The God Equation

C

Cypress

Well-known member
THE GOD EQUATION

It was to be the final theory, a single framework that would unite all the forces of the cosmos and choreograph everything from the motion of the expanding universe to the most minute dance of subatomic particles. The challenge was to write an equation whose mathematical elegance would encompass the whole of physics.

Some of the most eminent physicists in the world embarked upon this quest. Stephen Hawking even gave a talk with the auspicious title “Is the End in Sight for Theoretical Physics?”

If such a theory is successful, it would be science’s crowning achievement. It would be the holy grail of physics, a single formula from which, in principle, one could derive all other equations, starting from the Big Bang and moving to the end of the universe. It would be the end product of two thousand years of scientific investigation ever since the ancients asked the question, “What is the world made of?

It is a breathtaking vision.

<Snip>

Many physicists have tried and failed. As Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson once said, the road to the unified field theory is littered with the corpses of failed attempts.

Today, however, many leading physicists believe that we are finally converging on the solution.

The leading (and to my mind, only) candidate is called string theory, which posits the universe was not made of point particles but of tiny vibrating strings, with each note corresponding to a subatomic particle.
If we had a microscope powerful enough, we could see that electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. are nothing but vibrations on minuscule loops resembling rubber bands. If we pluck the rubber band enough times and in different ways, we eventually create all the known subatomic particles in the universe. This means that all the laws of physics can be reduced to the harmonies of these strings. Chemistry is the melodies one can play on them. The universe is a symphony. And the mind of God, which Einstein eloquently wrote about, is cosmic music resonating throughout space-time.

Continued https://www.closertotruth.com/articles/book-excerpt-the-god-equation
 
My one nit pick is the boldness of calling it string theory.

It cannot be experimentally tested at this point, so it technically does not reach the threshold of a theory.

At this time, it is more of a creative idea supported by some elegant mathematics.
 
Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God

It’s been said that string theory physicist Michio Kaku believes in God, but the truth is it depends on what “God” means.

Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God.

Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."

"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a*Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.

Part of the problem, of course, is that "God" has different meanings to different people, and in discussing It/Him/Her, there’s apt to be confusion. And yet believers continue to ask scientists this question, perhaps seeking scientific confirmation for their faith. They want to know if Kaku’s an atheist, but when we can’t agree on what God is, “atheist” has even less meaning.

In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells*innovation tech today*that the universe*could*have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.”

He’s stuck by what he sees as its exquisite simplicity, pointing out that all of the laws of physics could fit on a single sheet of paper, and, “In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long.” He asserts that with his string field theory, he had that one-inch explanation of everything, but that with new developments in membrane theory, he needs a little more room. For now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/amp/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god-2604513395
 
You win a swimming race. [Not a great move, but you didn't know.]
You're born.
You live a life where the rewards will unlikely be adequate compensation for the travails.
Then you die, no longer existing or destined to exist again.

One can either be burning with desire to understand all of this,
or at the opposite extreme, one might be glad to get it over with.

I think that the very smartest among us could possibly be the ones who train their thoughts on more fun subjects.
Or not. What the fuck do I know?
I'm going with random confluence and then thinking about food and golf.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
You win a swimming race. [Not a great move, but you didn't know.]
You're born.
You live a life where the rewards will unlikely be adequate compensation for the travails.
Then you die, no longer existing or destined to exist again.

One can either be burning with desire to understand all of this,
or at the opposite extreme, one might be glad to get it over with.

I think that the very smartest among us could possibly be the ones who train their thoughts on more fun subjects.
Or not. What the fuck do I know?
I'm going with random confluence and then thinking about food and golf.
Click to expand...

I believe the great scientists are drawn to that profession because they have a keen desire to contemplate the deep questions of reality.

But I also know good scientists who also enjoy snowboarding, video games, craft beer, and golf.
 
--->" My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."<---
This is the Agnostic view.

"ag•nos•tic ăg-nŏs′tĭk►
n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."



