intelligence,,, and then this life creates a different kind of life,,,, the original life that creates the other life is able to be considered god? am i god of my ant farm? is anyone who creates anything god then?

reply to post by Americanist


"Again, no time"

if you are stated that "time" does not exist..,.,..,

when you say,,.,.., "no time"

what does time equal in that statement?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think the "time" he was referring to was the correlation between space and time, and that space-time does not exist outside a universe. (although I could be wrong)

It could be argued that the Universe is the expansion of space-time itself.
Although one must be careful of the thin grey line between correlation and causation.

edit on 24-8-2012 by KingAtlas because: forgot an quotation marke, and clarity

Time does not exist, period. The reality is... We experience life as an assembly/ reassembly point - point (e.g. the displays on monitors/ flat screens set to various frame rates). We are a display of vectors while 'digging' streams of consciousness.

time does not exist? Do you think the energy in this universe had a beginning?/ do you believe in the big bang? or a beginning to the way this universe began constructing?

I'd reason our Universe has a creator. Our technology is able to mirror creation at this point. The beginning as a start? Sure, the equivalent of a thought popping into your head. The big bang... No. The construction I've outlined in my blogs.

reply to post by Americanist


"The beginning as a start? Sure,"

ok so if the universe had a start,,, a beginning,,, everything about the universe after that beginning,, occurs in time sometime after the starting point,..,., then

as we can see an entire football field and measure it using equal increments ,..,.,..,., we can imagine the entire history of the universe, and find a consistent yardstick in which to measure the rate of time events occur.,,..
these events do occur and they do occur in specific moments compared to the whole, and other smaller incremental measurements,.,.,.

reply to post by Americanist


In theory I agree/disagree with you. The newer theorist are moving towards all time being co-existent.
So it's not an eternal "now" state, but an eternal "before-now-later" state.

Your "frame drag" matrix theory is kind of flawed.
It's more like a video that already been buffered. and the time mark is the representation of where you are in time, you play the video through following the arrow of time even though everything has already been buffered and already exists.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Americanist

 

"Again, no time"

if you are stated that "time" does not exist..,.,..,

when you say,,.,.., "no time"

what does time equal in that statement?

Time hinges on duration per function. The present tense - constant progress is void duration.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Americanist

 

"The beginning as a start? Sure,"

ok so if the universe had a start,,, a beginning,,, everything about the universe after that beginning,, occurs in time sometime after the starting point,..,., then

as we can see an entire football field and measure it using equal increments ,..,.,..,., we can imagine the entire history of the universe, and find a consistent yardstick in which to measure the rate of time events occur.,,..
these events do occur and they do occur in specific moments compared to the whole, and other smaller incremental measurements,.,.,.

Initially, this is a challenge to comprehend. The football game, you taking a piss afterwards, the car ride home, celebrating with some friends at the casa, and then passing out eventually... All takes place at once.

There's been nothing more than a 'start' throughout the entire span of our Universe.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Fungi, first off, please stop being so defensive.

To give an example of how a god does no equal creator of everything, lets take some history lessons okay.

Aphrodite was a Greek goddess, but she didn't create the universe.

Hercules was a Roman demi-god.

Guanyin is a Chinese goddess of observation.

Ect, Ect. Ect.....



ETA I also wan to Re-interate This is NOT a debate on whether or not God exists.
It is a math and math theory thread

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by Americanist

 

In theory I agree/disagree with you. The newer theorist are moving towards all time being co-existent.
So it's not an eternal "now" state, but an eternal "before-now-later" state.

Your "frame drag" matrix theory is kind of flawed.
It's more like a video that already been buffered. and the time mark is the representation of where you are in time, you play the video through following the arrow of time even though everything has already been buffered and already exists.

