Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Where and Who is God ?

If you're referring to my article haidi, thank you!

The problem is where did existence come from?...
/ Warren, Revlgking . . . . . etc /
==================.
Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws
Laws of nature are reality, which exists independently
from the researcher. Therefore Einstein wrote:
In the Science the man has freedom to solve
well made crossword
And Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck,
Einstein and others only discovered
formulas and laws 0f the Nature

On my opinion, if we find the source of Universe
and then going step by step we can describe Genesis
and the place of God in this process

Now we have three ( 3) sources of the Universe:
Big bang , vacuum and God.
Which of them is correct ?

About big band and god my opinion is:
the action, when the God compressed all Universe
into his palm, physicists had named -a singular point
And action, when the God opened his palm,
physicists had named - the Big Bang

My opinion on vacuum I explain in the scheme :
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence:
1 The infinite vacuum T=0K
2 The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3 The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi
4 The photon, the inertia
5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6 The gravitation, the star, the time
7 The proton
8 The atom(s)
9 The cell(s)
10 The Laws
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
11 The test
==========.
Everybody can check and explain why the number 1
or any another is wrong.
=======.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=========================.

From young years we know that God is something Absolute.
Nothing concrete in detail.
But what is Physics opinion about Absolute?
Max Planck explained that there are absolute in the Physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The negative 4D continuum.
c) The speed of light quanta.
d) The maximum entropy which is possible at temperature
of Absolute zero: T=0K.

On my opinion these Planck absolute parameters
are good basis of understand the God and His Genesis.
====
Israel Socratus

From http://crab.rutgers.edu/~maslen/Courses/PChemII/5_Second_Law/SecondLaw_totex.pdf

The third law of thermodynamics states
"The entropy of a perfect crystal is zero at absolute zero."
(So I think you mean "minimum entropy" above.)

Just barging in here--I apologise if you feel it is bad manners!

Socratus-- Why would laws a) to d) be "a good basis of understand (sic) the God and his Genesis" and not just Planck's absolute parameters? Are you arguing that there is a limit to infinity and if so it is god? That's what you sound like to me. Maybe absolute parameters are just that, and they have no divine intent.

If however, you believe that this is where god exists then he/she/it is there for you, that is where your god concept will be, as the evidence for the existence of 'god' lies in the faith of the believer.

My opinion about these ‘just Planck's absolute parameters’
#
Max Planck. "Scientific Autobiography".
==.
I have reread the Planck’s article "Scientific Autobiography".
It is a small article of 10 pages, but how honesty and modest,
wise and beautiful it is.
I cannot give a whole deep explanation of this article,
therefore I will concentrate attention on a small part of it.
1.
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years....
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
2.
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of "relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
because it is nonsense, because there is something
absolute in SRT.
And the most attractive thing in SRT was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And than Planck explained what there is absolute
in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The negative 4D continuum.
c) The speed of light quanta.
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
4.
My conclusion.
Dear Planck, if you live now many scientists
will consider you are a crazy man.
Many of them will not give you a hand.
Many of them will laugh at you.
Why?
Because you were convinced in existing of something Absolute.
Because you searched for Absolute all your life long.
And now it is forbidden to think about Absolute .
Now the search for absolute laws and objects
in Nature disappeared from the scientist’s brain.
Now the scientists say : " There isn't an absolute frame,
There isn't an absolute speed. There is nothing Absolute.
Everything is relativity. All is comparatively."
You wrote:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and
a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
How pity it is.
I want to hope that this sentence isn’t absolutely correct.
==========.
So.
I take these four Planck’s absolute parameters
======================.
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The negative 4D continuum.
c) The speed of light quanta.
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
======================.
as a basis and say.
Can God be explained by Physical formulas and laws?
I think ‘ Yes’ , we can understand God’s Nature by Physical
formulas and laws. I think God has given to us everything
that necessary to understand Him and His Genesis using
Physical Laws and Formulas.
========.
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
============.

