twists

October 26, 2008

Some pretty interesting thinking, but difficult to pin down. I thought a lot about the twist in the surface that I hypothesized explains the quantization of particles. I previously had proposed that a single twist would best explain quantization, but needed to really nail down this concept. On a second path, I did a lot of thinking about the idea of ideas.

First–about twists. The going premise is that this is a world which doesn’t require a guiding creator, otherwise the main point of all this thinking is answered–and as a corollary, no further thinking really is needed, because a guiding creator could alter the existence according to His whims, thus making logical analysis less useful. The much more interesting question is whether the universe as it is could come into being without such a creator. In this scenario, logical analysis is particularly useful because the formation of our existence is not guided or sustained, but must result purely from consequence–the purest target of logical analysis.

So, in proceeding down the path of scaleless system formation, the integration of quantization observations appears to suggest that our 3D world either consists of a twist of a two-state material within the 3D world, or that the 3D world is a surface of a 4D bubble, and the twist is about an axis rotating into the 4D world. The twist itself should not have a radial dimension but must vary in the length along the axis of the twist to generate the degree of freedom required by unconstrained photon energy. This approach makes a whole lot of sense when we think of the EM field properties of a propagating photon as well as the Plancks constant (E = hv) quantization of particles. But it raises a bunch of questions, too: if only full turns of the twist can exist due to quantization, it would seem that a field rip or cut is required about the twist axis–and it would appear to require that the field has two components so that the components line up before and after the twist, although this is consistent and implied by the E and M nature of photons as well. But–how can this cut exist without being a field discontinuity? One thing for sure–if particles are explained as rings of twist pairs, or more complex structures of twists, such cuts imply that they cannot dissipate. Topologically, a twist with cuts in 3D space cannot be equivalent to any continuous field, and thus is stable. Such a system, having no path to dissolution, will lead to conservation of matter/energy if one assumes that particles and photons are systems of twists. Particles become self contained sets of twists rotating, say, in a circle at the speed of light, while photons are linear sets of twists propagating in a straight line. One thus could interchange energy and mass, but it is not possible for the total energy represented by either form to be added to or removed.

Twists thus are an exciting possibility for representing the quantized state of the EM field, and strengthens the case for some variation of the charge loop hypothesis that I’ve proposed throughout this journal. But those questions remain. There is that need for a field discontinuity (implied anyway by conservation–any analytic field solution would dissipate). Why does the twist have to propagate? It appears that observation does not allow the twist to stay in one place. Another question–the twist is stable in time and space–whether in energy form (photons) or matter, so since interchange between mass and energy forms is possible, but one way or the other, the twist cannot vanish or spontaneously appear. Yet, quantum theory specifies that a pure vacuum is not the lowest energy state, that in such cases, photon pairs or electron-positron pairs (or other particle combinations) will spontaneously appear. Why? Does the twist model explain this in some way? The converse, where particles annihilate, and the situation where electrons absorb a photon, all beg for understanding using this twist theory. And what about the other forces, the Strong and Weak forces and gravity–what role do these play in this twist theory?

Uggh. That’s enough to swallow for one day…

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Group waves and twists

September 27, 2008

Let me go to another thread of thought that comes from the group wave thinking I have done. You may recall, this is the attempt to explain quantum behavior by stating that particles in our existence, both massive and massless, are formed by a Fourier composition of all possible unitary magnitude wave frequencies. The waves have no intrinsic causality such that a change in phase at a given frequency affects the whole wave instantaneously (providing the mechanism for various quantum paradoxes such as the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement). If this collection of waves is completely random, there are no particles (do an inverse Fourier transform of a constant value, this will give nothing in physical space). But if the waves have phase such that (for example, in 1D space) the wave phase is equal to e^(Pi I freq), then a delta function, that is, a particle, will exist in physical space. The particle moves if the wave phases have a constant e^ (Pi I x0) applied to it over an interval of time. Using the same analysis you can also create or annihilate more particles on the same collection of unitary waves. You can re-state laws of conservation of energy, charge, and other properties in terms of allowable changes in the phase behavior of these waves.