Cypress said:
Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God

It’s been said that string theory physicist Michio Kaku believes in God, but the truth is it depends on what “God” means.

Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God.

Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."

"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a*Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.

Part of the problem, of course, is that "God" has different meanings to different people, and in discussing It/Him/Her, there’s apt to be confusion. And yet believers continue to ask scientists this question, perhaps seeking scientific confirmation for their faith. They want to know if Kaku’s an atheist, but when we can’t agree on what God is, “atheist” has even less meaning.

In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells*innovation tech today*that the universe*could*have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.”

He’s stuck by what he sees as its exquisite simplicity, pointing out that all of the laws of physics could fit on a single sheet of paper, and, “In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long.” He asserts that with his string field theory, he had that one-inch explanation of everything, but that with new developments in membrane theory, he needs a little more room. For now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/amp/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god-2604513395
Click to expand...
 
Jack said:
--->" My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."<---
This is the Agnostic view.

"ag•nos•tic ăg-nŏs′tĭk►
n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."
Click to expand...
Close but not exactly right.

The ability to prove is different from the ability to know.

They are two slightly different questions.

Outside of the creation science nutjobs, most theologians, Bishops, and intelligent laity realize that God cannot be proven through reason or scientific experimentation. But they still believe.

There are many things humans believe in which are not quantifiable or testable by mass spectrometers or particle accelerators: justice, integrity, temperance, virtue, ethics.

The recognition that God can neither be proven nor disproven by reason and science is an intellectual posture shared by agnostics as well as most intelligent people of faith, outside the nutjobs.
 
Jack said:
--->" My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."<---
This is the Agnostic view.

"ag•nos•tic ăg-nŏs′tĭk►
n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."
Click to expand...

Sceptics think they know the boundary of the knowledge claim. Thus, an agnostic treats as certain knowledge that God's existence cannot be known.
 
Cypress said:
Close but not exactly right.

The ability to prove is different from the ability to know.

They are two slightly different questions.

Outside of the creation science nutjobs, most theologians, Bishops, and intelligent laity realize that God cannot be proven through reason or scientific experimentation. But they still believe.

There are many things humans believe in which are not quantifiable or testable by mass spectrometers or particle accelerators: justice, integrity, temperance, virtue, ethics.

The recognition that God can neither be proven nor disproven by reason and science is an intellectual posture shared by agnostics as well as most intelligent people of faith, outside the nutjobs.
Click to expand...

Cy: "The ability to prove is different from the ability to know."
Jack: If you can 'prove' it, then you are able to 'know' it.

Cy: "Outside of the creation science nutjobs, most theologians, Bishops, and intelligent laity realize that God cannot be proven through reason or scientific experimentation. But they still believe."
Jack: Yeah. That's called 'Belief'. I can 'believe' the Moon is made out of green cheese, doesn't mean it is.
 
BidenPresident said:
Agnostics are intellectually lazy. They think they know everything.
Click to expand...

:) I think the label applies to people that realize the existence/nonexistence of God/Gods is unable to be proved.

BP: "They think they know everything."
Jack: That's quite a stretch from a simple religious designation of 'Believer', 'NonBeliver', and 'Can't be Proved either Way'.
 
Jack said:
:) I think the label applies to people that realize the existence/nonexistence of God/Gods is unable to be proved.

BP: "They think they know everything."
Jack: That's quite a stretch from a simple religious designation of 'Believer', 'NonBeliver', and 'Can't be Proved either Way'.
Click to expand...

You decided that it is undecidable.
 
BidenPresident said:
You decided that it is undecidable.
Click to expand...

I'm at Peace with NOT being able to prove there is or is not a 'God/Gods'.

We are able to 'prove' to ourselves that Evolution is real. That we all came from single-cell organisms millions of years ago.
But ... we are UNABLE to create 'Life'. With all our Computers and Technology, we are unable to create the simplest Life Form.

Soooo ... anything is possible.
Like the Scientist once said "If we find out the Seven Dwarfs are running the Universe, we'll let you know".
OK. Sounds good to me, I've got other stuff to do.
 
