Posted on 06/20/2016 6:11:57 AM PDT by xzins
Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.
After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles - which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.
“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” Kaku said, according to an article published in the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies.
“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” Kaku, author of The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind, said in a 2013 Big Think video posted on YouTube.
“The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”
String Theory “revolutionized” mathematics and physics by demonstrating a “super symmetry” in the universe. Kaku said it also explains gaps in the Big Bang theory.
“First of all, the Big Bang wasn’t very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn’t tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer,” the well-known physicist said in 2015.
“We need a theory that goes before the Big Bang, and that’s String Theory. String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord….
“Some people believe that maybe, just maybe, we have detected evidence of that umbilical cord.”
One can take the focus off of Santa and put it on St. Nicholas, a real person.
There may be something there - even if it comes from “the Church Lady.” Surely, that is some form of mockery from SNL. But in the same way that not all accusations are true, not all mockery is deserved.
Hollywood sometimes poisons good words. I remember a T.V. drama where the protagonist said “Don’t tell me about tough love.” He went on to describe his drunk of a father who beat his mother, his siblings, and himself, calling it tough love. Of course, when real people use the expression “tough love” that is not what they mean at all.
How about “the truth? the truth? You can’t handle the truth?” Well, some people cannot handle the truth! But Jack Nicholson poisoned those words by his behavior in the film.
The truth is that the Universe is not round, but square and the Earth is flat.
Actually they’re both inside out.
No. I completely got it. No need to apologize at all.
I was just trying to be humorous (or would that be ignorantly sarcastic?) . Guess I failed at that.
It makes them easier to wash.
The wisest man is the man who understands nothing.
Well, I know the Universe is not "round", and very strongly doubt it is "square". But I think the scientific cosmologists are correct to say it is "flat."
The Earth itself, however, is "round." Or rather, "roundish." We speak of it as being a "sphere".... [But of course that is incorrect: a sphere is a mathematical object.]
It's also true that the "flat" universe is expanding, or "inflating." And that the speed of the inflation has been increasing in recent times. (The inflation rate has varied historically.) Which I find fascinating. Why is it doing that?
Got any ideas?
It seems to me this inflation would rule out Boom-and-Bust and Bouncing Universes physical cosmologies, which are premised on an eternal universe model. I.e., on a model that rules out a beginning in time.
I wonder whether it is correct to say that an inflating state is moving from a state of higher to lower entropy, Or to use TXnMA's analogy, it may be "correcting" for a general universal increase of isotropy.
Just wondering where the "bust" mode of the Boom-and-Bust multiverse theory gets its energy from to transform a state of very high entropy to a state of very low entropy [please see TXnMA's graphic of isotropy and anisotropy above. The first, the isomorphic illustration is a state at very high entropy. The second, the anisotrophic, depicts a state at comparatively low entropy.
So, how does the "bust" phase of the Universe bootstrap itself into the next "boom" phase? What is the cause? The Bouncing Universes model has the same problem.
The Eternal Universe megamodel, and its exemplars, is based on the desire to obviate the essential need of a beginning of the universe. For the very idea of a "beginning" of something logically implicates the cause of that something. It suggests more: that the cause is effected by an intelligence, for a purpose. Or at least, according to Aristotle....
And so, on that basis, I have to say that Genesis 1 is the superior cosmology, by far. It accounts for so much more, and is ever so much more internally consistent and coherent, than other more fashionable scientific cosmologies in currency today.
Though the theory of the Big Bang/Singularity comes awesomely close....
Thank you so much, UCANSEE2, for writing.
Oh, my Dad was a Deist, eddie willers. He would cite Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Newton as his exemplars. I think he was right about Benjamin Franklin being a Deist, which you ably defined (see above). But not so much respecting Isaac Newton.
Franklin believed in a creator God who made all that there is. At that point, Franklin held God withdrew and did not interfere with His creation in any way. It was, after all, a brilliant machine constructed by a super intellect designed to run itself perpetually. God need not be involved with it. In short, Franklin is a model Deist.
Newton also believed in a creator God who made all that there is. But his personal, expressed view was his belief that this creator God is "the Lord of Life, with His creatures." Unlike Franklin, Newton did not believe in the Deus otiosus, a god who creates and "retires" from all involvement with His creation. Through a field-like medium called the sensorum Dei (absolute universal space).
In Towards a Theology of Nature, Wolfhart Pannenberg wrote
..."for Newton, sensorium Dei refers “to the medium of the creation of things: just as the sensorium in our perception creates the pictures of things, God through space creates the things themselves”....So Newton was NOT a Deist. I'd classify him as a Monotheist of the Old Testament type. Certainly he was not a Christian.
In his Opticks, Newton emphasized … "that the order of nature becomes needful, in the course of time, of a renewal by God because as a result of the inertia of matter its irregularities increase.”
