A Proof Of God Using Quantum Physics

[MindOverMatter2]

But their metaphysics is grounded in their physics

That is not true. Their metaphysics is grounded in logic as an expression of being, and this is used to understand the particular beings which we observe with the senses which are physical. That every effect must have some kind of cause is not an inference from observation; its an inference from logical necessity; for instance out of absolutely nothing comes nothing. It is true that we must observe being before we can have a concept of logic and being, but metaphysics deals with being as an “act” in general, not as a particular “nature” among other natures such as physical quantities.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“Nothing” has two different meanings. It (a) can be reified and spoken about as the subject of a sentence, as something with properties, as we do when we speak of the vacuum, or when a philosopher like Fridugise of Tours or Martin Heidegger speaks of “nothing”. Or (b) it can have a purely grammatical function, to indicate that we are not talking about anything (as when I say “there is nothing in the room”).

They are both employed here in the same sense. They are not talking about an ontological nothing

 

[Cecilianus]

They are both employed here in the same sense. They are not talking about an ontological nothing

When you talk about the difference between something and nothing you are using “nothing” in the non-grammatical sense, as a reified “something” that you can give the properties of.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

When you talk about the difference between something and nothing you are using “nothing” in the non-grammatical sense, as a reified “something” that you can give the properties of.

No. I am talking about the absence of being, any being that can be possibly described, whether that be a state, quantity, spatial dimension, vacuum, spiritual or otherwise. Absolutely nothing has no reality in it. Nothing can come from it because ontologically it is neither an “it” or an ontology. It contains neither truth or being, and can only exist as a grammatical phrase used to describe an absence of something from that which is real, or a qualitative or quantitative difference between two existing beings. Out of nothing comes nothing since there is nothing by which something can come. To imply otherwise would be to labour in contradiction.

That which has activity, dimension, or some kind of actuality, physical or otherwise, is a being, is something, and thus has can possibly have an effect. In so far as we apply the word nothing to such a being, it can only be used in the sense of a negation or possibly a privation, and not as something that is objectively existing.

Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

 

[Cecilianus]

No. I am talking about the absence of being, any being that can be possibly described, whether that be a state, quantity, spatial dimension, vacuum, spiritual or otherwise. Absolutely nothing has no reality in it. Nothing can come from it because ontologically it is neither an “it” or an ontology. It contains neither truth or being, and can only exist as a grammatical phrase used to describe an absence of something from that which is real, or a qualitative or quantitative difference between two existing beings. Out of nothing comes nothing since there is nothing by which something can come. To imply otherwise would be to labour in contradiction.

That which has activity, dimension, or some kind of actuality, physical or otherwise, is a being, is something, and thus has can possibly have an effect. In so far as we apply the word nothing to such a being, it can only be used in the sense of a negation or possibly a privation, and not as something that is objectively existing.

Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

But “nothing” does have reality to it - mental reality, as a concept. It’s the difference between the two words “nothing” in the sentences “nothing has reality to it” (meaning that there is positive content to the concept “nothing”) and “nothing has reality to it” (meaning that there isn’t anything in the world with reality to it).

Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

But “nothing” does have reality to it - mental reality, as a concept.

Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

This is just ridiculous. When you think of nothing you are thinking something as metaphorically representative of nothing, for instance a darkness or an empty space. You never truly think of the “reality” of nothing. That’s like thinking of a square triangle. You might be able to form the “concept”, but that doesn’t make it “real” or give it reality. What you are saying is meaningless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s the difference between the two words “nothing” in the sentences “nothing has reality to it” (meaning that there is positive content to the concept “nothing”) and “nothing has reality to it” (meaning that there isn’t anything in the world with reality to it).

Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

You cannot have a something, for instance a “world”, that is ontologically nothing. Since there is no world in absolutely nothing.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

You claim to be competent in physics and yet you have very little understanding of the concepts involved. Thus I have taking it upon myself to goggle the meaning of a vacuum and what it actually describes in scientific terms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

Do your self a favour. Please do not tell you teacher that a vacuum is absolute non-reality. It will not fare well in your favour.

 

[Cecilianus]

This is just ridiculous. When you think of nothing you are thinking something as metaphorically representative of nothing, for instance a darkness or an empty space. You never truly think of the “reality” of nothing. That’s like thinking of a square triangle. You might be able to form the “concept”, but that doesn’t make it “real” or give it reality. What you are saying is meaningless.