With such a system you can create finite causality of a group wave construction such as a delta function and its movement (that is, a speed limit c) by limiting how quickly the phases can shift. I explained all of this previously, but now I have new thoughts on this. One of them came when trying to envision just what a photon is–in such a system the photon emerges as a Fourier decomposition along a straight line. But what is the mathematical structure of this photon, and how could such a construction emerge from a scaleless system? Well, one very important result of this model is that the construction must result from an infinite range of wave frequencies *all with the same magnitude*. This magnitude is important, it is an unconstrained parameter of the system but must be constant across all frequencies (otherwise the emergence of group causality is very problematic).

This is profoundly important because of Einstein’s discovery that photon reception in a photomultiplier tube is quantized. What does it mean to be quantized? It means that at a given frequency, there is a minimum amount of energy possible in a photon, and it means that the amount of energy that any set quantity of photons can have is an integer multiple of this minimum. This means that there is something about the nature of a photon that has only so much energy and no more or less. In my model, the amplitude is constant (and could be considered a cosmological constant) for all waves composing the photon, so the only possible variable is the number of cycles of a single photon. If there is more than one cycle to a photon, it seems that the photon would be divisible, and that higher energy collections of photons would yield fractional photons, so I conclude that the photon must compose of exactly one cycle.

In the Fourier decomposition of unitary waves, the delta function that emerges would be due to one or more *twists* of the field in 3D space. This twist is topologically stable and accounts for the enduring stability of the photon as it travels through the universe–only the interception of the photon by a ring of twists (a massive particle) can deconstruct the twists.

Why is the twist such an important answer? Because it provides a solid and believable mechanism for the most important question in quantum theory–Why is there quantization? Why does a discretization appear in a continuous scale-less system? Photons can have an infinite range of frequencies, but only discrete energies: Twists provide an answer–it is not possible to have a partial twist in a 3D spatial system, the twist must return the field to its starting state. Thus there is either no twist, or a complete 360 degree twist, thus causing the observed quantization.

There is no possible field construction other than a twist that can topologically reside in 3D space without having a dimension normal to the direction of travel. But–is it one twist or two? If it is one twist, it is difficult to assign a frequency (energy) to the photon because the model assumes a unitary set of waves of varying frequency. If it is two twists, then a new degree of freedom is added based on the separation in time and distance of the twists. The longer the separation, the lower the energy of the photon. But how can the photon not vary in energy by changing the separation distance? I don’t know, but now I think that two twists is not workable–instead, there is another way to add the necessary degree of freedom if one assumes a momentum of twisting. The faster the twist, the greater the energy.

What’s interesting about twists is considering the zoo of massive particles and how to explain the proliferation of particle types (in a constant effort to bring physics down to the One Rule). It’s conceivable that the various particles are various geometrical permutations of sets of twists. The ring of two twists, my hypothesis for the electron and positron) is one of the simplest. The direction of the twist about the ring spin determines whether the particle is matter or antimatter. I can imagine that protons composed of three quarks might actually be a stable three way configuration of twists of the spacetime field. Muons might be some other geometrical combination of twists.

An unanswered question that is getting some of my thinking is why does a ring of two twists only have one possible stable state? For a given frequency, the field wave magnitude defines the quantized energy, but there are a continuous infinite number of frequencies available–why does the electron have just one of those?

More thinking on this idea to come..

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

One Rule to rule them all

September 27, 2008

As I thought more about this realization that the impact of the quantum entanglement non-causality affects the very origin of complexity and math, it began to dawn on me that even the process of logical thinking becomes an artifact of a specific system. That is, our existence belies an anthropomorphic principle in action–the very meaning of logical thinking and the concept of an idea (a deduction based on analysis of presuppositions, or axioms) is dependent on how this existence was constructed. Or, in other words, distance, complexity, math, logic, thinking, existence, and ideas are all concepts that arose or came into being, they do not pre-exist without a system like ours.