Can we be any more sure that laws of nature have independent existence, than, for example, electrons?

Alfred Tennyson, 1809-1892


HIGHER PANTHEISM

The sun, the moon, the stars, the seas, the hills and the plains --
Are not these, O Soul, the Vision of Him who reigns?

Is not the Vision He? tho' He be not that which He seems?
Dreams are true while they last, and do we not live in dreams?

Earth, these solid stars, this weight of body and limb,
Are they not sign and symbol of thy division from Him?

Dark is the world to thee: thyself art the reason why;
For is He not all but thou, that hast power to feel 'I am I'?

Glory about thee, without thee; and thou fulfillest thy doom,
Making Him broken gleams, and a stifled splendour and gloom.

Speak to Him thou for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet --
Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.

God is law, say the wise; O Soul, and let us rejoice,
For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.

Law is God, say some: no God at all, says the fool;
For all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool;

And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;
But if we could see and hear, this Vision -- were it not He?

=========000000=========
IMO, Tennyson was a PAN EN THEIST or UNTHEIST

Law is God, say some: no God at all, says the fool;
/ Alfred Tennyson, 1809-1892 /
==.
Law is God, say some:
Which Law(s) ?
Law(s) of Nature.
Is the material Nature a God?
No.
But the Laws that manage the material Nature
have spiritual basis.
About which spiritual basis are you talking, Socratus?
#
The God said in the darkness:
Let there be light: and there was light.
So, the light - the Quantum of Light is spiritual basis for Nature.
But . . .
But to be correct we must say that we have three conceptions:
God, darkness and light (Quantum of Light).
So, to understand Nature we must examine three conceptions:
God, darkness and light (Quantum of Light).
1
In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
2.
The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
Energy Space and we don’t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
Homogeneous Energy Space.
So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
particles the God created light/ Quantum of light.
3.
So, in the beginning God created the Light.
How did He do it?
The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
God simply said: ‘Let there be light: and there was light.’
And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
without any doubt.
Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
‘What cannot the old Jew understand?’ they said bewilder.
‘ Isn’t clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
of course, simultaneously ?’
. . . . .
And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
God created the light in very easy way.
And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.

These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============.

I can accept the last point you make. Then you add So I will assume that you, Soc, are having a dialogue with yourself here, right? In asking this question I just want to make sure I am hearing what you are saying; I am not questioning your method.

You go on: Me? I prefer to think about the god-idea, or concept, as a majestic IT--that is, as imminent and transcendent being. Why? Because this helps me avoid thinking of god as an idol-like 'it' limited to space and time.

ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS: Do not feel left out. If you like being good, moral and humane beings, just add an extra 'O' to the word 'god'. It is also OK to call GOD, reality or nature. Deeds, not creeds, are what important, don't you agree?

As I have said before, the two acronyms I like to use are G0D and GOD--G zero D. G0D symbolizes Imminent-being (that is, god in me, as a modern person) and GOD is for Transcendent-Being (that is, god into which the physical cosmos is expanding-- (
By the way, the first two chapters of the Bible uses two words--YAHWEH (G0D) and ELOHIM (GOD). Modern Orthodox Jews, when they write in English, use G-d and Adonai.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you write 'God' as if you prefer to think of the god-idea as a person, a him--in the modern sense of the word.

For example, when you write--: --what else can anyone think?
===================
BTW, I presume you are aware that the Latin word, PERSONA (meaning to speak or to sound (SONA) through (PER) a mask) was--and often still is--used in drama, theology, and the law.
==============================
You say that, But theologically speaking, as I read what he said, Einstein had no faith in a personal god--a person up there, or out there--an all-powerful being who listens to and answers all our prayers. But he never accepted the idea of atheism. Rather he respected the god-idea of Spinoza, who was a PAN EN THEIST, like I am. IMO, others gave him the mistaken label, PANTHEIST--all things make up who god is.

BTW, Soc: Do attend and support any kind of religion? Do you say your prayers?