You are confusing reason with imagination. You can’t imagine non-Euclidean geometry, but you can understand it. You can’t even imagine a true geometric figure - with lines perfectly straight, or exactly precise right angles if you are trying to imagine a right triangle - but they’re really easy concepts to grasp. I can’t imagine the number 10^23, but it’s an easy concept to grasp. I can’t exactly imagine “nothing” except by thinking a blank dark space, but I know perfectly well what it means.

 

[Cecilianus]

You claim to be competent in physics and yet you have very little understanding of the concepts involved. Thus I have taking it upon myself to goggle the meaning of a vacuum and what it actually describes in scientific terms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

Do your self a favour. Please do not tell you teacher that a vacuum is absolute non-reality. It will not fare well in your favour.

I’m sorry. What is your point?

A vacuum is nothing. It also has a number of certain interesting properties, such as an energy level. I am having as much trouble explaining this to you as my academic advisor did to one of the philosophy professors at college. I don’t understand why philosophers have such difficult times understanding concepts that are obvious to us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting thoughts on both side’s, engaging. I don’t see why “nothing” isn’t accepted as something in its own context. Often nothing proves to be something through constant observation, theory, than proving theory through, mathmatics and physics.

Then of course once we reach this point, and nothing is defined as something, we move to another reality of that nothing?

Look at reality of E=MCsquared. Or better yet lets even look at E=IxR. Energy in itself before we defined it, it existed, but in a very different reality before we defined it, and then proved it through mathmatics. At first we couldn’t see the energy itself, we seen something happening, something that seemed to change, and alter by the mathmatics and variables of it. So in essence there was a nothingness to this which became a solid, basic foundation of something very real? Even to look into the nothingness of darkness and blank space, its still something.

But as far as God using Quamum Physics, see here we haven’t reached the full length of knowledge at least “yet”. For all we know at this point, God created Quantum Mechanics, and still obviously lives outside its existence. Or not obvious, we simply don’t know yet. So theres a nothingness that exists yet here. The nothingness is our lack to grasp, understand, and put what will probly turn out to be nothing more difficult than E=MC2. I’m sure it won’t. And thats certainly not to reduce E=MC square to nothing.

Often we as human overthink the reality of many aspects. Sort of like the inventor burning the midnight lamp with physics, electricity, and mathmatics for years, to reach an end which serves his very purpose of existance . And then someone markets the pet rock?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m sorry. What is your point?

A vacuum is nothing. .

If there was no vacuum, then there wouldn’t be something called a vacuum. There is a vacuum, therefore there is something called a vacuum. The vacuum exists, therefore it is not nothing.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Interesting thoughts on both side’s, engaging. I don’t see why “nothing” isn’t accepted as something in its own context. Often nothing proves to be something through constant observation

You cannot objectively observe that which does not exist objectively, you cannot imagine a square circle . You cannot imagine nothing.

Then of course once we reach this point, and nothing is defined as something, we move to another reality of that nothing?

Even to look into the nothingness of darkness and blank space, its still something.

Darkness and blank space is not nothing, you are looking at something; they are both aspects of reality which we encounter. Nothing is the absence of some possible objective reality. It is not a thing or a place or a space. It is non-real. It has no ontology. It cannot be measured or quantified. It cannot be discovered, because its not real. When something becomes nothing, that means it is no longer real; nothing does not become something in its absence.

 

[Cecilianus]

If there was no vacuum, then there wouldn’t be something called a vacuum. There is a vacuum, therefore there is something called a vacuum. The vacuum exists, therefore it is not nothing.

You just hit upon my distinction between the two meanings of “nothing”. There is, as you have just proved, a way in which “nothing” is indeed something.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You just hit upon my distinction between the two meanings of “nothing”. There is, as you have just proved, a way in which “nothing” is indeed something.

A vacuum is not nothing; it is not the absence of reality. It is the presence of something real, as opposed to non-real.

 

[Cecilianus]

A vacuum is not nothing; it is not the absence of reality. It is the presence of something real, as opposed to non-real.

It is the absence of particles. There is no “thing” or “substance” called the vacuum. But this “nothing” does have energy and properties (such as the presence of virtual particles) which we can talk about, and so even though ontologically it is nothing, in the order of thought it is something. There is no “presence of something real as opposed to non-real”; the vacuum is pure absence. Again, to my mind whether you choose to categorize it as “something” or “nothing” is a matter of choice which is of little use informing us about the question at hand, so it’s really not worth talking about this much (aside from the fact that we’ve gone off on a tanget from the OP’s question).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is the absence of particles. There is no “thing” or “substance” called the vacuum. But this “nothing” does have energy and properties (such as the presence of virtual particles) which we can talk about, and so even though ontologically it is nothing, in the order of thought it is something. There is no “presence of something real as opposed to non-real”; the vacuum is pure absence. Again, to my mind whether you choose to categorize it as “something” or “nothing” is a matter of choice which is of little use informing us about the question at hand, so it’s really not worth talking about this much (aside from the fact that we’ve gone off on a tanget from the OP’s question).

