Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi
Sorry, I replied twice...
That does nothing to prove this and you cant even explain how this would be theoretically possible
So you want proof. Goood. Keep seeking the "truth". When you get your answer, you will know. Don't be so impatient, life is a life long process. A yearning burning mind is the best form of prayer there is. I don't mean sunday church prayer either. Go outside at night and stare up at the sky and wonder... that is true worship.
You will be answered eventually, I can tell. You have a burning desire. That does not go unanswered.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
I just want to think about what may be true...
The whole god concept is not a red herring because it potentially may be true
Do you think it is impossible for a God to have created this universe?
Is it possible for a reality to ever exist that does not follow laws and causality/logic ( interpret reality as a system, which exists as a whole (reality) because of each part (bits of information) and how each part reacts to each other)?
Do you think God created the universe?
Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
Faith is not truth. It is hope of truth. Therein lies the red herring.
Loaded question.
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi
Do you think God created the universe?
If you use that like what the bible says, no. I think men wrote that from their even more limited understanding of the Universe thousands of years ago.
I do think DNA, the seed, an egg, and the magic of the womb were "created". I don't believe they "evolved".
Ok, now what do you mean by they were created?
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ImaFungi
Ok, now what do you mean by they were created?
I mean what we call the Genetic Code. It is "encoded", right? Who programmed that? Who did that? That "creator".
Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
Stop giving someone else the credit.
Possibility, necessity, and contingency
Further information: Modal logic#The ontology of possibility
Those theorists who use the concept of possible worlds consider the actual world to be one of the many possible worlds. For each distinct way the world could have been, there is said to be a distinct possible world; the actual world is the one we in fact live in. Among such theorists there is disagreement about the nature of possible worlds; their precise ontological status is disputed, and especially the difference, if any, in ontological status between the actual world and all the other possible worlds. One position on these matters is set forth in David Lewis's modal realism (see below). There is a close relation between propositions and possible worlds. We note that every proposition is either true or false at any given possible world; then the modal status of a proposition is understood in terms of the worlds in which it is true and worlds in which it is false. The following are among the assertions we may now usefully make:
True propositions are those that are true in the actual world (for example: "Richard Nixon became President in 1969").
False propositions are those that are false in the actual world (for example: "Ronald Reagan became President in 1969").
Possible propositions are those that are true in at least one possible world (for example: "Hubert Humphrey became President in 1969"). Note: This includes propositions which are necessarily true, in the sense below.
Impossible propositions (or necessarily false propositions) are those that are true in no possible world (for example: "Melissa and Toby are taller than each other at the same time").
Necessarily true propositions (often simply called necessary propositions) are those that are true in all possible worlds (for example: "2 + 2 = 4"; "all bachelors are unmarried").
Contingent propositions are those that are true in some possible worlds and false in others (for example: "Richard Nixon became President in 1969" is contingently true and "Hubert Humphrey became President in 1969" is contingently false).
The idea of possible worlds is most commonly attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, who spoke of possible worlds as ideas in the mind of God and used the notion to argue that our actually created world must be "the best of all possible worlds". However, scholars have also found implicit traces of the idea in the works of Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), Averroes (The Incoherence of the Incoherence),Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (Matalib al-'Aliya) and John Duns Scotus. The modern philosophical use of the notion was pioneered by David Lewis and Saul Kripke.
Formal semantics of modal logics
Main article: Modal logic#Semantics
A semantics for modal logic was first introduced in the 1950s work of Saul Kripke and his colleagues.
A statement in modal logic that is possible is said to be true in at least one possible world; a statement that is necessary is said to be true in all possible worlds.
The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). It is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many-worlds.
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.
The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.
Set theory is the branch of mathematics that studies sets, which are collections of objects. Although any type of object can be collected into a set, set theory is applied most often to objects that are relevant to mathematics. The language of set theory can be used in the definitions of nearly all mathematical objects.
The modern study of set theory was initiated by Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind in the 1870s. After the discovery of paradoxes in naive set theory, numerous axiom systems were proposed in the early twentieth century, of which the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, with the axiom of choice, are the best-known.
