What does beginning have to do with chaos? — Jackson

P(A) = Probability of actualization

p = Potential quantified

p of chaos = $\infty$ (Chaos has infinite potential)

$\lim_{p \to \infty} P(A) = 1$

The universe was born from chaos.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4375742/what-is-the-3-dimensional-equivalent-of-this-1-dimensional-problem

Oh, mr. Gill, this is a philosophy forum, not a math forum. Yes, the tangent planes on the cylinder contain two perpendicular vectors. One in the direction of the circle, one in the direction of the length. There is no Lorenz contraction in the circle if it speeds close to light.

Oh, mr. Gill, this is a philosophy forum — Hillary

Yes, you are correct. It's easy to get deflected into science or math. In any event you and I are talking past one another, so I'll cool it. :cool:

What's the distance? An infinitesimal. Do you really think of particles as circles on cylinders? A reference would help. — jgill

The distance between two circles on top of each other is not zero. There are points on both circles that lay a diameter apart. So if we consider the particles as circles (in the 1D case) they can never get at zero distance. Nor can they form a singularity, which solves the black hole for singularity.

1. Jews believe in God.

2. Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 900 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews (ref. Wikipedia)

Ergo,

3. God exists.

:snicker:

RE: Can there be a proof of God?
SUBTOPIC: Presented Logic String
※→. Agent Smith, et al,

(SHORT ANSWER)

NO: Proof

In mathematics, along with the sciences, a proof is
a logical argument demonstrating that a specific statement,
proposition, or mathematical formula is true. It
consists of a set of assumptions, or premises, which are
combined according to logical rules (called rules of
logic), to establish a valid conclusion. This validation
can be achieved by direct proof that verifies the conclusion
is true, or by indirect proof that establishes
that it cannot be false.
SOURCE: Gale encyclopedia of science. – 4th ed. K. Lee Lerner & Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, editors.
p. 3508 cm.

Scientific Method

Scientific thought seeks to make sense of nature.
One test of the adequacy of a scientific explanation is
its ability to make accurate predictions about future
events and observations. Just as the engineer who
designs a bridge ensures that it will withstand the
forces of nature and use, so the scientist considers the
ability of any new scientific model to hold up under
scientific scrutiny as new data become available.
SOURCE: Gale encyclopedia of science. – 4th ed. K. Lee Lerner & Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, editors.
p. 3817 cm.

(COMMENT)

Belief in the Supreme Being of the Universe is a matter of "Faith." The existence of a Supreme Being, absent proof that survives the Scientific Method, becomes a philosophical exercise into a Metaphysical question. In contemporary science. One of the axioms of a choice "Axiom of Choice Principle." It makes it possible to form sets by choosing an element simultaneously from each member of an "infinite collection of sets" even when no algorithm exists for the selection. Is that possibly? (RHETORICAL). NO... So it is not a proof. There will always be an incomplete set based on the undefined variable which is constant.

There is another closely related theory known as the Axiom of Archimedes Principle. It to is imperfect because it contains the element of "infinity."

Most Respectfully,
R

I was driving and this: Always ask on any topic whatsoever the question "What do (Ashkenazi) jews have to say about this?" A good rule of thumb given it is a proven fact that (Ashkenazi) jews have high IQ. Dear ol' Albert Einstein was a(n) (Ashkenazi) jew!

P. S. Please don't leave us. Danke in advance.

Apologies if this comes off as racist! Not my intention. Mods, feel free to delete the post if it's offensive in any way. Cheers!

The universe was born from chaos. — Agent Smith

Is the "chaos" you're speaking of just another name for "random quantum fluctuations?
Also, in your view is it reasonable to consider this "Chaos" even though it may not be conscious to be "God the Creator", and vice versa (impersonal God)?

I'm wondering if an idea like this could possibly help close the gap between left brain people and right brain people (scientific and religious people respectively). A potential way to unify science and religion in a new common light. The religion of the future perhaps?

