A Proof of God

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:10 pm

Og3 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:51 pm
Thank you.

A meaningful and well-thought out reply.
Honoured
So, my own studies in Physics have been relatively informal since 1984 (when I left a certain school of which we do not speak), but I can say without fear of contradiction that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the best answer thus far to the Quantum Mechanics equations. We could ignore QM altogether and insist that relativity is the right answer, as Einstein did in his latter days. Unfortunately, the great tide of experimental evidence would be against us.
I was told or read some years ago that while most physicists accept Copenhagen, most quantum cosmologists don't. And Quantum cosmologists are the relevant experts here. So you should have some fear of contradiction. As I understand it Einstein posited a deeper game where everything is still determined and as far as I'm aware that would still fit all the experimental evidence; in fact it may be a metaphysical theory that could never be contradicted by any evidence. And in choosing between theories, Copenhagen and many worlds could be the same.
Take, for example, the idea of Quantum Tunneling. Electrons sometimes go places they can't be. Or... Technically can't be. As a real world example, suppose that I had a non-zero chance of waking up in Toledo, Ohio, tomorrow. That non-zero chance would be predicated upon me travelling to Ohio, and then going to sleep there. But according to the idea of QT, I might sometimes wake up in Toledo without ever having gone there. Thank God I'm not an electron... Because that really happens to electrons. They pass through things that can't let them through. They appear places that they weren't going. So we have strong evidence by experiment that QT happens, and thus that CI is correct.
I am not convinced QT does prove Copenhagen and is not equally compatible with the other two options. It would seem so unless two thirds of quantum cosmologists have never heard of quantum tunneling or my data is now out of date and they have all changed their minds and come round to Copenhagen in the last decade.
So let's suppose then that Many World is correct, and for every electron that defies logic, there's another that behaves as expected in a different universe. Okay, the collapsing wave spawns a new universe identical to this one in every way, with every single electron interaction. Whatever universes are, there would be infinities of them, and they would be multiplying. This leads us into a problem when we consider the concept of multiverses: Infinite things are infinitely subdivided. Banuch Tarski paradox, that's your cue...
I don't see that infinite things would have to be infinitely subdivisible. Numbers have this property but matter is quantised, so it isn't. Nor would the infinite set of universes have to be related back to each other once they had divided, or so I understand it. Each universe could go its own way once the split had happened, so there isn't really anywhere all universes could exist as a set.
If we take something apart into an infinite number of pieces, we can construct two such things, identical in every respect with the original, from the infinite number of pieces of the original. So when we get to infinite universes, we have to abandon conservation, a fundamental principle of physics. In short, a multiverse, by definition, cannot be objective... It would have to exist as the result of subjective perceptions.
I am not sure a multiverse would need to be an object or even a set of objects.
(As an aside: wrt numbers, I accept the Peano Axiom set).
Well the Peano postulates are not complete as a number theory and are compatible with several philosophies of number, including Brouwer's radical version of constructivism, according to which numbers are not objects subject to logical laws.

Og3
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Og3 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:01 am

I should amend my statement vis-a-vis the tree:

It has both the objective component of existence, because it is the object, and there is also the subjective component, that you, the subject, still subjectively see the objective tree. For it to have only the objective component, you would need to be walking in the dark, such that the subjective existence of the tree began only when you walked into it. But the fact that we are able to be surprised by walking into a tree in the dark makes my point: either the tree is objective, or else it is under observation when no human can observe it.

Og3
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Og3 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:13 am

Moonwood wrote:I am not convinced QT does prove Copenhagen and is not equally compatible with the other two options. It would seem so unless two thirds of quantum cosmologists have never heard of quantum tunneling or my data is now out of date and they have all changed their minds and come round to Copenhagen in the last decade.
Any theory in which QT is possible makes my point: QT is not consistent with an objective universe. The cause does not match the effect; it is inconsistent.
Og wrote: So let's suppose then that Many World is correct, and for every electron that defies logic, there's another that behaves as expected in a different universe. Okay, the collapsing wave spawns a new universe identical to this one in every way, with every single electron interaction. Whatever universes are, there would be infinities of them, and they would be multiplying. This leads us into a problem when we consider the concept of multiverses: Infinite things are infinitely subdivided. Banuch Tarski paradox, that's your cue...
Moonwood wrote:I don't see that infinite things would have to be infinitely subdivisible. Numbers have this property but matter is quantised, so it isn't. Nor would the infinite set of universes have to be related back to each other once they had divided, or so I understand it. Each universe could go its own way once the split had happened, so there isn't really anywhere all universes could exist as a set.
Subdivisible may be the wrong word. It defies our vocabulary to be out on the edge. Let's say instead that if we have an infinite thing, then by virtue of the Banuch Tarski paradox we have two infinite things, and carried to its logical conclusion, we have an infinite number of infinite things.