This is not true. The vacuum is a space. Space is something. Energy is something, it is not the absence of reality. Energy is a reality. Properties have a reality. If virtual particle are nothing, then we are not talking about real things, and thus we are not talking about reality. And thus to call it something is misleading. If what you talking about is nothing more then just some abstract imaginings, or rather some potentiality, then you should say that what we call virtual particles is really the potentiality for real particles. If you are talking about real particles, then you are talking about something real, as opposed to something which has no reality.

 

[simeonzera]

I think that it is fairly well established in quantum physics that our consciousness collapses the wave. I also think that that when we are enjoined to live in the present moment, we are closest to God, who experiences all of his creation in the present moment, including what we can only perceive as the past and the future. Time is a physical characteristic of creation. If we are therefore living in the present moment (and therefore unconstrained by physical creation), why can we not collapse the waves that result in the creation that we now perceive. Two additional thoughts. the physicist Stephen Hawkings said that the universe is the way it is because we are here to perceive it. J.R.R. Tolkien, in his mythology of Middle Earth describes the act of creation as the Ainur (perhaps the angels of our own theological constructs) first hearing the vision of Elu (God) in song, and then taking on the task of bringing Elu’s vision of the world into reality. If we include in our self image that we are created in the image and likeness of God, then would we not also be endowed with the powers of bringing creation into being. Our problem is that: one, we do not even begin to understand the wholeness of God’s plan, including our own part and capacities in it, and two, that because we are fallen, we perceive ourselves as bound in creation and and therefore unable (and often unwilling) to guide creation to God’s purpose.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think that it is fairly well established in quantum physics that our consciousness collapses the wave. I also think that that when we are enjoined to live in the present moment, we are closest to God, who experiences all of his creation in the present moment, including what we can only perceive as the past and the future. Time is a physical characteristic of creation. If we are therefore living in the present moment (and therefore unconstrained by physical creation), why can we not collapse the waves that result in the creation that we now perceive. Two additional thoughts. the physicist Stephen Hawkings said that the universe is the way it is because we are here to perceive it. J.R.R. Tolkien, in his mythology of Middle Earth describes the act of creation as the Ainur (perhaps the angels of our own theological constructs) first hearing the vision of Elu (God) in song, and then taking on the task of bringing Elu’s vision of the world into reality. If we include in our self image that we are created in the image and likeness of God, then would we not also be endowed with the powers of bringing creation into being. Our problem is that: one, we do not even begin to understand the wholeness of God’s plan, including our own part and capacities in it, and two, that because we are fallen, we perceive ourselves as bound in creation and and therefore unable (and often unwilling) to guide creation to God’s purpose.

Thank you. Please tell me. Is the Quantum Vacuum Something or just an abstract idea used to convey potentiality in space?

 

[Cecilianus]

This is not true. The vacuum is a space. Space is something. Energy is something, it is not the absence of reality. Energy is a reality. Properties have a reality. If virtual particle are nothing, then we are not talking about real things, and thus we are not talking about reality. And thus to call it something is misleading. If what you talking about is nothing more then just some abstract imaginings, or rather some potentiality, then you should say that what we call virtual particles is really the potentiality for real particles. If you are talking about real particles, then you are talking about something real, as opposed to something which has no reality.

Virtual particles come into existence for a brief time and then disappear - their “existence” comes from random fluctuations in the vacuum. The way I think about them (which may or may not be precisely correct - I have not studied QED) is that they have no real reality, but that the uncertainty in being able to say this permits particles to exist for a short amount of time. The more energetic they are the less time they can exist for, because their energy should be 0 and the more uncertainty we have in their energy (the more deviated their energy turns out to be from the norm) the more precisely we have to know their position (including their position in time). They’re a consequence of the uncertainty principle. There’s nothing “potential” about them, but we can’t exactly call them “real”. The distinction between “real” and “nothing” just stops working here. It’s a generally useful pre-quantum distinction, but it assumes everything is perfectly knowable in all its respects.