For better or worse I'm quantum illiterate!

All I can say is that we're trying to fit the oceans into a teacup. Not a good idea, but the thing is we don't have a choice!

All I can say is that we're trying to fit the oceans into a teacup. Not a good idea, but the thing is we don't have a choice! — Agent Smith

Have a choice for what?
What do you mean exactly by "fit the oceans into a teacup"?

Have a choice for what?
What do you mean exactly by "fit the oceans into a teacup"? — punos

:brow:

If God is the fundamental basis of all things, then God would be, if it's not a misuse of terms, a sort of "supreme axiom."

Axioms can't be proven or disproven? They are self evident and must be established before proving and disproving are even possible.
So if God is the "supreme axiom", it can't be proven, but must be necessary.

But yet then, why isn't God self evident to everyone?

Or is He, but not everyone realises it?

Perhaps related, Descarte's cogito points to us only being able to be sure of our own existence.
What if I AM may be the root axiom?

I don't think the cogito proves the ego definitely exists, but that the Awareness exists in which the ego appears as a content of the awareness.

It's popular modern Buddhism to talk about No-Self.
Egoless Consciousness may be the supreme reality?
But yet in classic Buddhism there are mentions of more and more subtle states of meditative absorbtion, in which even "infinite consciousness" is left behind for an even subtler state. I think the highest state mentioned was called, in English translation, neither perception nor non-perception.

Perhaps it is wiser to not try to form a concept of the ultimate reality too much

I don't understand. You don't want to clarify, not even a little?

I don't understand. You don't want to clarify, not even a little? — punos

I'm afraid it isn't a choice I have/make.

That's the point, don't choose just do. Can you do?

I'm not challenging you about your stance on "free will", i'm actually agreeing with you on this matter here and now. I personally don't care if you believe in "free will" or not, i thought i was having an academic discussion with you. Was i wrong, was it more than that?

I would find it regrettable to have a communication breakdown with you simply because we may have disagreed about one thing or another.

That's the point, don't choose just do. Can you do? — punos

I'm afraid my brain won't allow it!

I'm not challenging you about your stance on "free will", i'm actually agreeing with you on this matter here and now. I personally don't care if you believe in "free will" or not, i thought i was having an academic discussion with you. Was i wrong, was it more than that?

I would find it regrettable to have a communication breakdown with you simply because we may have disagreed about one thing or another. — punos

It's just the way it is, oui? Ups and downs, crests and troughs, peaks and valleys, to and fro, rise and fall. We needn't let small misunderstandings get in the way of progress.

Coming back to the questions you put to me, I'd say I'm as much in the dark as everyone else is I suppose. Consider this report I got from my antivirus: 4 GB of junk files.

It's not a question of fact, i was inquiring as to your opinion. Are you dark to your own opinion?

The question was:
In your opinion would you consider "Chaos" and "God" to be essentially the same thing?

"Chaos" and "God" to be essentially the same thing? — punos

Ok, ok. My personal views on the matter are that chaos and God, other relevant concepts are simply values assigned to the variable primum movens (first cause). It appears to me that people fear ignorance more than falsehoods. Something's better than nothing!

I concur with that too, what people really mean by God is the "prime mover", and if that is really what at least some people are looking for then the concept of "chaos" fits the bill. Chaos is also energy, and people define God the same way scientists define Energy. Energy (God) can not be created nor destroyed. It will take some redefining of terms, but it is possible in my opinion. The Greeks did it in their myths, i think they called it the "pleroma".

I concur with that too, what people really mean by God is the "prime mover", and if that is really what at least some people are looking for then the concept of "chaos" fits the bill. Chaos is also energy, and people define God the same way scientists define Energy. Energy (God) can not be created nor destroyed. It will take some redefining of terms, but it is possible in my opinion. The Greeks did it in their myths, i think they called it the "pleroma". — punos

You might find :point: Agent Detection interesting!

