My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)

The difference is that the laws of physics are not a physical, tangible entity rather this is an anthropic term (much in the same way the concept of beauty is man-made) describing how our universe works or behaves. If the laws of physics are inherently part of our universe (that is these laws cannot exist apart from our universe) than there is no need to explain how they were created as they originated at the beginning of the universe.This of course begs the question of where did the universe originated from. The current prevailing theory is that time is intricately linked with the dimension of space i.e. spacetime (Einstein's Theory of Special and General Relativity), and thus time itself began at the beginning of the universe. Thus it makes no logical sense to say what happened before spacetime was created. Of course these are all cosmogonical questions that border between science, philosophy and theology. Cause and effect only make logical sense in relation to time. Therefore this quanundrum only applies if time goes backwards to infinity (time has no beginning). If time is finite in the past (has a beginning) than there does not have to be an infinite sequence of regression. The real question is how do we find out which view is correct either through direct/indirect observation/ experimentation or through logical deduction? Why not? It was Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato who asked questions such as these that really laid the groundwork for the study of philosophy and modern science. This is often used as an excuse for the existence of the supernatural. So what exactly do you trust? Do you believe in extrasensory perception (outside the 5 senses)? And up to what point does this take you? We can used deduction (logical reasoning) along with emperical evidence to determine the likelihood of something existing or not i.e. God. And what is this fundamental reality you are talking about and where is the evidence it exists? Not really. Logic is logic. There are not levels of logic. Logic is just the rules we use to determine what reality is through deductive reasoning, observation and inference.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

WTF does that mean? That is not even a rational response. The word "inherent" litteraly means "involved in the constitution or essential character of something" meaning that the "laws of physics" as onfire coherently stated are . Therefore these "laws" are part of the universe "construct" and vice versa. You cannot have one without the other. The universe makes no sense without these laws and these laws make no sense with a universe of matter and energy to act on.Is this a belief? Sure. Eveything in life is built on beliefs, either rational or irrational, substantiated or unsubstantiated. But this is a rational explanation based on logic, scientific theory and emperical evidence as well as the lack of any evidence saying the contrary. If you open it up to say that the "laws of physics" do not only apply to our universe than you also must logically concede that God being outside our universe is subject to these "laws" as well. And how would YOU define GOD? And what is your evidence that this supernatural entity exists (and no a 2000 year old contradictory, erronous book that says so does not count as credible evidence)? As is the question of asking what came before the universe? If time does not exist outside the universe than there is no need for a cause and thus no need for a God to create it. That's nice. I care because? And I should choose your beliefs over mine because? Um, this does not make any sense. So you are saying that we can only fully understand physics (a natural science) is outside of science (using our senses to observe; collect, interpret and test evidence and make a rational explanation using logic). If so than what you are talking about is is not physics but metaphysics (philosophy, theology, etc) which lies outside the realm of science. So what are you suggesting we use instead of logic? ESP? Crystals, etc.And who is pretending? I am trying to use science and logic to answer these questions. However, an unknown is an unknown. Why should I believe in God, why not the flying spaghetti monster, a purple unicorn, flying teapots around Jupiter, etc over the idea that the universe is all-inclusive and the supernatural does not exist. If you can prove to me that the supernatural realm exist, I will become a believer, otherwise I will rely on science and my 5 senses.What it seems you are suggesting is blind faith in some belief of a supernatural being/existence. So what are you using to substantiate this belief?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

The Big Bang was the beginning of spacetime thus it is illogical to ask what existed before spacetime began. In addition, cause and effect do not make sense without the dimension of time. I will explain.So what evidence do we have for why we believe the Big Bang occured in the first place. Here are several: First, nearly all galaxies (there are few relatively close galaxies that are blue shifted vice red shifted but there is an explanation for this which I will not go into right now) appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This movement is defined as "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and therefore implies that the universe was once compacted. Second, if the universe was initially very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. We have discovered this "heat" in the form of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation no matter where we look in the sky. And thirdly, the model of the Big Bang predicts the universe to be composed of mostly hydrogen and helium, which it does as opposed to a very different composition predicted by the steady state theory and others.Therefore if space began from a singularity with the Big Bang than so to did time. Time and space are not seperate concepts but rather are an intricately linked four-dimensional construct (length, width, height and time) in which all matter and energy in the universe are contained. This concept is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.Time is not an abstract thought. Time can be measured much in the same way we can measure the distance between two points so can we measure the interval between two events. The difference of course between these two is that time only "flows" one way. However, this is only halfway true since at the subatomic level there is no distinction between past, present or future and thus no "arrow of time". I will not go into this right now as whole books have been written discussing spacetime, thermodynamics, entropy, and the "arrow of time".Read Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" or Brian Greens "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" which do a good job explaing Einstein's Theories of Relativity and the intrerelationship between space and time.