I actually wrote a paper on this some years back. Posted at FR, FYI
You wrote:
One thing for sure, ideas from the ID people such as "irreducible complexity" MUST be explained. And back when "All Knowing" seemed an impossibility, the advance of computers, and computer memory and computer speed and the power of the digital language of "Ones & Zeros" now makes me reassess that. It IS becoming possible to know everything and see everything etc.May I start with your statement, "It IS becoming possible to know everything and see everything etc.?" And the reason: "... the advance of computers, and computer memory and computer speed and the power of the digital language of "Ones & Zeros"?"
FWIW, I don't think computers are making us any "smarter." They increase the range of our observation, but do not attach any meaning to it. The language they deal with is digital, binary -- 1/0 -- and linear. It can handle syntax; but cannot express semantics. The analogy is the difference between a digital and an analog recording, e..g., of music, film, whatever.
When I was a kid, I'd see films about machines taking over the world, and I worried about it. Well now, much later on, I see that machines haven't so much taken over the world, as to have taken over human minds and habits of thought. We are beginning to think only linearly, "digitally," as if the world reduced to so many bits that can be replicated, in 1/0 language, on a computer, timestep by timestep. As if the world could be modeled on Zeno's arrow....
Also, I believe the human mind is naturally LIMITED. It is simply not capable of infinite knowledge, not individually nor collectively. It can get very far in understanding the Universe; but some things it can never know, in principle. JMHO FWIW
You probably think I'm raving at this point. LOL!!!
So, time to sign off for now. But just a short word on ID's "irreducible complexity" and the urgency of our need to understand it before I go.
Irreducible complexity refers to a system in nature which is NOT, unlike a computer, the mere sum of its parts, a mere "additive" system. This is actually a controversial statement with the anti-ID crowd.
This post is getting long in the tooth. So, maybe we can talk about IC later on?
Thank you so much for your engaging essay/post, eddie willers!
Not what what I truly getting at.
The reason wasn't the computers themselves (I shouldn't anthropomorphize computers...they HATE that), but that I saw, with the advancement of the computer revolution, that one of my earliest reasons for thinking of the impossibility of the Bible version of God was no longer valid.
These were such pronouncements as "But not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it." and "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered."
Ha ha, how silly.
The computer revolution showed me that not only is it NOT silly, but actually possible.
For the logicians playing mind games:
The converse of the nostrum that the Universe was created is that it wasn’t created. Since it exists, that’s a fallacy. So the converse must be that the Universe is an accident of chance. Hm.......?
Given the complexity of Creation, it’s beyond astounding the number of self asserting intelligent people who insist that the latter is correct.
We stand on the massive shoulders of the giants of antiquity who created western civilization. Yet those poor things managed to achieve this w/o degrees as well as the gadgetry and technology that inundate our time; never realizing how deprived they were.
While Greece and Rome had mythology for their religious impulse, atheism and agnosticism were rare to non-existent for them. We, on the other hand, consumed by conceit and hubris, insist we know far better than they. Why of course!
Which is why self asserting intelligent people can get away w/bullshit, such as the Universe is an accident of chance.
Then possibly the Universe is 2-dimensional while everything in it is 3-dimensional.
Or maybe the Universe has no 'time' element (or dimension) to it. It simply is. It does not age, while everything in it (or on it) does 'age'.
Or maybe it's turtles all the way down. : )
Thank you so much, UCANSEE2, for writing.
Same to you.
Much better outcome than "First it exploded and then there was nothing".
Last week.
Yes, but is it limited only by (or to) the size and complexity of the Universe ?
Yes, BUT -- nobody knows anything about the ultimate size and complexity of the Universe. Or of the human brain [mind] for that matter. So there is no standard by which to judge the limits, if any, of the human mind. Or of the Universe, if man is the standard.
I'd say that's a pretty hard limit right there. But then, the human mind, going back some seven millennia by now at least, has compensated for this state of ignorance by intuiting myths of the gods and the order they establish in the creations they make. This is how historical humanity has dealt with its innate problem of ignorance oner millennia of human experience.
Today we have a new myth to supplant the old. Namely, that Newton and Darwin have finally introduced the stable basis on which all reliable knowledge of the Universe ultimately rests. Human thought prior to the Enlightenment is merely the superstitious afflatus of knuckle-dragging primitives. Nothing to learn there.
And thus, arguably, our ancient forebears were wiser than we are today. For they acknowledged the sense of human limits, of human contingency and vulnerability. And this is a universally sensed phenomenon.
Well, FWIW UCANSEE2.
[2] Or maybe the Universe has no 'time' element (or dimension) to it. It simply is. It does not age, while everything in it (or on it) does 'age'.
[3] Or maybe it's turtles all the way down. : )
RE: [1] -- Two-dimensionality is the property of a universal mathematic object, the plane. Two-dimensional objects do not appear in nature, no more than a perfect sphere does.