This made me ask the question, if there are rules that form the existence of existence, math, logic, etc, then what would alternates look like, and how many rules must exist to create at least our existence where existence or logic means something. I began to realize that this is a “God” question. If there is more than one rule, then something must have created the distinction–the set of rules (similar to the emergence of countability in our existence giving rise to concepts and relations between concepts). Only if there is only one rule at the origin of both space and time could this existence be formed without a god. Then I realized my quest for better rules (than what physics now provides) is only useful if I find that one rule, otherwise I wouldn’t have answered the question of God’s existence. The trouble is, with the particle zoo growing come the Higgs particle, even if my hypotheses about charge loops, relativity, scale-less systems, group-causality/wave-noncausality etc are correct, I am so far from ever approaching the one rule that I can say with certainty that I will not answer that question. Suppose I do find that group waves are the cause of causality and the speed of light–I can inductively conclude that I cannot reach the One Rule (too many further questions to answer, and since inductive logic is a process confined to this anthropomorphic portion of the universe, there may simply be no way to access or sense the non-logic portions of the universe).

There is one way out–try to start with an idea about a plausible One Rule and see if an existence like ours will form without the help of an implied infrastructure. A big step toward this is the infinity * zero constructions of a scale-less system. How complex can the One Rule be before it really becomes multiple rules, and forces the existence of a guiding creator? I rather hit a wall with this thinking–it’s tough to imagine what it means to have a non-anthropomorphic world that does not have the concept of countability or distance providing the concept of distinction! Like the ant and relativity, I can’t answer whether that’s because my brain is simply unable to comprehend the general reality or whether there must be a God. And if I come to the conclusion that there must be a God, then there must be existence, and possibly distinction, unless I decide I am God or part of God–but it seems like I don’t know enough to be God, and if I’m part of God, then where did the pre-existing concept of distinction or partition come from?

These are roughly formed questions that need refining. Perhaps a simpler statement of the issue is this: My existence confines me from finding the One Rule or God. Does that mean it means nothing to pursue questions about either? Can I look from a time independent point of view and examine what it will mean if it were possible for me to ever find the One Rule? Right now, it appears that the answer is that no-one will ever find the One Rule, so while I might find or guess at more rules (as scientists and sci-fi writers have been doing throughout history) it isn’t going to get any of us to the final stage, so what does that make us?

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

50000 foot view of all this

August 4, 2008

It’s starting to occur to me that as much as I try to be original and all-inclusive in my thinking, I really am just as confined as everybody else. I’m having trouble because while the scale-less system thinking and the phase shift for construction of quantum entanglement make a lot of sense, they lead to an inescapable conclusion.

A good theoretician will construct theories that are deeply based on what he observes. I’ve tried very hard to make sure my conclusions follow readily from what I see–one of my principle tenets is, trust your eyes–if a theory doesn’t follow cleanly from what I see, it’s not likely to be a good theory. But with this latest work in the previous few postings, I have run into a very serious problem. Quantum entanglement inevitably leads to the conclusion that distance is not what it looks like. Distance clearly is a property of this existence’s collection of entities, such that some of the entities’ interactions with each other are not affected by this property (distance). This inevitably leads me to the understanding that I cannot trust my eyes anymore. I see these incredibly vast collections of electrons and protons making up our existence, and I see incomprehensible repeatability over incredibly vast scales–what is enforcing that repeatability (for instance, electron mass, charge, speed of light, etc). But entanglement says there must be a point of view that shows that this repeatability is an illusion.

A good explanation could be that all of the particles are in the same place oscillating using a common driver that does not know of the distance principle. Another is the Fourier shifting of unitary phases over the frequency spectrum such that delta functions emerge–so even though there’s no actual distance, the Fourier decomposition of these shifting phases creates a symmetry breaking effect, with distance becoming an emergent property of such a system. Such a system readily gives entanglement using the wave group velocity forming solitons yet can allow non-causal interactions (see previous few postings).