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Actually spacetime is explained in both Einstein's General and Special Theories of Relativity. His General Theory of Relativity takes his earlier Special Theory of Relativity and incorporates the force of gravity. His General Theory was published nearly 10 years later and was more through in his explanations of the characteristics of spacetime.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

When did I ever say that we should treat something we don't know as something that doesn't need an explanation? I never said this so stop sticking words in my mouth. I said why should why we believe/embrace this speculative explanation until we have evidence that it exists. These laws are a human derived concept of how the universe works, nothing more. There is no need for them to "create themselves". They are the universe we live in. One and the same. And again asking what existed before time began is an illogical question. Unless you can prove otherwise. A religious belief is a belief in a supernatural deity/deities/existence. I have no religious belief. I believe in what can be "proven" with emperical evidence. If you want to call this a religious belief so be it. I guess you would call me a defacto materialist until you could show me evidence showing the contrary. That is your opinion. BTW, I don't consider your position absurd or illogical, I just don't see any evidence that supports your position at this time. At best, I can deduce my position to the same amount of certainty as you can yours. If you say time i.e. cause and effect does exist prior to the Big Bang and thus something had to create the universe than again we would go back to the infinite regression of causalities by asking what caused the cause of the universe. This is pretty self-explanatory. What do you not understand about this statement? If a physicist is talking about God, it is usually in a non-scientific philisophical sense. And talking about God and providing evidence for the existence of God are two seperate things.BTW, you didn't answer my question. Again what is the evidence supporting the existence of a supernatural entity/reality? A natural one in which I see no evidence for the supernatural. Who said I had certainty? I am just stating that I don't see any evidence that he/she/it exists. That is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. And no those are not mutually exclusive terms. Again, when did I ever say I had total certainty? I agree I would be an idiot or a religious fanatic (or both) to make this statement, which I never made. I am just pointing out that I have never seen an conclusive evidence pointing to the contrary. I had a feeling this would come up. It is evident that your interpretation of the 5 senses and mine are different. I would venture to guess that most scientists would interpret using the 5 senses as meaning everything that we can physically detect either directly or indirectly (as you pointed out). Yes we can detect radio waves, microwaves, siesmographs, etc. But they all have to through 1 or more of the 5 senses of the human body for us to interpret them i.e. looking at an seismograph displaying tremors on a paper drum etc.Regardless, are you saying that we can detect the supernatural directly or indirectly through scientific means? Can you define or describe this "new" logic? If not what good is it even speculating about it? LOL, it was also through observation and logical deduction (not some form of ESP) that they discovered it was round not flat.You have still yet to provide any evidence of your "new" logic, ESP, or the supernatural. Keep trying though. I am not going to go tit for tat with you on this one, as it is an obvious ad hominum attack. I agree with this statement, which is why I asked for evidence for it or any supernatural event/entity/whatever that exists our physical universe/reality.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Um, sort of but not quite. What Stephen Hawking wrote about in his book "A Brief History of Time" is that imaginary time is time that runs perpendicular to our normal "real" time line axis akin to the imaginary number scale which is used in mathematics. This is counterintuitive to a non-mathematician but imaginary numbers are a real mathematical concept used in higher math to describe a number line perpendicular to the "real number" axis. Here is a good primer for it: imaginary numbers. I am not a mathematician and only took up to college calculus so if there are any mathematicians that could fully explain this I would appreciate it.This is not soley a metaphysic (philosophical) proposal but rather is a theoretical physics/mathematic proposition. That is we should be able to back up this proposition of imaginary time with definitive math and physics not just philosophical ponderings. Not being a mathematician I am not sure how much of his proposal has been substantiated.I think his proposal for imaginary time is to get around the singularity paradox (spacetime reaches to infinity) caused by the Big Bang and which also occur in black holes. That is not only space would have no boundaries/edges (infinite plane) but so to would time. That is imaginary time would have no begginning or end even though ordinary time would begin with a singularity (only on the ordinary time scale) with the Big Bang. Asking what happened before the Big Bang would be akin to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?”