So conservation is out the window, and with it all of objective reality as we know it. Objective reality demands the existence of absolute rules and absolute things -- there has to be something we're objective about. Which brings us back to a subjective reality.
Og wrote:If we take something apart into an infinite number of pieces, we can construct two such things, identical in every respect with the original, from the infinite number of pieces of the original. So when we get to infinite universes, we have to abandon conservation, a fundamental principle of physics. In short, a multiverse, by definition, cannot be objective... It would have to exist as the result of subjective perceptions.
Moonwood wrote:I am not sure a multiverse would need to be an object or even a set of objects.
Again, we run against the inadequacy of vocabulary for such a case. But there would need to be a set of somethings, and those somethings would multiply at the collapse of a dual wave, giving us another fully-equipped universe. Creating thus an infinite number of them. Conservation would not be conserved. Thus we cannot call it objective (universive?). Thus we are back to only knowing for certain what we see -- subjectivity.

Og3
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Og3 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:19 am

Well the Peano postulates are not complete as a number theory and are compatible with several philosophies of number, including Brouwer's radical version of constructivism, according to which numbers are not objects subject to logical laws.
When we say, for example, that in an objective universe pi=3.141592653589793238462... always and absolutely, we speak here of pi not as a number per se but as a value for the ratio of a circumference to a radius, that is, a definition of roundness ("a circle is round if and only if the ratio of its circumference to its radius is 3.14.1592653589793238462...").

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: A Proof of God

Post by SEG » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:20 am

Og3 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:04 pm

Do you see an ambiguous term?
Yes, your particular god has no definition.
Og3 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:04 pm
Do you see a conclusion that does not follow?
Yes, There must necessarily be an omniscient superobserver.
Og3 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:04 pm
Do you see a false premise?
Yes, an assumption that your particular god is true
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:29 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:19 am
Well the Peano postulates are not complete as a number theory and are compatible with several philosophies of number, including Brouwer's radical version of constructivism, according to which numbers are not objects subject to logical laws.
When we say, for example, that in an objective universe pi=3.141592653589793238462... always and absolutely, we speak here of pi not as a number per se but as a value for the ratio of a circumference to a radius, that is, a definition of roundness ("a circle is round if and only if the ratio of its circumference to its radius is 3.14.1592653589793238462...").
The problem is that such circles are either mathematical constructs existing only as ideas or else they exist somewhere other than this material world, in some kind of platonic heaven or noetic realm. So here in the material world we do not have dimensionless points or realised irrational numbers, we do not have lines with a single dimension. Circles in the sense you are talking about do not exist here and the circles we do have only approximate the properties you are positing, hence we never observe objectively round circles. If it is a central part of your argument that mathematical entities like geometric circles objectively exist then you have not proved this.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:29 pm

Og you may find this interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mongL_2KMGg Ward seems to share some of your views.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:07 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:13 am
Any theory in which QT is possible makes my point: QT is not consistent with an objective universe. The cause does not match the effect; it is inconsistent.
In some accounts of QT such as Copenhagen the role of the observer is important, in others this is not the case. In all versions of the many worlds theory the observer plays no role in collapsing wave functions. Your argument depends on the observer having a key role. Hence it will work only with accounts of QT where the observer plays this role.
Og wrote: So let's suppose then that Many World is correct, and for every electron that defies logic, there's another that behaves as expected in a different universe. Okay, the collapsing wave spawns a new universe identical to this one in every way, with every single electron interaction. Whatever universes are, there would be infinities of them, and they would be multiplying. This leads us into a problem when we consider the concept of multiverses: Infinite things are infinitely subdivided. Banuch Tarski paradox, that's your cue...
Subdivisible may be the wrong word. It defies our vocabulary to be out on the edge. Let's say instead that if we have an infinite thing, then by virtue of the Banuch Tarski paradox we have two infinite things, and carried to its logical conclusion, we have an infinite number of infinite things.