I look about me, though, and have a great deal of trouble thinking that the miraculousness of a collection of electrons and protons making up a Core 2 Duo processor, or a fusing star, or a 30″ LCD monitor that I’m viewing and editing this on, can all be explained by a massive set of oscillations all in the same place. My eyes, and my comprehension of the vastness of the quantity of pointlike entities present here, make me suspicious.

But then I had an insight. We are so utterly confined to our anthropomorphic boxes with our sensors (eyes, touch, ears, etc) that are built out of the very particles those senses try to sense and brains, made of the same particles, that are trying to draw out conclusions what the senses seem to see. It is very hard to see or to trust my eyes in this situation–I’m beginning to think that at this level of thought, we must depart–we cannot transcend our box until we do so.

As I began to realize this, it was with some astonishment that it suddenly occurred to me that the concept of quantity, especially that vast quantity of particles making up our existence, has no meaning apart from distance. If there is no distance property, there is no concept of unique entities that are countable. The quantities that we think must be present and are completely incomprehensible in scope only make sense when a property of distance is introduced–but quantum entanglement shows that there must be some point of view for which there is no distance, so I’m beginning to think that our concept of quantity is artificial to this existence and is not real. It is a symmetry breaking effect that simultaneously includes distance and time, and actually requires a complete system, including sensors and brains made of the same apparently unique particles, before the very concept of multiple entities make sense. Quantum entanglement indirectly shows (probably not conclusively, but I think likely) that this extreme level of complexity of the particle assemblies and interactions between assemblies is likely only an illusion. We can’t trust our eyes anymore–or can we? Did I take a wrong path to get to this conclusion? Possibly–but the logic appears to be fairly sound, and there’s no question, entanglement is an upending observation that shows that I am passing from the realm of conclusions that can be drawn from trusting my senses.

Something is wrong, or perhaps better would be to say, something does not connect theoretically–what I see cannot match what is verified to happen in quantum entanglement. Something has to give–and I think it has to be complexity. Complexity of physical structures can only arise when distance exists (permitting vast arrays of particles) for every possible observer–yet I believe I have shown that a type of observer (quantum entanglement) does not connect or interact with distance. This means there is a point of view, an observer, for which complexity of physical structure does not exist.

Now here is where it *really* gets interesting. My son, a math major, presumably will not like this at all. Math is a collection of concepts built on various classifications, postulates, and derivations based on the concept of quantities and sets of entities. If my thinking is on track, the very concept of the mathematical discipline is strictly dependent on the emergence of quantity, which can only have meaning in a system where there is distance. The discipline of Math itself is based on the existence of quantity, distance, and unique entities. Math has emerged, it is not intrinsic. Do I buy that rather outrageous conclusion? Wait for more postings…

Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

being honest in one’s thinking

July 13, 2008

If anybody is following this, you will see that I base most of my posts (at least those written so far) on various concepts in physics. Yes, I draw a few conclusions of my own, but I try to be honest and clear about what I made up versus what I know to be common knowledge in the physics world. Good honest thinking, where you don’t try to convince anybody of anything and have no hidden agenda or crackpot theory to push, requires a big healthy dose of skepticism. I have no doubt that physicists who’ve paid their dues in study will look at what I’ve written and probably have some rather bemused thoughts about what I have written here.

If you are reading this and have your own ideas, don’t let that stop you! But be honest with yourself, don’t be a crackpot and think there’s going to be anything really there–those will be found by those who are lucky enough to be really really smart, been through a good university, and have spent their entire lives on the material.