Me? I respect all religions that are Golden-Rule based and eschew all kinds of bigotry--religions that help and inspire people to be truly humane to themselves and to others.

Born in 1930, I am a retired--I prefer to think of myself as re-directed (1994) minister of the United Church of Canada. I prefer to wear out, not rust out.

When the UCC was established in 1925, June 10--the first meeting was held in a hockey arena, in Toronto-- the founders seriously debated about calling the new church--a union of Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists and others--The Uniting Church of Canada. I now wish they had been so bold. Maybe, before I wear out I will test the waters and see if we can revisit that truly great, catholic, orthodox and protestant idea. Note, I used no caps.

LET'S HAVE SOME FUN WITH THE FOLLOWING--feel free to tell me: You, LGK, are nuts:
=================
KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FOLLOWING IS OFFERED SIMPLY AS MY OPINION--no dogma is intended.
=============================================
However, this time here is what I would like to propose: It is a personal idea that is totally inclusive:

Let us see if there is any interest, out there, in establishing a totally INCLUSIVE AND UNITING kind of RELIGION OF THE UNIVERSE (IA & UROTU--I am & you are of the universe). This concept of religion is based on a simple simple kind of theology. It is as follows: G0D is, and if we so choose it, GOD is the potential Love available in us. G0D/GOD is love in action.

In other words, GOD is the potential Love available in the universe. It is available to all who choose to live by, and act on, the Golden Rule.

Here I leave lots of room for posters to use their imagination: What are your ideas about what, if any, are, for you, appropriate doctrines, rituals and polity.

Again I say: LET US HAVE FUN WITH ALL THIS. Yes, it is OK to mock as long as you give your reasons ... OK, away you go!

Einstein: Religion and Personal God.

Einstein had different opinions about Religion .
a)Sometime he thought that God is a Cosmic Universal Intellect.
b) Sometime he did not believe in a personal god.
c) Sometime he did believe in a personal god:

From the Book: “ Ideas and opinions by Albert Einstein”
Edited by Carl Seeling. 1996. Part: About religion. /

Page 46.
“The situation may be expressed by an image:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict
between religion and science cannot exist “

Page 47.
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres
of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.”

Page 48
“ To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with
natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science,
for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which
scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.”

Page 48.
“…. , teachers of religion must have the stature to give up
the doctrine of a personal God,… “

“ After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated
they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been
ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.”

Page 49.
“ And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious
impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes
to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.”

/Source: Science, Philosophy and Religion.
A Symposium, published by the Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their
Relation to the Democratic Way of Life,
Inc., New York, 1941./

d)
Sometime he said respectful words about the Bible.
Sometime Einstein said: Bible is 'childish'.
A letter in which Albert Einstein dismissed the idea of God
as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish"
has sold at auction for more than $400,000.
======= . .
#
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
/ Albert Einstein /

Which tree?
Socratus.

Can ‘transcendent being’ be explain with formulas?

Where you see ‘the god-idea as a person’ ?
The Genesis.:
1. The infinite/ energy vacuum: T=0K,
2. The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3. The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi ,
4. The photon, the inertia,
5. The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6. The gravitation, the star/ planet, the time,
7. The proton,
8. The atom(s),
9. The cell(s),
10. The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
11. The test.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness/ subconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology . Meditation
============================.
Socratus

Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
===========

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and
product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable,
but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. <...>
For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of
the most childish superstitions."
/ A. Einstein, from a letter to Eric Gutkind /
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion

[quote=socratus]Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
=========
"that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."

Put into them? By Whom?

Put into them? By Whom?
#
What can be ‘ Put into them? ‘ / put into formulas./
In my opinion it means that in every formula is hidden some idea.
If we cannot understand this idea - formula then it is wiser than we are.
And if we want be wiser than formula we must understand the idea
which is hidden in formula.
#
By Whom?
? ? ?
? ?
?
========.

===============================================
Socratus, it is not surprising that Einstein, like most of us human beings (except me, of course ) was, also like most of us, the normal human and fallible kind of person, especially in matters having to do with philosophy, theology and the like.

