PDA

View Full Version : Proving Divine a Priori



SubtleCalmingFlow
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 04:17 AM
The word "nothing", acts like the empty set; {}.

The word "nothing", is not nothing.



nothing is nothing
proof; ({} ≡ {})∧({} → {})∧(id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (1); nothing is nothing

Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;

Corollary (1); nothing equals nothing; {} ≡ {}

Corollary (2); nothing implies nothing; {} → {}

Corollary (3); nothing has the property of nothing; id{}:{} → {}

Corollary (4); nothing exists as nothing; ∃{} → ∃{}



something is self-causal
proof; ({} ≡ {})∧({} → {})

Logical Tautology (2); nothing equals nothing and nothing implies nothing

ergo nothing is not implicated with something

ergo everything is implicated with something

Note; Two or more things that are solely and exclusively implicated with each other can be understood as one thing implicated with itself.

e.g. If a group of cells (such as the ones that make up your body) are solely and exclusively implicated with each other, they can be understood as one thing (namely your body) implicated with itself i.e. you are cybernetic.

ergo something is self-implicated

Note; Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since everything is implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables.

ergo nothing is not causal with something

ergo everything is causal with something

Note; Two or more things that are solely and exclusively causal with each other can be understood as one thing causal with itself.

ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.

Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness.



something is self-descriptive
proof; ({} ≡ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (3); nothing equals nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive.

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation.



something is essentially existence
proof; ({} ≡ {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (4); nothing equals nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence.



everything is made of something
proof; ({} → {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (5); nothing implies nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something.



something is the cause of all things
proof; ({} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (6); nothing implies nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things.



something has always existed everywhere
proof; (id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (7); nothing has the property of nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere.



One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere.

Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses how many individuals of the defined thing exist, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the particular characteristics and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individuals of a particular thing exist, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the particular characteristics of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.


conclusion
The one thing is a dual-aspect monism-pantheism (essence of existence, that everything is made of) and is omniscient (self-causal, self-descriptive), omnipotent (cause of all things), eternal (has always existed), and omnipresent (everywhere). By virtue of the identity of indiscernibles the one thing is the Divine. Therefore the Divine necessarily exists. Q.E.D.

adalwulf
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 04:40 AM
You have me convinced. Although I already believed...

Bernhard
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 08:44 AM
I noticed that your profile says "natural rationalist christian". I wonder what you think of the christian idea of creation out of nothing. Do you disagree with it according to what you have written here or do you think the Christian God is more like the unmoved mover of Aristotle? If I understood you correctly, the latter could just as well be the conclusion from your premises.

SubtleCalmingFlow
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 07:14 PM
I noticed that your profile says "natural rationalist christian". I wonder what you think of the christian idea of creation out of nothing. Do you disagree with it according to what you have written here or do you think the Christian God is more like the unmoved mover of Aristotle? If I understood you correctly, the latter could just as well be the conclusion from your premises.

people that call themselves christians believe all sorts of things that are not in the bible

"creation from nothing", is not in the bible

at any rate, a lot of confusion on arguments about God and creation goes on the order of blind men touching an elephant (most of them are right, from a particular perspective)

for example, exnihilation, or pair production; the particle is created at the same time as the antiparticle; the quantum numbers sum to zero!


Here is Aristotle's argument;

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

I will comment on it;


1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else

He is claiming that all things that move, move exclusively from external causes.

He has already removed the self-causal from discourse.


3. If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.

He means an infinite chain of external causes, where an object cannot be used more than once as an external cause i.e. no cybernetic loop allowed in his discourse.

He has created a reductio ad absurdum of his own argument (2)... and yet he himself doesn't see it.



4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.


I think this one was worded incorrectly, it should read;

4. thus there must have been a first movement, that had an external cause

In other words, has he proven the existence of a "first movement" or did he presume it?

If he proved it, it would have been written the way I said it.

For all we know, movement is an eternal property of the universe.



5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.

Again, this one is worded incorrectly, it should read;

5. thus there must have been a first cause, that cannot have been moved.

...

no self-causal or cybernetic loop allowed.


You will notice that my proof demonstrates that one thing is "self-causal" and "eternal".

In other words, the notion of an external first cause is false by necessity.




6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

Well, the validity of his argument is questionable, and he has false premises.

velvet
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 09:19 PM
The applied Tautology is in itself true, but does in no way refer to reality. Tautology is the basic tool of philosophies to make the theory look consistent. But since it is a mathematical-theoretical axiom and therefore unrelated to reality, it is the very cause for the failing of every single one of philosophies that was ever thought out by man. Mainly because problems in the theory are first reduced to a single individual problem and then excluded by tautological logic.

It is the prophecy that makes itself come true. With Tautology, you can prove or disprove whatever you want, and you accomplish it by creating the statement you want to prove true in a way that it cannot, by tautological logic, be proven wrong, by reducing the arguments and counterarguments to singular statements.


the particle is created at the same time as the antiparticle; the quantum numbers sum to zero!

Of course they do :shrug

A particle "3" has by necessity of the quantum laws an antiparticle "-3". It must have, since else it were an antiparticle of something else. This follows necessarily from the periodic table which is ordered by the atomic number, the number of protons in the atomic nucleus.
The theory of antimatter includes obviously a negative periodic table (by Charles Janet, 1929), and since antimatter particles are created the same way as normal matter particles, they have of course the negative value of the place in the periodic system their normal matter brother possesses.