Let me be perfectly clear–I write this with the intent of describing where my thinking goes, for better or worse, given what I know. I’m no Feynman, and I know that, and if you are following this, you need to know that too. I just try to draw conclusions based on what I know, am studying, or reading. Maybe I’ll discover something new, but the odds are way against that. I’ll save that for those who’ve made physics their career, I’m doing this because it’s really fun and interesting to me, not because I’m really going to discover something revolutionary.

That said, if you want to really study the physics world, take a look at this website–

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html

what a marvelous service Gerard ‘t Hooft has done for all us wannabees! This Nobel Prize winner has taken the time to assemble the web-accessible knowledge and text books he believes is necessary and sufficient for becoming a self-taught *good* theoretical physicist. I plan to dig in! although, my interest is more philosophical–yet I want my thinking to be as solidly grounded in good science as possible. If you are like me and like thinking about our existence, you owe it to yourself to spend some level of effort on this material.

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

entangled particle consequences

July 8, 2008

Another important revelation on entangled particles–particles either are un-entangled (resolve only to one particular state) or are entangled (share orthogonal states with one or more other particles). If, say, two particles are entangled, they share a pair of states, such that when one particle resolves to one of the two states, the other particle must resolve to the other. It’s extremely handy to represent this situation with a complex variable where the states are represented by a vector basis (not necessarily the real and imaginary axes). Resolving a particle state (e.g, an electron with spin up or spin down states) means projecting the current superposed pair of states to one or the other basis vector, and if the particle is entangled with another, then the other particle must resolve to the opposite (orthogonal) basis vector.

You can think of this by representing the superposed state of each vector by a sum of waves, each representing one of the basis vectors, that are constantly shifting phase. When one particle resolves in a detector, that wave (basis vector) is removed from the sum, leaving the other particle with only the remaining wave basis vector to resolve to.

But look at this–in the previous post, I said there was evidence that the wave phase information is not affected by distance since entanglement remains in effect regardless of the separation between the entangled particles. Here’s even better evidence, and a new insight, for me, at least: entanglement still happens regardless of what is put in between the particles after they fly apart. You could conceivably put a planet or a star or even a black hole in between the two particles and entanglement resolution would still happen. You could attempt to block every possible Feynman type path between the particles and theory says the particles must resolve to different states. Whoa! The resolving of the entanglement condition is not using the physical space between the separating particles to communicate–the phase information is either coupled via another non-causal dimension–or, my previous hypothesis, there is no distance between the particles as far as wave phase is concerned!! Really, if you think about it, those two ideas can be considered equivalent, since a non-causal dimension really means there is no distance within it, and thus it truly is not a dimension by definition.

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

distance and the Aspect experiment

July 3, 2008

An interesting new revelation or two, thinking about entangled particles. Yeah, yeah, I know, that one has been beat to death. But let’s be real clear what the implications are, they are huge–the Aspect experiment is the single best clue we have right now for understanding further into the physics of our existence.

First, let’s summarize what the Aspect experiment shows and does not show. An emitter generates (say) an entangled pair of particles heading in opposite directions. Both particles have (say) two superposed states, the current (watch out, time is a many splendored thing in a relativistic world) superposition of one of the particles is always 90 degrees out of phase with the superposition in the other entangled particle. Now we wait long enough so that the particles travel far away enough from each other that detecting which state one of the particles is in cannot affect the other particle causally (within the speed of light of the distance between the particles). By the nature of quantum mechanics, it is not possible, even theoretically, to know what state the first detected particle resolves to–but as soon as the first particle is detected, the outcome of the detection of the second particle is instantly (non-causally) determined. This effect has been verified over a distance of miles. This is a paradox because while no actual data or information travels non-causally, the phase information does, since it is the phase of the superposed states that determines each particle’s detection result. That is conclusive proof of my idea that particles travel limited by the speed of light, but the particles’ phase information goes at infinite speed. And, the two slit-experiment, Aharanov-Bohm experiment, etc all corroborate this principle, since they demonstrate causal paradoxes that are resolved if phase information travels at infinite speed.