A "plane" in the natural world is not perfectly achievable. At best, plane-like things in nature are approximations of the ideal plane. But this 2D object in mathematics implies 3D in nature. If only the third spatial dimension is one particle "deep," we have a third dimension. And if you don't have that third dimension, would you be able to directly observe the plane at all?
Again, for all of Eugene Wigner's truthful observation about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the Natural Sciences," one still cannot find a perfect plane or sphere in the natural world.
[2] If the Universe has no "'time' element" in it, then mankind has forever existed in a state of pure delusion. Yet it seems to me that we, like the rest of the natural world, are creatures "caught in the net of Life and Time." And for us humans, time is irreversible. Which is why we can't "go back" and correct past "mistakes."
The above describes how "time" regularly "appears" to us -- as linear, sequential, irreversible. To me, though true to a point, this ia a partial view; the poet T. S. Eliot captures subject of "time" as it bears on humans exactly right, IMHO:
Man lives at the intersection of time and timelessness.So put that in your pipe and smoke it! LOL!!!
[3} As for those "turtles all the way down," that is a favored saw used by progressive thinkers to stop people who believe in a beginning of the Universe in their tracks. Its object is to make fun of Christians, to suggest they are superstitious morons because they believe in Creator God.
But it's pretty lame as far as describing the etiology of anything real. What the "turtles all the way down" presupposition really is: A baseless defense of the theory of infinite regress.
And infinite regress has no internal principle or explanation for the instantiation of anything in particular. It is a non-answer answer.
Infinite regress is a theory of "becoming" that never can "become" for lack of an efficient cause....
As ever, there are more questions than answers.... Thank you for writing, UCANSEE2.
[2] Or maybe the Universe has no 'time' element (or dimension) to it. It simply is. It does not age, while everything in it (or on it) does 'age'.
[3] Or maybe it's turtles all the way down. : )
RE: [1] -- Two-dimensionality is the property of a universal mathematic object, the plane. Two-dimensional objects do not appear in nature, no more than a perfect sphere does.
A "plane" in the natural world is not perfectly achievable. At best, plane-like things in nature are approximations of the ideal plane. But this 2D object in mathematics implies 3D in nature. If only the third spatial dimension is one particle "deep," we have a third dimension. And if you don't have that third dimension, would you be able to directly observe the plane at all?
Again, for all of Eugene Wigner's truthful observation about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the Natural Sciences," one still cannot find a perfect plane or sphere in the natural world.
[2] If the Universe has no "'time' element" in it, then mankind has forever existed in a state of pure delusion. Yet it seems to me that we, like the rest of the natural world, are creatures "caught in the net of Life and Time." And for us humans, time is irreversible. Which is why we can't "go back" and correct past "mistakes."
The above describes how "time" regularly "appears" to us -- as linear, sequential, irreversible. To me, though true to a point, this ia a partial view; the poet T. S. Eliot captures subject of "time" as it bears on humans exactly right, IMHO:
Man lives at the intersection of time and timelessness.So put that in your pipe and smoke it! LOL!!!
[3} As for those "turtles all the way down," that is a favored saw used by progressive thinkers to stop people who believe in a beginning of the Universe in their tracks. Its object is to make fun of Christians, to suggest they are superstitious morons because they believe in Creator God.
But it's pretty lame as far as describing the etiology of anything real. What the "turtles all the way down" presupposition really is: A baseless defense of the theory of infinite regress.
And infinite regress has no internal principle or explanation for the instantiation of anything in particular. It is a non-answer answer.
Infinite regress is a theory of "becoming" that never can "become" for lack of an efficient cause....
As ever, there are more questions than answers.... Thank you for writing, UCANSEE2.
Bless you, eddie willers, for this lovely testimony. I gather the Lord reaches out to us where we stand, using language we understand, appealing to our own personal direct knowledge of the world and our interest in it. An illustration: The Lord knows I love the ancient Greek philosophers. So, on one occasion when He particularly wanted to send me a message, He sent angels. They were dressed and groomed like Greek slaves. Never let it be said that God does not have a sense of humor!
Possibly, by now you imagine I'm just plain nutz. I'm just telling you what I know, as far as I know it.
Anyhoot, please do not fall for the illusion that, if we humans can just build a computer of sufficient (astronomical) power, which can translate everything in nature to a series of 1's and 0's -- at some point, this machine is going to "evolve" a "mind."
And yet it seems this fallacy is what drives most of artificial intelligence/artificial life studies....
My opinion in this matter is straight out of classical Greece, much fortified -- indeed, fulfilled -- by Christian theology over time. There are only two "minds," one in the divine Beyond the Cosmos (divine Nous); the other in man (human nous). Man is the only existent in Nature that possesses mind. Which is to be distinguished from brain.
But I'm wool-gathering here. Better close for now.
Thanks for writing, eddie!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.