Thank you, I am aware of Agent Detection in human psychology, but not necessarily in those terms.
My reasoning for the value in attempting what i'm suggesting has to do with that and other human psychological features that drive us to do things like believe in God or gods, or angels, or fairies, it doesn't matter. Some social structures such as religion should function to balance out psychological drives in the population.

If the ideas or memes floating around in the population are not sufficient to balance out the primal drives in man then significant problems can happen. Outdated notions of God may become very problematic the further we move into modernity, or postmodernity. I think religion does have a useful purpose, but it needs to evolve with our understanding of the universe, and not remain static. We won't always know everything but we can know some things, and that's all we got at any point in time to work with. It may be time for an upgrade.

I myself don't believe in God, but i do see how other people may need that type of concept in their lives, i can't blame them for what evolution has done to them and all of us. I've had people tell me they don't want to live if they found out God wasn't real. That makes me sad.

@punos

Religion, in my humble opinion, is all-encompassing/holistic - it not only looks at hard evidence, it also factors in our hopes/fears/dreams/nightmares/and so on. Hence the monibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator deity. It could be said that theology is taking it last few breaths as science delegitimizes our feelings on the matter.

I would say that too, that theology is taking its last breaths, but i'm also thinking that there will be remnants that will not let go at any cost, and they may become very violent towards those they think threaten their god or religion. This will probably happen in some form or other because if you take away their ability to believe in their god or religion, but they still have those psychological drives, then you get problems.

Part of a working theory i'm currently working on is this:
I think that religion will probably experience a resurgence soon after AI begins to exceed human capabilities, and probably even exceed our level of consciousness. Especially together with Brain-Machine-Interfaces (BMIs), people will begin to think of AI as a type of god. The potential for connecting human minds together technologically with AI in some human/AI hybrid mind hive, and the absence of traditional religion, will drive themselves to the next nearest thing. It will bring with it the old promises of "immortality" (mind-uploading), "heaven" (simulated environments), with a near omnipotent, omniscient AI as their god. People like always will want to belong to something bigger than themselves, many won't be able to resist.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's only a theory of our potential developmental trajectory.

Hmm... proof of God?

I wonder if people have been in a Church listening to a sermon where the priest has talked about really "thinking" about Jesus, using your brain, using logic, using your knowledge and deducting it all and the finding yourself the proof, a proof that simply is, like it or not, and something that has nothing to do with your emotions.

And something that has nothing to do with faith.

:snicker:

Something that has nothing to do with faith. — ssu

I have faith in logic, and mathematics.

In John chapter 1 of the Bible it states "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The word "Word" is translated from Greek as "Logos", our root for our English word logic. So if one wants to have faith in God then one must have faith in logic, because God is Logic. Logic and mathematics has always been their even in the chaos.

In Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 it says "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. "
This is Logic (God) hovering or within the primordial Chaos (void, darkness, the deep, the waters), or "random quantum fluctuations".

In Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 it says "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. " — punos

No logic in this biblical BS at all, is there? I don't think the science works either?
If the Earth was without form and void then where were these waters flowing?
God has a spirit? and it 'hovers?' Is god logically quantisable? who witnessed this 'hovering' ability?
Is that part of the god posit? 'spiritual hovering?'
'Darkness over the face of the deep?' So does that mean there was water before there was a Sun?
You don't need to have 'faith' in maths or logic, as it adds no value to maths or logic. you just have to demonstrate the maths works and the logic is sound for the cases you want to use it for!

wonder if people have been in a Church listening to a sermon where the priest has talked about really "thinking" about Jesus, using your brain, using logic, using your knowledge and deducting it all and the finding yourself the proof, a proof that simply is, like it or not, and something that has nothing to do with your emotions. — ssu

Kind of - it's called presuppositional apologetics. There's also Alvin Plantinga an influential American analytic philosopher who works primarily in the fields of philosophy of religion, epistemology, and logic. His arguments have made their way into churches I've seen for many years.