But my new revelation comes from this: note that the entangled state theoretically, experimentally verified, can exist for any finite distance, even, as mentioned, for miles. Holy cow–this most likely means that the *amplitude* of the phase information *never* diminishes with distance (otherwise, there should be some threshold point where the entangled particles would no longer couple). The proof of this would involve determining if the entanglement holds at infinite distance, since only then could a phase amplitude asymptotically approach zero and still be shown to couple or not.

This has a profound impact on what distance means: distance is a property of particles (in particular, only those particles with mass, since photons in their frame of reference travel distance in zero time (zero time, thus zero distance). The Aspect experiment conclusively shows that from our point of view, distance is an illusion–that there is some observation point where all particles are “in the same place” but interact according to this distance property in some cases, and according to phase properties (not affected by distance) in other cases.

And, this points strongly to another result: all waves making up all particles, massless or not, are unitary amplitude. This only makes sense, given that phase information does not diminish the entangled effect with distance. We already know we can have a system with a constant (non-zero) frequency distribution produce either “nothing” (completely randomized phase distribution) or produce a particle (a delta function of some type, if the frequency distribution phases vary as e^-iw*theta, where omega (w) determines the energy of the particle delta function). Moving the particle in such a system just means adding a changing constant to the phase of every wave frequency, and creating/annihilation means the moving of phases to or from the e-iw*theta distribution to a randomized distribution or back again. Since phase information is affected everywhere instantaneously without regard for distance, the model holds even as speeds approach c.

The maximum rate of change of this constant is determined by the speed c–not clear yet why there is a maximum, it may be that the speed c is actually infinite, but there is a measuring/perceptual issue that appears to create a finite speed. In this model, the rate of change of this constant causes instantaneous phase shifts and can have any finite value for a particle with mass, ie a group velocity.

In this model, everything can be done just by manipulation of the phase distribution of an infinite, constant amplitude wave frequencies. The amplitude would be in some way related to the cosmological constant and Planck’s constant.

This also points out that the energy of a particle is not contained in the wave itself, but in some composite way from the group wave collection. Some type of integral over all wave vectors yielding a non-zero magnitude will produce a particle and its corresponding energy, massless or not. A randomized phase distribution will produce no net energy.

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

back to the Ring

July 2, 2008

OK, given that we assume that our existence must be scale-less and there is no God (otherwise my most fundamental question has been answered), let’s look at either the quantized photon or the fixed size of the electron (assuming the Ring theory). Is there a way to use the infinite speed wave phase, group wave speed c hypothesis to explain either of these.

That is the most important question there is right now–and given that the Ring theory for mass particles such as electrons is questionable, let’s start with the photon. The photon experiences zero time passage in its journey (in its frame of reference moving at speed c, it will appear to have experienced no time passage according to relativistic mechanics. The two slit experiment shows interference unless some means of detecting passage through one of the two slits, in which case the interference distribution disappears. Using infinite speed phase information permits this to happen if you assume that a photon detector will disturb the phase information unpredictably, causing the loss of the interference distribution.

Can infinite phase/group velocity theory explain the quantization of a photon? Thoughts to come.

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

scale-less systems and God

July 2, 2008

An interesting revelation last night, and some thoughts that I’ve been circling around for a long time but am starting to see more directly.

First–when we look at the implications of a scale-less system, that is, a system which “starts out” with no distinguishing spatial or temporal characteristics (Aristotle’s “nothing” with no time), something becomes apparent. If our existence did *not* spontaneously emerge from some infinite treatment/scaling of a nothing spacetime, that would seem to imply a God, a pre-existing Creator. Sort of a variation of the old Who/what created the Creator type of argument, except more precise. A clearer way to see this is this: if there is no God, then our existence must have evolved somehow, both spatially/dimensionally and temporally, from a nothing scaled over an infinite range (it’s simple to prove that a finite ranged nothing could not evolve into something). While I am very suspicious of pure logic analysis in philosophy (Parmenides and others tried rationalism to deduce the difference between ideas and existence, when the real problem is nothing more than how these words are defined), it seems rigorous to say that if we assume there is no God and try to see if our existence could arise, we must also assume that the starting point is zero space-time with no evident dimensions. Otherwise, we have to assume that a non-zero space-time was either created or has “always existed”.