And I would add: Like one of the threads in this forum suggests: Einstein was also fallible as a physicist and not without other faults.
========================
For what it is worth, and without going into details as to why I do, I offer the following belief: G0D is personal in and through us--when we choose to do--and actually do--what we sincerely feel is the good, true and the right thing to do. More on this in a future post.

Meanwhile, I know many are thinking:

O come now, Rev! Every tin pot tyrant--self-appointed (Hitler? Stalin? Franco? Peron?) and/or otherwise (Nixon? Bush?)--responsible for much pain, suffering and the deaths of any number of people often justify their actions by thinking--even believing and saying: I did it for the greatest good of our country, and for the best people in it. History will thank me for what I did. Some will say: I did what I did because, after much prayer, God gave me his guidance and the power to win a victory for him (Cromwell?). Yes, I know this.

I also know that many dictators, like Franco, Stalin and Mao, actually lived long and prosperous lives. They died at home and were honoured and loved by many. not all tyrants ended their lives the way Napoleon, Hitler and the like did, in ignomy.

On the other hand, there were those like Lincoln, the Kennedys, Gandhi and others, who were cut down by the bullets of assassins long before their time.

I ALSO AGREE, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, DOES NOT ALWAYS SEEM TO BE FAIR, not just for the famous, but for many ordinary people as well.

For example, I am the seventh child of a family of eight--five boys and three girls. Now, my younger sister and I are the last in the family. At the time of our birth, our father was in his 50's and our mother was in her late 40's. This meant that there was a ten-year gap between us and our next older brother.

He and all the older siblings of my sister and I are now gone. All of them, including our parents, suffered from a real lack of education. Looking back I now realize that they had a standard of living which was way below what my sister and I have enjoyed. The same was, and still is, true for many. Life is not fair, it just is. I often ask myself, why is this so?

It is no wonder that, life being what it is, both on a general level and on the local, has caused many people over the years to opt for atheism.

Obviously a strong belief in the existence of the kind of all-powerful, father-like and and loving 'god' of monotheism--a god who personally hears and answers all our prayers--is becoming more and more difficult a concept for modern minds to accept.

Sure, I respect the sincerely held opinions and beliefs of others, especially the opinions of those who value the common good. I also include the right to change ones mind. I give this right to others and I expect others to give me the same right.

Socratus, thanks for bringing all this information--conflicts and all-- together.
===========

From the Book: "Ideas and opinions by Albert Einstein"
Edited by Carl Seeling. 1996. Part: About religion.

Page 46.

“The situation may be expressed by an image:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist."

Would that this was always true. But of course we know that, alas, because too often there is such a thing as blind faith and the uncharitable use of scientific knowledge conflicts do exist.

But, as the poet Alexander Pope put it in his poem, Essay on Man:

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733
=================
Of course the kind of lively hope we all need is not the false and shallow kind, but one that is grounded in a rational faith. Most of all, we need a hope based on a non-sentimental kind of agape-love--one that is patient, kind, true and enduring.

Dear Mr. Revlgking
Thank you for kindly post
Israel
===========.
Physics and Metaphysics.

John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .
#
I like to read his books because they raise many questions.
And these questions give information for brain to think.
John Polkinghorne took epigraph of his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Because, he wrote:
‘ ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface/
‘ Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute’
/ page 40/
‘ If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises’
/ page 87 /
‘ Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .’
/ page 88 /
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .’
/ page92 /
‘ Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .’
/ page 92 /

Togetherness.
John Polkinghorne, as a realist, want to know
‘ what the physical world is actually like’, but until now
physicists don’t have the whole picture of Universe.
And in my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand the problems of creating the Universe:
‘ They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ’.
#
So, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge of Nature:
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.

Dear Israel Sadovnik Socratus, thanks.

Tell us more about who you are, and what makes you who you are.
What is your expertise?

Was the original quantum a particle? Or was it pure energy? I suspect the latter.