THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

That reminds me of the following two responds I posted in your other thread:

And the worship of science and god are interpositional justifications for the shift from primary and secondary logic, except the nomenclature shifted from ’ worship’ to ‘respect for’, then as if devolution had to be accounted for, ‘fear of’.

The destructural movement to primal causes can never be eradicated, in spite of declarations to the effect that history is dead. Angst in the modern world xistential sense will not stop there, it really has to drop to the very abyss of it, the very basic fear of pre-civilized man.

History is not dead. At least: Not yet.

Compare: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185646.

If they merely did that one thing (defining “God”), then they would not remain so dependent from money as they are. Defining “God” requires less money than a “Very Large Telescope” or a “Large Hadron Collider”. :wink:

We killed the gods, therefore they revenged us by killing our memories, our past. Maybe not quite totally, but for all effective purposes, yes.

a) The source of everything is an infinite Energy of Nothing: T=0K…
b) Infinite Energy - Nothing is a flat continuum.
c) Infinite Nothing is filled by so-called “ virtual particles”.
d) Infinite Nothing (T=0K) created these “potential virtual particles”
in “His/Her/Its” own flat image (!). From all flat images (!) the
geometrical form of circle is most perfect form: c/d=pi=3,141592 . . . . . . …
. . . . . . . .
=============…
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive of
as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground state,
coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208 by Danah Zohar. /

When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 … everything
=====================…

If it is filled, then it isn’t “nothing”.

If it created anything, then it wasn’t nothing.

"We“ did not kill all gods, it is the other way around: more gods have been invented since "our“ one God was murdered by "us“ (in the last 18th century). Scientific gods, economic gods, political gods, pop gods and many other gods are the most and the youngest gods (false gods).

It seems that some people are talking as if nothing would be everything - so as if black would be white, right (correct) would be left (wrong, false), war would be peace, … and so on.

Black is black and white is white, right is not left and . … and so on.

Why is nothing would be something?

a) We cannot reach T=0K.
b) We cannot reach the density of “virtual particles” –E=Mc^2
c) It means it is impossible to observe them directly by scientific tools
and therefore T=0K and –E=Mc^2 are “nothing” for scientists who want
observe these parameters by tools, but after they say:
“ . . . . we know they exist by their effects.”
bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 … ist-at-all

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q … simir.html

So, nothing became not- nothing, nothing became something . . . . things.

On the other hand, . . . . if observation is scientific doctrine for check the
truth of theory, then why did they accept the quark and string theories?
There are no facts of their observation; there are no facts of their effects,
there are only their mathematical interpretations, mathematical play.

========…

Not all scientists accept the quark theory and the string theories, and the others do it because of their interests and, of course, because of the fact that they are just theorists.

Book: The quantum self
It might even give us some ground to speculate that
the vacuum itself (and hence the universe) is ‘conscious.
/ page 208. by Danah Zohar. /

If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.
/ Book: ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. by Danah Zohar. /

The Danah Zohar arguments are following.
1
The vacuum is the basic, fundamental and underlying reality of which
everything in the universe – including ourselves – is an expression.
2.
Vacuum is not empty. Vacuum is full with virtual antiparticles.
These virtual energy-antiparticles are in potential conditions.
But after their process of fluctuations they appear as real particles.
3.
Futher, excitations ( fluctuations) of this coherent vacuum
condensate appear to have the same mathematics as the
excitations of our own, Frohlich-style Bose - Einstein condensate.
Understanding this might well lead us to conclude that the physics
which gives us human consciousness is one of the basic
potentialities within the quantum vacuum, the fundament of all reality.
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. By Danah Zohar /

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danah_Zohar
======.
My opinion.
a) Grand Creator exist in the reference frame of infinite eternal
continuum T=0K (neither time nor space . . . more correct:
neither gravity-time nor gravity-space)
b) Grand Designer created the gravity-time and gravity-space
in which we live now.
c) the problem is that Stephen Hawking and his colleagues
don’t accept the concept of the “ PHYSICAL INFINITY”.
They try to run away from “INFINITY” with all their power
and therefor they say “ Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is
no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions
to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge,
so looking for it is a futile exercise.” - Hawking
d) in the infinite eternal continuum T=0K the Grand Designer
created the MATERIAL UNIVERSE.
e) don’t know what T=0K is scientists call it “NOTHIGNESS”

The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
/ Paul Dirac /
==============. …
Solvay.jpg

Science is only a vastly advanced form of language of perception, and a recent one at that. As languages go, perception is at the bottom of it.

Infinity,nothingness,vacuum, elementary particles are a
re not objects of primal perception, they were conceptual objects of science.

They mean no-thing, if ‘thing’ is described by other corresponding languages. No thing, and infinity are not opposites, they are various different descriptions
using conceptual objects.

It takes consciousness to perceive objects, whether conceptual or otherwise, where there is no clear break between them.

So the most which can be said at this time is: conceptual and real objects, undifferentiable are
related(common origin) therefore, it seems to
indicate the conclusion that being and becoming, nothingness and being are really the same.

Whether these are mere absolute concepts and nothing else is of no concern at this point, because here intentionality brings causation into the picture,
but this awareness comes to be repost facto;Or whether it is the other way around, is still a matter of conjecture.

Infinity, nothingness, time, elementary particles were objects
of primal perception. They were described in different ancient
books . . . for example Vedas . . . . . purusha and pracriti . . .
. . . Hermetic Principles . . .

Later these objects became objects of science.
The science has own language and these ‘old ancient things’ scientists
try to describe by their language. This language is mathematical.

So, ancient books and scientific theories tried to describe one and the
same things (quantum things), infinity, nothingness-vacuum from
different points of view.
Our ancestor and modern scientists tried to understand one and the
same basis of existence and the break between them only it the way
that they have chosen.
Science can only logical (using formulas, equations, laws) explain
the ideas of ancient people.

Even an omnipotent God could not create a square circle
or make 2 plus 3 equal five . . . because . . . His work is limited
by the laws of Physics. And as wise as every wise man
God wouldn’t “make a stone so heavy He couldn’t lift”.

This is the reason that we can understand Him logically.
======================…

Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.

Everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws

Both cause at the time it was made, this distinction
was unknown, so we are justified in using the term

Similarly, limits were non existent at that time.

Not to those many humans who believe in God and his laws (regardless whether some others do not), also not to those who do not accept all physical laws and methods.

Note: We are talking about it in a philosophical (especially metaphysical) and a scientifical (especially physical) sense here.

If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word “physics” shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word “metaphysics” shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.

Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are.

Exactly , Arminius.The old Hermetic descriptions knew of no difference, they did not consider modern science. It is only modern science makes the break, as if that break had some function in the sense of differentiation. The a-priori integration of thousands of years, condensed to differential non functionally supposed conditionals, make no sense, oddly surprising to the Oxford group.

It really should have come as no surprise to them, that this break was the result of trying to find certainty, where only degrees sufficient to accommodate that end or function is required.

James has agreed with this in a previous forum, where critics objected, because of the perception that no accurately conceivable function could ever approach the absolute. But in future tech, it is only conjecture, but a credible one, where such ultra specification may become necessary.

If it could be allowed that such ends, may at one point define the earliest archaic means, then, and even then could an analogy be made between a Deity and a machine. However, even in the event that such a state is reached, it could be argued, that that as preempted by the argument for such a comparison between man and the machine.

That is no problem, for the anthropomorphic origin of God has been a source of discussion from the enlightenment on.

The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science - especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend on the Non-Occidentals or the machines (=>) whether science will be continued or not.

Maybe science will “die” in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s tragedy “Faust”.