. I will have to reread his "Brief History of Time" to confirm this but this was my understanding on first reading it.Thanks for bringing this up Jaywill, it is good to discuss all posibilities (including the existence of a supernatural being i.e. God) of course. However, until we can provide verifiable evidence, all of this pondering of the ultimate cause is relegated to the philosophical realm.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I agree wholeheartedly with CaveDiver's assesmment of your post but here are a few answers from myself. There is nothing wrong with the mathematical concept of infinity on its own. As CaveDiver eloquantly expressed nobody is going around with the "sky is falling" attitude. Just to clarify, I assume you are talking about the infinite regression of cause and effect?, correct? If so read my post answering Jaywill about Stephen Hawkings proposal that answers the question of singularity before the Big Bang. I am not an expert in this, but maybe CaveDiver or someone else knowledgeable on this subject can expound on my explanation of imaginary time and how it avoids the singularity paradox (where did the singularity come from). Please educate us on the problem with our reasoning? Just saying that we have a problem with our reasoning does not do anything but beg the question of exactly what the problem is and how do we fix it. Being a pragmatist and being in the military, one of the axioms I daily use, is that if you see a problem, propose a solution otherwise you're useless. The laws of logic are the test! They are the criteria from which we use to build logical arguments that we can verify there validity and test using emperical evidence and observation. Asking how do we know if the laws of logic are correct is like asking why is blue, blue? How can we test logic against logic? Your statement is (in Spock's words) illogical. False. How do you think Newton, Mach, Einstein, Heisenberg, Hawkings, and other theoretical physicists figured out their scientific postulates? It was through sound reasoning and logic. In fact Einstein originally devised his Theories of Relativity (both the General and Special) using thought experiments and observation. It wasn't until years later that his proposals of the relative nature of spacetime, light, and gravity were "proven" true by verified observation and experimentation. No, this is how science works. Whenever we delve more deeply into the intricacies of the cosmos we end up with more questions than what we had before. That is the nature of science and the nature of our cosmos. If we had all the answers, we would not need science to help us answer the questions. Just because we don't have all the answers does not mean our method of reasoning and logic are incorrect. In fact we are no so much limited by our reasoning so much as by physical and economic limitations i.e. to physically test the string theory we would need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system which is both physically and economically impossible at this time. However, this does not mean we cannot mathematically and theoretically test these postulates to see if they make sense. Which is precisely what scientists have been and currently doing.Just saying "God did it", "it doesn't make sense", or "it defies logic", does absolutely zero to help science. It is just a cop out to
not continue what we are doing, answering questions about us as humans and the world around us.Also, concerning Zeno's paradox it seems that modern mathematics i.e. calculus, science and logical deduction have answered most (if not all) of Zeno's paradoxical problems as shown here: Zeno's Paradoxes[/url]. Even some follow-on Greek philosophers/scientists such as Aristotle and Archimedes answered many of Zeno's seemingly unanswerable puzzles so your premice that Zeno's paradox defy human logic is false. And how are you defining "information theory"? It seems everyone has there own take on what "information" means much less a coherent theory describing such. Also, there is no one "qunatum theory", what are you talking about? There are several dozen (I am being conservative) theories dealing with phenomena on the quantum level (subatomic) so which one in particular are you talking about? Or are you saying all of them?BTW, we have know for several decades of the "weirdness" of the quantum world i.e. heisenberg's uncertaintity principle, relativity, etc. It is only strange because it "seems" to defy the laws of physics in the macroscopic world, however the quantum
world" really does not, it just extends the laws of physics into previously unknown territory. Humans (especially non-scientific types) are not particularly fond of change and thus seem to hang onto there more traditional understanding of the world around them this is why it seems so strange to them (and to you). And how would he propose this new philosophical approach? How? By using the rules of logical argument, observation and verifiable evidence of course! Or do you propose something different? If so what? And this proves what? Scientists always joke about the unknown. It is a way to break the tention. That doesn't mean they don't think they the unknown could never become known. In fact to discover the unknown IS the main axiom of science, to discover the unknown or as Captain Kirk would state "to boldly go where no man had gone before!"String theory has been in and out of popularity with the physics community for the last 30 years. I am not a physicist and am not positive what it's current status is, though I thought that more physicsists were embracining it than in the past. Can you provide some evidence for your assertion? And what does this have to do with anything? I never brought up the string theory? BTW, the latest proposal is in the M-Theory which incorporates string theory as well as supergravity, multidimensions and other proposed quantum physics related theories. The question is can we provide verifiable evidence for these to accurately depict the quantum nature of our universe? We have yet to adequately answer this question but should we stop trying?