Jack said:
I'm at Peace with NOT being able to prove there is or is not a 'God/Gods'.

We are able to 'prove' to ourselves that Evolution is real. That we all came from single-cell organisms millions of years ago.
But ... we are UNABLE to create 'Life'. With all our Computers and Technology, we are unable to create the simplest Life Form.

Soooo ... anything is possible.
Like the Scientist once said "If we find out the Seven Dwarfs are running the Universe, we'll let you know".
OK. Sounds good to me, I've got other stuff to do.
Click to expand...

I did not ask about your psychological state. Like I said, agnostics merely assert without proof.
 
Jack said:
Cy: "The ability to prove is different from the ability to know."
Jack: If you can 'prove' it, then you are able to 'know' it.

Cy: "Outside of the creation science nutjobs, most theologians, Bishops, and intelligent laity realize that God cannot be proven through reason or scientific experimentation. But they still believe."
Jack: Yeah. That's called 'Belief'. I can 'believe' the Moon is made out of green cheese, doesn't mean it is.
Click to expand...

So we agree that the conclusion that God can neither be proven or disproven applies not only to agnostics, but also to intelligent religious people.

Proof itself is a tricky word because virtually all the knowledge we have is based on proofs which are provisional in nature.

The ones that worry me are the Creation Science Museum nutjobs, who seem to genuinely believe that the scientific method can somehow be used to validate the historicity of the stories in the Torah.
 
Cypress said:
So we agree that the conclusion that God can neither be proven or disproven applies not only to agnostics, but also to intelligent religious people.

Proof itself is a tricky word because virtually all the knowledge we have is based on proofs which are provisional in nature.

The ones that worry me are the Creation Science Museum nutjobs, who seem to genuinely believe that the scientific method can somehow be used to validate the historicity of the stories in the Torah.
Click to expand...


Cy: "So we agree that the conclusion that God can neither be proven or disproven applies not only to agnostics, but also to intelligent religious people."
Jack: I know what 'Agnostic' means. I have no idea what 'intelligent religious people' believe.

The 'Stories' in the Bible may or may not be true, but it is a good insight of the Ancient Peoples of the Middle East.
There seems to be a Babylonian influence. The Code of Hammurabi is an example.

"Modern scholars responded to the Code with admiration, at its perceived fairness and respect for the rule of law, and at the complexity of Old Babylonian society. There was also much discussion of its influence on the Mosaic Law. Scholars quickly identified lex talionis, the "eye for an eye" principle, as underlying the two collections. Debate among Assyriologists has since centred around several aspects of the Code: its purpose, its underlying principles, its language, and its relation to earlier and later law collections."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

The 'Epic of Gilgamesh' is another.

"Gilgamesh observes that Utnapishtim seems no different from himself, and asks him how he obtained his immortality. Utnapishtim explains that the gods decided to send a great flood. To save Utnapishtim the god Enki told him to build a boat. He gave him precise dimensions, and it was sealed with pitch and bitumen. His entire family went aboard together with his craftsmen and "all the animals of the field". A violent storm then arose which caused the terrified gods to retreat to the heavens. Ishtar lamented the wholesale destruction of humanity, and the other gods wept beside her. The storm lasted six days and nights, after which "all the human beings turned to clay". Utnapishtim weeps when he sees the destruction. His boat lodges on a mountain, and he releases a dove, a swallow, and a raven. When the raven fails to return, he opens the ark and frees its inhabitants. Utnapishtim offers a sacrifice to the gods, who smell the sweet savor and gather around. Ishtar vows that just as she will never forget the brilliant necklace that hangs around her neck, she will always remember this time. When Enlil arrives, angry that there are survivors, she condemns him for instigating the flood. Enki also castigates him for sending a disproportionate punishment. Enlil blesses Utnapishtim and his wife, and rewards them with eternal life. This account largely matches the flood story that concludes the Epic of Atra-Hasis.[26]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top