It should be noted though that "antimatter" is a theory, that comes from mathematic formulas which "predict" (make theoretically possible) antiparticles. Modern physics does not work with antimatter anymore, as the theory has several defiencies.

SubtleCalmingFlow
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 09:54 PM
But since it is a mathematical-theoretical axiom and therefore unrelated to reality,

You are confusing non-logical axioms with logical tautologies;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axioms#Non-logical_axioms

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





Modern physics does not work with antimatter anymore, as the theory has several defiencies.

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-11-03.html

SubtleCalmingFlow
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 10:16 PM
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 = (h⋅ω)/2

Scientific Fact (2); Vacuum energy or zero point energy; there is an amount of energy equal to (h⋅ω)/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.



conclusion
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.

velvet
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 10:29 PM
You are confusing non-logical axioms with logical tautologies

No, I point out that this is theoretical mathematic and every prediction that emerges from there is still a theoretical mathematical prediction.

Instead of betting on antimatter, rather have a look into gravitational lensing, might bring you nearer to the truth behind the universe.

SubtleCalmingFlow
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 11:19 PM
No, I point out that this is theoretical mathematic and every prediction that emerges from there is still a theoretical mathematical prediction.

There is no point in me boring myself with your repetitive claims about a topic you seem to have no willingness (or ability) to understand by virtue of your own epistemological predispositions.

Instead, you are welcome to address my a posteriori proof.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=134418



Beware, I'm a firespitting, genetically manipulated troll duck. :shrug :wsg

I will take your word on that.




My brain capacity btw is fine and contains already a lot of astrophysical facts (as opposed to mathematically derives theories, to which the artificial creation of antimatter btw counts too).

I see, so the existence of positrons in a laboratory didn't clarify the issue for you?




Instead of betting on antimatter, rather have a look into gravitational lensing, might bring you nearer to the truth behind the universe.

You are talking to someone (me) who has falsified Einstein's plagerized theory of gravity (including on gravitational lensing).

Basically, there is the intergallactic medium and the intersteller medium, and these act as a quasi-atomosphere refracting light. The so called "gravitational lensing" is nothing more than this quasi-atomospheric refraction.

velvet
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010, 12:12 PM
Isnt the divine about belief? And what becomes of belief when its proven? And why did all the research into the universe, the world, human evolution NEVER EVER produce even the slightest hint that there could be something divine behind all that?

And the even more interesting question is, why are some humans so desperate and are not content with their "belief" but want to prove the unprovable to justify their irrationality?

Well, I find these questions entertaining, because people bring the most funniest "explanations" for that, and when explanation doesnt produce conviction, there is this one last sentence that sweeps all doubts away (for the desperate): god's ways are inscrutable.


I see, so the existence of positrons in a laboratory didn't clarify the issue for you?

Artificially created positrons dont prove "wild" existing positrons. Sure this experiment is interesting, but it has simply nothing to do with the real universe :shrug



You are talking to someone (me) who has falsified Einstein's plagerized theory of gravity (including on gravitational lensing).

Oh oh, look, we have another Einstein on board :D

Should I really bother to try to explain a divine-creation-believer the truth about the universe? Nah, I dont think so, its waste of time.

You see, the creation of the universe is a truely fascinating thing, there are so many wondrous things to see and learn. Placing into this wonderful thing something like a "creator" simply destroys all the beauty it holds. And unfortunately for you, with placing a creator, a will into and behind this makes you blind for this beauty.

SubtleCalmingFlow
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010, 07:13 PM
Isnt the divine about belief?

You mean blind faith?

Regarding the existence of the Divine, blind faith is not required for those who can understand the Divine. But those who are ignorant, blind faith is all they have.

Also, fath is VERY important for psychoenergetic, psychic functioning, clairvoyance, telepathy, placebo effect, hypnosis... etc.

But you don't even have to believe in the Divine to use that kind of faith.



And what becomes of belief when its proven?

What happens to faith when it is proven?

It ceases to exist.

Assuming we have a finite amount of faith, we can now use the faith on more useful things like living according to our will, instead of wasting it on believing in God's existence.




And why did all the research into the universe, the world, human evolution NEVER EVER produce even the slightest hint that there could be something divine behind all that?

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

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




And the even more interesting question is, why are some humans so desperate and are not content with their "belief" but want to prove the unprovable to justify their irrationality?

Loaded question fallacy.

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




Well, I find these questions entertaining

Not surprised that fallacies entertain you.




, because people bring the most funniest "explanations" for that, and when explanation doesnt produce conviction, there is this one last sentence that sweeps all doubts away (for the desperate): god's ways are inscrutable.

As a rationalist, I don't believe God's existence or nature is inscrutable (if you mean impossible to understand).




Artificially created positrons dont prove "wild" existing positrons. Sure this experiment is interesting, but it has simply nothing to do with the real universe :shrug

FYI, particles are fundimental things. They are created through energetic processes.

It's not like baking a cake, add eggs, flour, sugar, mix, heat to x F, for y minutes etc.

If a fundimental thing like a particle can be created in the Lab, out in the cosmos we must assume there are similar energetic processes possible!




You see, the creation of the universe is a truely fascinating thing, there are so many wondrous things to see and learn. Placing into this wonderful thing something like a "creator" simply destroys all the beauty it holds. And unfortunately for you, with placing a creator, a will into and behind this makes you blind for this beauty.

You think if the Universe was alive, it would no longer be beautiful?

You must think only dead things are beautiful.