Set theory is commonly employed as a foundational system for mathematics, particularly in the form of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. Beyond its foundational role, set theory is a branch of mathematics in its own right, with an active research community. Contemporary research into set theory includes a diverse collection of topics, ranging from the structure of the real number line to the study of the consistency of large cardinals.
Interpreting wavefunction collapse
As with the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, the many-worlds interpretation is motivated by behavior that can be illustrated by the double-slit experiment. When particles of light (or anything else) are passed through the double slit, a calculation assuming wave-like behavior of light can be used to identify where the particles are likely to be observed. Yet when the particles are observed in this experiment, they appear as particles (i.e., at definite places) and not as non-localized waves.
Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed a process of "collapse" in which an indeterminate quantum system would probabilistically collapse down onto, or select, just one determinate outcome to "explain" this phenomenon of observation. Wavefunction collapse was widely regarded as artificial and ad hoc[citation needed], so an alternative interpretation in which the behavior of measurement could be understood from more fundamental physical principles was considered desirable.
Everett's Ph.D. work provided such an alternative interpretation. Everett noted that for a composite system – for example a subject (the "observer" or measuring apparatus) observing an object (the "observed" system, such as a particle) – the statement that either the observer or the observed has a well-defined state is meaningless; in modern parlance the observer and the observed have become entangled; we can only specify the state of one relative to the other, i.e., the state of the observer and the observed are correlated after the observation is made. This led Everett to derive from the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone (i.e., without assuming wavefunction collapse) the notion of a relativity of states.
Everett noticed that the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone decreed that after an observation is made each element of the quantum superposition of the combined subject–object wavefunction contains two "relative states": a "collapsed" object state and an associated observer who has observed the same collapsed outcome; what the observer sees and the state of the object have become correlated by the act of measurement or observation. The subsequent evolution of each pair of relative subject–object states proceeds with complete indifference as to the presence or absence of the other elements, as if wavefunction collapse has occurred, which has the consequence that later observations are always consistent with the earlier observations. Thus the appearance of the object's wavefunction's collapse has emerged from the unitary, deterministic theory itself. (This answered Einstein's early criticism of quantum theory, that the theory should define what is observed, not for the observables to define the theory). Since the wavefunction appears to have collapsed then, Everett reasoned, there was no need to actually assume that it had collapsed. And so, invoking Occam's razor, he removed the postulate of wavefunction collapse from the theory.
Probability
A consequence of removing wavefunction collapse from the quantum formalism is that the Born rule requires derivation, since many-worlds claims to derive its interpretation from the formalism. Attempts have been made, by many-world advocates and others, over the years to derive the Born rule, rather than just conventionally assume it, so as to reproduce all the required statistical behaviour associated with quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on whether this has been successful.
The Born rule (also called the Born law, Born's rule, or Born's law) is a law of quantum mechanics which gives the probability that a measurement on a quantum system will yield a given result. It is named after its originator, the physicist Max Born. The Born rule is one of the key principles of quantum mechanics. There have been many attempts to derive the Born rule from the other assumptions of quantum mechanics, with inconclusive results.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
I am only saying either an intelligence created this universe, or one didnt. Has nothing to do with faith, there is a truth, and it can potentially be discerned.
How so?
No need to give anyone credit for the things you do
Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
The presumption is that there is a God as defined in this context (an entity with the power to create and destroy universes at will,). If it is not clear what God is, how am I to ascertain what it can or cannot do. This being the case, whether I answered yes or no, I could be unknowing lying as there may or may not be a God as you are defining it. You cannot have truth when you do not have all the facts. Best you can do is an educated guess and that aint truth.
I don't understand why we need to invent a God to give credit to, for the universe being an amazing place full of wonders. It's just not very rational. Gods didn't produce thunder and lightening and they didn't create the universe. It's only a matter of time until we figure it out, and then the "believers" will need to find some other thing to latch onto. Unless in the meantime we can once and for all put this mythical sky man to rest and write it off as a case of long term bad judgement on our parts and move on to better things. I wont hold my breath though.
Well biologists who dont believe in intelligent design would tell you time, chemistry/biology, physical laws, and trial and error...
but I would tell them thats the same way we intelligently create anything