Created, of course, implies God–and “always existed” is a temporal concept that can be hard to wrap one’s mind around, and is worthy of more discussion. One way to define always existed would be to say that that space-time *is* God–it could not come to being on its own. Put another way, an “always existed” existence is a presumption of spatial and temporal content and requires an external Creator to bring it into reality.

So, since my working hypothesis is that this all emerged from zero spacetime without need for a Creator, the logical conclusion is that our existence is a scale-less system. If there were any absolutes, they would have to pre-exist, and thus this would not be a zero spacetime, and some form of a Creator would have to exist.

This is all a really long winded way of saying–either our existence is scale-less, or God exists.

So, now we get to the thinking I’ve been circling around but have really nailed down: the speed of light and the mass/radius/energy of electrons (or the relation of energy to frequency in a single photon) are all scale-less. They cannot depend on any pre-existing characteristic of space time. And thus, they have to be derivable in order to be emergent and constant throughout a spacetime that has no intrinsic scale.

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

More notes from my local thinking journal–God’s existence

July 2, 2008

More from my local thinking journal. Here I talk about what the thinking so far seems to imply about the existence of God, and a little about the Bible and what thinking/conclusions could be drawn from it, especially Jesus’s Cruxifiction.

Lets digress for a little while and talk about my current thinking about God. Recently a letter from Einstein was released that indicated that he felt (organized? I can’t remember) religion was childish and superstitious… That God wasn’t needed to explain the properties and behavior of the universe. He seemed to imply (going from memory) that there was possibly a sort of Gaia like existence that could be God, but that the role assigned to God by current religion was not correct. My own thinking is pretty strong that God doesn’t appear to have either directly created or is actively guiding this universe–that the behavior and outcome of what we see does not require a guiding intelligence. However, it is quite possible and almost certainly impossible to determine if God created or guided the infrastructure that allowed this universe to come into being–a sort of second level (or further) up of control. As a result, Einstein’s dismissing of God because the existence does not require Him appears to be incorrect logic–there are levels of creation/interaction that could very well have been very intentional.

What is very clear though is the evidence appears to be very good that God does not want to be detected, and that means that there appears to be no intervention and no sensing evidence that this universe would require an intelligent guide or creator. If God is there, He doesn’t want to be detected at this stage in ham evolution. Of course that presumes that God knows how to present Himself that we could detect him unequivocally.

All of the stuff in the Bible raises a lot of questions, but does not really address whether the Bible is divine, or divinely inspired. There’s enough unusual behavior/activity at the time to make it difficult to discern whether God did intervene or not–earthquake and eclipse at the time of cruxifiction, the adjacent (apparently) accurate depiction of historical events leading up to the cruxifiction, and so on. It’s pretty clear from my reading of the Bible that there was a powerful drive to make prophecies come true, even by Jesus. There’s just too many questions, although my hunch is that many of the events that seem to show divine intervention are actually due to this drive by many of the people of the time to make prior prophecies come true.

So where does this put me in this discussion? Well, really nowhere. God isn’t necessary or apparent in this existence on a first level, but the electron constants and the difficulty of getting 0*infinity concepts (scaleless systems) to actually emerge with a something mean that we can’t write off God either. It’s inconclusive, and in fact I have no hint as to which is the correct answer. There’s pretty plausible points of view either way.

As a result, I think we have to proceed as if God is not there. If he is, but there’s no evidence for Him, it’s a tree that fell in the forest–it does not affect the outcome of whatever conclusions I can draw. The Bible has evidence for Him, but it is entangled with the biblical historical context where ancient prophecies appeared to become self-fulfilling.

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »