Studying the supernatural

Nope. That road leads to the super-supernatural, ad infinitum.Don't go there.

I know - turtles all the way down... Actually it doesn't have to lead to ad infinitum, it could lead to infinity.Brian Greene in his Book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" says that there must be something wrong with the data because when they bring together the math of relativity and the math of QM the answer keeps coming up as infinity. What if the math is right and infinity is the correct answer.

Well, I can't speak to the math.But I don't think anyone has managed to "bring together the math of relativity and the math of QM" just yet.Aside from that, I'm good with infinity. It no more needs a supernatural explanation than finiteness does.

Hi GDR, I'm reading his book "the Elegant Universe" where he is showing how string theory can unify QM and relativity without the ∞ problems.Of course string theory then requires more dimensions ...Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : bold ∞

Agreed, but it does deal with the question of who created the creator.AbE: Infinity isn't something that we encounter in the natural world except in mathematics. It seems to me that infinity is a supernatural concept.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He wrote "The Fabric of the Cosmos" after "The Elegant Universe". I watched the DVD of "THe Elegant Universe" but didn't read the book.The part of the book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" that I was referring to is under the heading "Does It Matter" on page 335. I'm currently reading "The Hidden Reality" which is his newest book.AbE: OK, here is the quote from "The Fabric of the Cosmos".

quote:

---

In practice, the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. If you use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, they almost always yield one answer: infinity. And that's a problem. It's nonsense. Experimenters never measure an infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity. Meters never reach infinity. Calculators never register infinity. Almost always, an infinite answer is meaningless. All it tells us is that the equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when merged go haywire.

---

Edited by GDR, : To add Greene quote.

I don't see how.

An infinite world would allow for an infinite prime mover, unlike our world which is subject to entropy. An infinite or eternal prime mover doesn't require a first cause.

Sauce for the God is sauce for the Garden: If an infinite prime mover doesn't require a creator, then neither does an infinite world.

I quoted both so that you can see that in my original statement I said "allowed for". I did not say "required". It just allows us to do away with the turtles.

If (for example) Harold Camping had got it right that would constitute pretty conclusive evidence of the supernatural wouldn't it?Due to the nature of the predicted event it would be shortlived (or arguably eternal I guess) evidence. But it would be evidence wouldn't it?

I kinda like the turtles.

Quantum foam. There is a story about how one day David Hume was going into a pub and saw a guy sweeping the steps. They got into a discussion about the chaps broom and how wonderful it was that it always did such a great job. The chap explained that he was always replacing the head of the broom and he loved his broom. To which Hume stated that it was not the same broom if he replaced the head. The man then went on to discuss how he also replaced the shaft of the broom the previous year. And yet it was his beloved broom just the same.How unlike this mans broom is anything that exist? What is the same? There is nothing new under the sun we just recycle and reintergrate the materials. Some of the radio active isotopes from Hiroshima reside in us all.

How do you know that in some other parallel universe Harold Campings predictions were correct?

Why?Be specific. In what way can a "prime mover" be "infinite?" What would an "infinite" person look like, if people could be "infinite?" Why is an "infinite prime mover" a solution to the problem of infinite regression?I ask, GDR, because I don't think your usage of the term is actually an explanation. I think it's just a word that lets you feel like you've responded to the challenge of the regressing turtles, but I don't think it actually explains anything at all. If there were an "infinite prime mover," what predictions would you make (testable or otherwise) that would be different from a non-infinite "prime mover?" If we had perfect knowledge of the Universe and reality, how would our omniscient observations differ between an "infinite prime mover" and a non-infinite "prime mover," or a Universe that does not include a "prime mover" of any sort?