The Banach Tarki paradox and QT are mutually exclusive. It is central to quatum theory that matter will not divide down infinitely; it is composed of a finite number of quantum particles. Banach tarski applies to a 3 dimensional geometry where euclidean points exist, in such a geometry an infinite number of these points subsist in any geometrical object; the material world is not like that.
So conservation is out the window, and with it all of objective reality as we know it.
Exactly the opposite seems to be true. If material reality is composed of quantum particles it can be conserved and does not break down into an infinite number of points.
Objective reality demands the existence of absolute rules and absolute things -- there has to be something we're objective about. Which brings us back to a subjective reality.
Yes, but there are options on these rules and not all the rules of three dimensional geometry apply to the material universe.
Og wrote:If we take something apart into an infinite number of pieces, we can construct two such things, identical in every respect with the original, from the infinite number of pieces of the original. So when we get to infinite universes, we have to abandon conservation, a fundamental principle of physics. In short, a multiverse, by definition, cannot be objective... It would have to exist as the result of subjective perceptions.
No. As I say this would aply only in a theoretical space in 3D geometry
Moonwood wrote:I am not sure a multiverse would need to be an object or even a set of objects.
Again, we run against the inadequacy of vocabulary for such a case. But there would need to be a set of somethings, and those somethings would multiply at the collapse of a dual wave, giving us another fully-equipped universe. Creating thus an infinite number of them. Conservation would not be conserved. Thus we cannot call it objective (universive?). Thus we are back to only knowing for certain what we see -- subjectivity.
It could potentially create an infinite number of universes just as counting can create an infinite number but we don't need to be dealing with an actual infinity. Even if it did it seems to be the quantum properties of those universes that allow for conservation and hence potentially objectivity.

Og3
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Og3 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:40 pm

SEG wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:20 am
Og3 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:04 pm
Do you see an ambiguous term?
Yes, your particular god has no definition.
My particular God is not a term in this argument. Only the Omniscient superobserver, who is defined by implication. But that's not what "ambiguous term" means. In logic it means that a word is used to mean two different things at different points in the argument. Do you see that happening anywhere? If so, where?
SEG wrote:
Og3 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:04 pm
Do you see a conclusion that does not follow?
Yes, There must necessarily be an omniscient superobserver.
That actually follows: Modus Ponens, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens. Valid form in each of the three segments. Which segment do you think has an invalid form, and why?
SEG wrote:
Og3 wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:04 pm
Do you see a false premise?
Yes, an assumption that your particular god is true
Actually, that is not a premise in this argument. The existence of a God, the Omniscient Superobserver, is a CONCLUSION that is logically necessary.

The Premises are the parts marked GP (General Premise) or SP (Specific Premise). I have numbered each GP and Each SP as 1, 2, or 3, to make them easier for you to specify. So which premise -- not conclusion, but premise -- bothers you, and why?

Og3
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: A Proof of God

Post by Og3 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:46 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:29 pm
Og3 wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:19 am
Well the Peano postulates are not complete as a number theory and are compatible with several philosophies of number, including Brouwer's radical version of constructivism, according to which numbers are not objects subject to logical laws.
When we say, for example, that in an objective universe pi=3.141592653589793238462... always and absolutely, we speak here of pi not as a number per se but as a value for the ratio of a circumference to a radius, that is, a definition of roundness ("a circle is round if and only if the ratio of its circumference to its radius is 3.14.1592653589793238462...").
The problem is that such circles are either mathematical constructs existing only as ideas or else they exist somewhere other than this material world, in some kind of platonic heaven or noetic realm. So here in the material world we do not have dimensionless points or realised irrational numbers, we do not have lines with a single dimension. Circles in the sense you are talking about do not exist here and the circles we do have only approximate the properties you are positing, hence we never observe objectively round circles. If it is a central part of your argument that mathematical entities like geometric circles objectively exist then you have not proved this.
It is not a central part of my argument; I include them merely as an example of the consistency which a hypothetical "Objective Universe" would require. I then argue that the absence of consistency in such an area demonstrates that the universe is not objective. Examples of inconsistency, etc...

I am quite fine with a Platonic interpretation of this argument; In my better days I tend towards Neoplatonism.

Post Reply