The buffered response (collective) is indicative of a fractal series. Kind of... A tell-tale sign.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Americanist

 

"The beginning as a start? Sure,"

ok so if the universe had a start,,, a beginning,,, everything about the universe after that beginning,, occurs in time sometime after the starting point,..,., then

as we can see an entire football field and measure it using equal increments ,..,.,..,., we can imagine the entire history of the universe, and find a consistent yardstick in which to measure the rate of time events occur.,,..
these events do occur and they do occur in specific moments compared to the whole, and other smaller incremental measurements,.,.,.

Initially, this is a challenge to comprehend. The football game, you taking a piss afterwards, the car ride home, celebrating with some friends at the casa, and then passing out eventually... All takes place at once.

There's been nothing more than a 'start' throughout the entire span of our Universe.

I only brought up football field to relate how we measure distance in consistant increments,.,.,. to how we can measure time in measurable increments ( such as the second,, the light year, the year,, 1000 years etc)

all those things do not take place at once,,,, in order to take a car ride home from the football field,, in the past you would have had to get to the football field.,,.,. going to the football field and coming home from the football field can not take place "at the same time",,,

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Fungi, first off, please stop being so defensive.

To give an example of how a god does no equal creator of everything, lets take some history lessons okay.

Aphrodite was a Greek goddess, but she didn't create the universe.

Hercules was a Roman demi-god.

Guanyin is a Chinese goddess of observation.

Ect, Ect. Ect.....



ETA I also wan to Re-interate This is NOT a debate on whether or not God exists.
It is a math and math theory thread

edit on 24-8-2012 by KingAtlas because: ETA

those are more archetypes,, that is like giving names to platos realm of forms,,, the eternal absolute existing themes of nature,,, forces and powers,, with anthropomorphic qualities,,..,.,

so your trying to prove mathematically that zeus might exist?


and even if those are the kinds of gods you are attempting to prove,.,.,. will you then assume that the universe came about naturally and produced these gods within it and of it? ignoring the potential that a God created the entire universe?

In a thousand years if mankind travels to a distant planet and seeds it with genetic material they derived from scratch and original thought,, are those men gods?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Okay I will try again.

No I am not discounting that possibility.

I was using those types of Gods to show you that not all "gods" created the universe. Sometimes called an example.

I am not trying to prove Zeus exists.

You have an unbending idea of what a god is.

And you seem to be certain that there is only a singular god.

I am not interested in opinion.


This is purely mathematical play time. PLEASE RE-READ the elements and variable involved.


I am starting to wonder if you are just trolling? I never accuse people of that either...
I hope you are just lacking in information capacity.

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Okay I will try again.

No I am not discounting that possibility.

I was using those types of Gods to show you that not all "gods" created the universe. Sometimes called an example.

I am not trying to prove Zeus exists.

You have an unbending idea of what a god is.

And you seem to be certain that there is only a singular god.

I am not interested in opinion.


This is purely mathematical play time. PLEASE RE-READ the elements and variable involved.


I am starting to wonder if you are just trolling? I never accuse people of that either...
I hope you are just lacking in information capacity.

lol,,, im just asking questions where there can be questions asked of the sentences you put forth,, so that I can better understand what your getting at..,, you are taking my approach as me being defensive,, only because you are being offended...

you have preconceived notions of what the word God means,, can you answer my example of if man would be god if man created life on another planet? if this is true ,,, then yes that mathematical proves a "god" can exist.,,.., if not,,,,, please give me a conceptual definition of what god would be,..,,. not trolling,,, just bothersome questions you didnt bother thinking about..

Gerald Schroeder

Schroeder received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[2] He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.[3]

Dr. Schroeder's argument is so powerful that it influenced one of the worlds leading atheist, Antony Flew to accept the reality of an infinitely intelligent God.

youtu.be...



Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

One of World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or
Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
www.simpletoremember.com...

reply to post by ImaFungi


What you've done there is string together mental concepts of measurement and sequence. How about a football game being played on the quantum scale?

Quantum Scale - velocity / range of positions (determining to the best of our ability)

reply to post by ImaFungi


Fungi, it's not that i am offended, I am just getting annoyed a little.
Mostly because I am having trouble trying to represent multiple god senarios properly, and am having a tough time.

What you are stating is not a god.

It is a form of evolution.


I am using value for god/s representing their potency. 1 being low(a god that can only exist in an energy state) and 5 being high (omniscient)
( I am actually thinking I will have to expand to larger values)

You are making an assumption Fungi, that a god created everything.
This is a personal belief, and doesn't matter mathematically.

You have to look at it objectively.

You have to take into account the possibilities, like the possibilities that universe creation is self-propelled.
You can't discount it, just because you can't comprehend how that would work.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

What you've done there is string together mental concepts of measurement and sequence. How about a football game being played on the quantum scale?

Quantum Scale - velocity / range of positions (determining to the best of our ability)

ok ok..,. do quantum interactions occur in time? do they occur in specific sequence of cause and effect, or time,, in the way that,,, this had to happen here and at this time,, in order for this to happen later,.,. and the time in between can be measured? even if we dont have the instruments to measure do these things not occur in sequences and rates of "time"?

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Fungi, it's not that i am offended, I am just getting annoyed a little.
Mostly because I am having trouble trying to represent multiple god senarios properly, and am having a tough time.

What you are stating is not a god.

It is a form of evolution.


I am using value for god/s representing their potency. 1 being low(a god that can only exist in an energy state) and 5 being high (omniscient)
( I am actually thinking I will have to expand to larger values)

You are making an assumption Fungi, that a god created everything.
This is a personal belief, and doesn't matter mathematically.

You have to look at it objectively.

You have to take into account the possibilities, like the possibilities that universe creation is self-propelled.
You can't discount it, just because you can't comprehend how that would work.

ok I dont discount it.,,.,.,. so you are starting under the assumption that the universe created itself and was not created by an intelligent entity ( god),.,.,.,.,.

so you are only worried about what "gods" can arise naturally in the naturally self formed universe...

so you must define your concept of god,, which is completely arbitrary because you are just making it up.,..,., is a particle a god because it creates an atom? is a frog a god because it creates offspring? is man a god because he creates petri dish germs, and paintings and buildings? is a rock a god because it creates landslides and destroys ants? is lightening a god because it is so powerful?

I bring up intelligent man in this.,,.,. and his potential of being considered a god.,.,,. as being equal to the potential of intelligence arising on many other planets in the naturally arising universe,.,.,. there fore if there are any very intelligent and advanced naturally arising entities,, you can call them god,,,, but they were naturally arisen and created from the universe just like we were,.,, so,,,,,, the word "god" just depends on what your definition of it is, and who you would like to label it as...

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

What you've done there is string together mental concepts of measurement and sequence. How about a football game being played on the quantum scale?

Quantum Scale - velocity / range of positions (determining to the best of our ability)

ok ok..,. do quantum interactions occur in time? do they occur in specific sequence of cause and effect, or time,, in the way that,,, this had to happen here and at this time,, in order for this to happen later,.,. and the time in between can be measured? even if we dont have the instruments to measure do these things not occur in sequences and rates of "time"?

I'll answer with quantum entanglement. "Now" you tell me...

reply to post by ImaFungi


Okay fungi ...

I am not starting under any assumption.

I am taking into consideration, multiple variables.

The reason I have to start at a value 1 (god existing in an energy state) is to take into account the possibility that there is only one Universe, and no multiverse. Nothing outside the universe, the universe is everything.

The reason I have end at value 5 ( a completely omniscient god, who created all the multiverse and is behind everything else in between.) That is the furthest you can push the god theory.

The numbers in between represent different scenarios, and levels of potency.


What you stated is incorrect, stating that god could not naturally occur inside a system.
That is a paradox.
Is a completely omnipotent god not powerful enough to create a system whereupon he could be created himself?