Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Gin Saké, The Anonymous, Primavera, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Niche Political Commentor, Superfreak, volsrock, Yurt, Earl, Lord Yurt, OG Yurt and Yakuda


Page 1 of 29 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 433

Thread: The God Equation

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default The God Equation

    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/articl...e-god-equation

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (09-18-2021)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    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.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (09-15-2021), ThatOwlWoman (09-18-2021)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    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/bigthin...god-2604513395

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (09-15-2021), ThatOwlWoman (09-18-2021)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9,391
    Thanks
    978
    Thanked 3,756 Times in 2,703 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 488 Times in 465 Posts

    Default

    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.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NiftyNiblick For This Post:

    Jack (09-15-2021), ThatOwlWoman (09-18-2021)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    NiftyNiblick (09-15-2021)

  11. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    39,800
    Thanks
    14,815
    Thanked 11,043 Times in 8,476 Posts
    Groans
    436
    Groaned 2,335 Times in 2,158 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    --->" 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."



    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    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/bigthin...god-2604513395

  12. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37,436
    Thanks
    19,112
    Thanked 26,174 Times in 13,525 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,351 Times in 2,115 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    --->" 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."
    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.

  13. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    16,140
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4,940 Times in 3,526 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 378 Times in 362 Posts

    Default

    Religious fundamentalists are always trying to prove that their belief is the only true one.

  14. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    16,140
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4,940 Times in 3,526 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 378 Times in 362 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    --->" 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."
    Sceptics think they know the boundary of the knowledge claim. Thus, an agnostic treats as certain knowledge that God's existence cannot be known.

  15. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    39,800
    Thanks
    14,815
    Thanked 11,043 Times in 8,476 Posts
    Groans
    436
    Groaned 2,335 Times in 2,158 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Sceptics think they know the boundary of the knowledge claim. Thus, an agnostic treats as certain knowledge that God's existence cannot be known.
    OK.

  16. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    16,140
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4,940 Times in 3,526 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 378 Times in 362 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    OK.
    Agnostics are intellectually lazy. They think they know everything.

  17. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    39,800
    Thanks
    14,815
    Thanked 11,043 Times in 8,476 Posts
    Groans
    436
    Groaned 2,335 Times in 2,158 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    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.
    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.

  18. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    39,800
    Thanks
    14,815
    Thanked 11,043 Times in 8,476 Posts
    Groans
    436
    Groaned 2,335 Times in 2,158 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Agnostics are intellectually lazy. They think they know everything.
    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'.

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    16,140
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4,940 Times in 3,526 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 378 Times in 362 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    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'.
    You decided that it is undecidable.

  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    39,800
    Thanks
    14,815
    Thanked 11,043 Times in 8,476 Posts
    Groans
    436
    Groaned 2,335 Times in 2,158 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    You decided that it is undecidable.
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 07:17 PM
  2. Media misses half the equation.
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 11:55 AM
  3. An excellent equation
    By TheHighbrow in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-04-2007, 10:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •