Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

energy physics and the Divine attributes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • energy physics and the Divine attributes

    Before I can highlight the physics I need to share with you a new piece of epistemology that advances physics;

    Inductions solely derived from observations are called scientific facts.

    Well, you can use inductions as premises in a deduction. For a deduction; the truth value of the premises transfers to the conclusion.

    If the inductions are scientific facts, used as premises in a deduction, then the conclusion is a scientific fact.

    now on to the physics;

    energy is eternal

    proof; ∑E = Ek+Ep

    Scientific Fact (1); Conservation of energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

    energy cannot be created

    ergo by time reversal symmetry it is a scientific fact that energy never was created

    ergo energy cannot be created, never was created, energy exists and yet cannot be destroyed,

    ergo it is a scientific fact that energy is eternal. Q.E.D.


    energy is omnipresent

    proof; E = (ω h)/2

    Scientific Fact (2); Vacuum energy or zero point energy; there is an amount of energy equal to (hв‹…П‰)/2 in every single point in space.

    ergo it is a scientific fact that energy is everywhere present Q.E.D.


    eternal and omnipresent energy is all-power-full

    proof; P = ∫ ∇ E dv

    Scientific Fact (3); Power is the transformation of energy over space and time.

    All expressions of power are transformations of energy

    ergo it is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is all-power-full Q.E.D.


    eternal and omnipresent energy is self-causal

    proof;

    Scientific Corollary (1); Every cause involves energy and every effect involves energy [S3]

    ergo it is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is self-causal or teleological Q.E.D.


    eternal and omnipresent energy is self-descriptive

    proof; S = -kBTr(ρ ln ρ)

    Scientific Fact (4); Entropy is equal to the minimum amount of information needed (number of yes/no questions that need to be answered) in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.

    Describing is the act of making informational distinctions; in this case, collapsing the superposition creates information; endomorphic self-description.

    ergo it is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is self-descriptive. Q.E.D.


    It is a scientific fact that the Divine exists.

    Proof--It is a scientific fact that energy is eternal and omnipresent [S1 & S2]. It is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy is all-power-full, self-causal, and self-descriptive [S3, Sc1, & S4]. Eternal, omnipresent, all-power-full, self-causal, self-descriptive energy has the same properties as the Divine. By virtue of the identity of indiscernibles eternal, omnipresent, all-power-full, self-causal, self-descriptive energy is the Divine. Ergo it is a scientific fact that the Divine exists. Q.E.D.


    resolved paradox of omnipotence

    If the Divine could or did destroy itself, it would not be eternal, in other words, it would not be Divine. Power is defined as the transformation of energy, not the destruction of energy. The inability to destroy itself does not contradict being all-power-full. Therefore the Divine cannot destroy itself.

    To create and to lift both involve the transformation of energy. The Divine is an infinite energy and a rock which has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore the Divine cannot create a rock that it cannot lift.

    Therefore the Divine is natural.

    Note; Resolving the omnipotence paradox as a scientific fact demonstrates the scientific proof has increased or clarified our understanding of the Divine.


    resolved paradox of physical-spiritual

    Define "physical";

    By physical, does one mean 3-space local realism at no greater than the speed of light?

    such that the following are non-physical (spiritual?);

    (1) any spacial dimensions higher than 3

    (2) non-locality and quantum entanglement

    (3) superluminal speed and negative refractive index

    Or by "physical" does one equivocate to mean "natural"?

    The Divine is natural.




    Since many people look up to Einstein with respects to science (and besides he expresses the idea quite well); I won't feel wrong in quoting him in this regards;

    "the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds"


    Let me put this in argument form; IF we understand "science as the study of the Divine", then as an act of religious devotion we want to study God or learn more about God all the more; such powerful emotions provoking productivity and innovation no doubt evolve or advance the field!


    Since this is the most practical framework to understand the notion of God and of science; God does indeed exist! Q.E.D. Note; this is using constructivist epistemology from the perspective of pragmatism

  • #2
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    Inductions solely derived from observations are called scientific facts.
    Oooo. I'm not so sure.

    Let us look at the hobit. Two groups of scientist are looking at essentially the same data but are drawing different conclusions. I don't think we have two different facts about the real nature of the hobit.

    One group is right and the other group is wrong, or they might both be wrong. In fact, both could even be correct to a degree - that is, a dwarf species does really exist, but it's just that the bones they are looking at for the moment belong to diseased individuals.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
      Oooo. I'm not so sure.

      Let us look at the hobit. Two groups of scientist are looking at essentially the same data but are drawing different conclusions. I don't think we have two different facts about the real nature of the hobit.

      One group is right and the other group is wrong, or they might both be wrong. In fact, both could even be correct to a degree - that is, a dwarf species does really exist, but it's just that the bones they are looking at for the moment belong to diseased individuals.
      The scientific fact would be, that there is a set of bones for a small humanoid; whether they are dwarf or disease is called theory

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
        The scientific fact would be, that there is a set of bones for a small humanoid; whether they are dwarf or disease is called theory
        You are correct about the set of bones being a scientific fact. But that's NOT an "induction" by any definition of the word.

        Originally posted by S4all
        Inductions solely derived from observations are called scientific facts.
        And what you're calling "theory" in your example is what scientists call an "hypothesis", i.e., a testable/falsifiable explanation.

        Induction is done by collecting more facts to either support, refute, or modify the hypothesis.

        I don't have time to follow your "proof", but there's no way you can prove or disprove the existence of the "Divine" unless, again, you use a non-standard definition of Divine -- i.e., a being or beings or thing or things that are supernatural, i.e., "above nature".

        All you can do with physics is deal with the natural.

        Now, perhaps if other universes exist, their rules could be different. But the laws of physics dealing with energy are part of OUR universe.

        Energy is NOT divine, even an unlimited (eternal, infinite, whatever you call it) amount.

        That FACT (by standard definition) plus your flawed definition of facts as inductions, indicate to me that your conclusions are incorrect.

        Bear in mind that correct maths are NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT for a physics conjecture to be true.

        K54

        P.S. Welcome to the loony bin that is the Natural Science Forum!
        Last edited by klaus54; 08-07-2014, 12:09 AM. Reason: typos

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          You are correct about the set of bones being a scientific fact. But that's NOT an "induction" by any definition of the word.
          The observation is "small bones", the induction is "these bones are humanoid"... i.e. comparison with other bones that we call "humanoid".


          And what you're calling "theory" in your example is what scientists call an "hypothesis", i.e., a testable/falsifiable explanation.
          Ok, and the explanation of the hypothesis would be the theory.



          I don't have time to follow your "proof", but there's no way you can prove or disprove the existence of the "Divine" unless, again, you use a non-standard definition of Divine
          I use the following definition; an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, conscious being.

          Such a being is described (defined) at least in a few major religions.



          -- i.e., a being or beings or thing or things that are supernatural, i.e., "above nature".
          The word "supernatural" is not found in the Bible, Tao Te Ching, Vedas, nor Stoic poetry.

          But if you mean the "nonphysical" when you say supernatural... refer to the nonphysical/spiritual section.



          Now, perhaps if other universes exist, their rules could be different. But the laws of physics dealing with energy are part of OUR universe.
          If there are other (relevant) universes than they have the ability to materially interact with this universe, in other words they together would make but one universe (because a universe is defined as all interactions), which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum) therefore there is only one universe. Q.E.D.


          Energy is NOT divine, even an unlimited (eternal, infinite, whatever you call it) amount.
          If energy is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and conscious, then it is Divine by virtue of the identity of indiscernables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles


          That FACT (by standard definition) plus your flawed definition of facts as inductions, indicate to me that your conclusions are incorrect.
          It was an induction, so by your reasoning the conclusions are correct. However this is fallacious reasoning; wrong in one place does not mean wrong in another.


          Bear in mind that correct maths are NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT for a physics conjecture to be true.
          Are you refering to the problem of induction?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction


          P.S. Welcome to the loony bin that is the Natural Science Forum!
          thanks for your consideration

          Comment


          • #6
            this Divine might be the Tao, I am not sure if it is Jehovah because I don't think the original text of the bibles says he is omnipotent, and my voices say Jehovah is not all-aware nor omnipotent without killing everyone else

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
              this Divine might be the Tao, I am not sure if it is Jehovah because I don't think the original text of the bibles says he is omnipotent, and my voices say Jehovah is not all-aware nor omnipotent without killing everyone else
              Edited by a Moderator

              Moderated By: Sparko

              We don't allow such profanity here. You should have read the rules before agreeing to them

              ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
              Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

              Last edited by Sparko; 08-07-2014, 11:40 AM. Reason: f bomb

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
                Or it's none of these stupid ------ beings
                You might want to edit that before a moderator finds it. Such language is viewed with displeasure.
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
                  The Divine is natural.
                  In that case, some bright spark is bound to put it in shampoo.
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Does any of this science prove that this eternal energy would be incapable in the course of eternity, of developing sentience?
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
                      The observation is "small bones", the induction is "these bones are humanoid"... i.e. comparison with other bones that we call "humanoid".




                      Ok, and the explanation of the hypothesis would be the theory.





                      I use the following definition; an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, conscious being.

                      Such a being is described (defined) at least in a few major religions.





                      The word "supernatural" is not found in the Bible, Tao Te Ching, Vedas, nor Stoic poetry.

                      But if you mean the "nonphysical" when you say supernatural... refer to the nonphysical/spiritual section.





                      If there are other (relevant) universes than they have the ability to materially interact with this universe, in other words they together would make but one universe (because a universe is defined as all interactions), which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum) therefore there is only one universe. Q.E.D.




                      If energy is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and conscious, then it is Divine by virtue of the identity of indiscernables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles




                      It was an induction, so by your reasoning the conclusions are correct. However this is fallacious reasoning; wrong in one place does not mean wrong in another.




                      Are you refering to the problem of induction?

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction




                      thanks for your consideration
                      1) Observe an egg. Concluding that it's from a chicken is not induction but observation based on a previous observation.

                      2) There are MANY theological words that are not used in the Bible; including omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Trinity...

                      Supernatural is a standard term.

                      3) In what sense is energy "conscious" -- this is a huge mistake in your "induction".

                      4) At BEST you are supporting a form of pantheism.

                      The fact that you assert that energy is "conscious" smacks of moonbatism.

                      K54

                      P.S. Theory and hypothesis are different animals. The theory in the case of Flores Man would be that he was a remnant descendant of H. erectus population from East Asia.
                      Last edited by klaus54; 08-07-2014, 07:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
                        this Divine might be the Tao, I am not sure if it is Jehovah because I don't think the original text of the bibles says he is omnipotent, and my voices say Jehovah is not all-aware nor omnipotent without killing everyone else
                        ???

                        Oy gevalt!

                        BTW, "Jehovah" is an awful transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Does any of this science prove that this eternal energy would be incapable in the course of eternity, of developing sentience?
                          Absolutely not.

                          Unless, or course, Selfie uses his personal definition of sentience.

                          This combined with his broad definition of "Divine" proves at least that his syfy story is demonstrating theism.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Of course you're aware that the Planck Length is the limit in size for any process involving energy since G and h break down into "quantum foam" at that scale.

                            Ergo, Energy cannot be "infinite", again in any standard definition of the term. Do you want to redefine "infinite" as well?

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Time-translational symmetry is equivalent to conservation of energy. In a closed system dS >= 0 so entropy gives a "arrow" to time, so time is not "reversible" -- unless you believe our universe is infinite.

                              Do you believe our universe is infinite and thus a thermodynamically open system?

                              K54
                              Last edited by klaus54; 08-07-2014, 08:10 AM. Reason: auto-correct "transnational"

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, Today, 10:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              1 view
                              0 likes
                              Last Post lee_merrill  
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              55 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              25 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X