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I think your semantics is screwed up here Agobot.So protons, neutrons, electrons, muons, photons, quarks, etc are only mathematical objects? Numbers are mathematical objects, functions are mathematical objects, sets are mathematical objects. Subatomic particles are not. Does the number 45 actually exist in our physical universe? No. Do subatomic particles exist? Yes.They may defy common sense (preconceived notions by humans of how the world works) as Onfire pointed out but they are not solely mathematical objects. We can measure the energy content of a subatomic particle, many (though not all) particles we can even measure there mass, their interaction with other particles, their spin etc. Can we do this with the number 45? No. Mathematical objects are used to DESCRIBE our reality, they are not part of our reality whereas subatomic particles are actually components inside our universe (our reality).As far as wave functions, yes they are mathematical objects because they are used to describe how the universe and the quantum realm functions and in of themselves are not physical objects. Where do you derive this from what Onfire is stating? My understanding (and I think Onfire and I are on the same sheet of music), is that the laws of physics are an attempt by human beings to describe how the universe we live in functions. The question of why are their laws in the first place, is an anthropic concept meaning that if they didn't exist we may not have been here to ask the question. However are we sure that life or intelligence could not exist at all if we had a different set of laws? Good question. Who knows? Does that mean we have to resort to a supernatural cause for the universe for the laws of physics to exist? I have yet to see a conclusive proof of why this has to occur.How are you defining supernatural? Many describe the supernatural is anything that exists outside this universe that doesn't have to follow the laws of physics of the universe we live in. What about the existence of a multiverse with possibly different laws of physics? Would that be considered supernatural or still part of our physical reality? These are both philosophical and scientific questions that we still do not have answers to. I put God into the same category as the multiverse. In other words, we still don't know.Should we automatically latch onto and fully put our faith into the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent being because we have yet to answer these questions? Why, when there are so many other possibilities that can also be explored and discovered. I am more of a pragmatist, and have a wait and see approach to this (and so do many atheists). Let science do its job and see what it brings to the table in the future instead of jumping the gun and automatically assuming that the universe was created by some unseen supernatural entity. The laws describing how natural phenomena in our universe behave are manmade. The phenomena themselves and their behavior are not. You act as if these "laws" are a tangible object. They are not. They are human construct of how our universe behaves as I explained previously. This is not an intuitive idea but we have to wrap our head around this. The universe and its behavior existed long before humans came on the scene. Our construct of the "laws of physics" to describe the universe's behavior evolved through scientific inquiry, discovery and an increase in knowledge about our universe over several thousand years of modern human existence.For example, Isaac Newton developed the three laws of motion to describe the relationship of acceleration of an object and the forces acting on this object. Did that mean these forces not exist before Newton discovered them? Of course not.If you are asking why this behavior of forces i.e. gravity, etc exist in the first place than this is philosophical question that at this time cannot be answered by fully answered by science (though there is much speculation including m-theory which is an amalgamation of various other scientific theories). Again, do we have to resort to some supernatural cause, which opens up Pandora's Box of infinite regression of causation, or can we continue with scientific inquiry and discovery and place this question on the back burner until we can find more evidence that points us in the right direction. Actually the concept of God is not an enemy of atheism either. We just treat the concept of God as another hypothesis among many of probable and improbable causes of the universe (if there was a cause in the first place). And what God are you talking about? The Christian God, the Jewish God, the Hindu gods, Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc. This is a metaphor often used (i.e. by Einstein and others) to trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe nothing more. You are reading to much into this.To study the supernatural realm of which God would be a part would be unscientific because we cannot use the tools of science and logic to study it. How do you provide evidence of a miracle if it defies the laws of physics? How can you provide evidence of a supernatural being that can willingly defy all physical laws of nature and make himself disappear from our reality? By definition of science i.e. the study of natural phenomena, the supernatural is automatically excluded.In the end, it comes down to this. We do not know yet. So let's continue scientific research and wait for substantiated evidence before blindly attaching our faith to any one conclusion.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

You are missing my point entirely. How can we prove his existence through science if he can bend the laws of physics at will?Unsubstantiated, emotional laden, personal spiritual experiences have no place in the realm of science. If they do then we have to let in a whole host of other pseudoscientific unsubstantiated experiences with paranormal phenomena like UFO's, Big Foot, ESP, ghosts, astrological, etc which would reduce science inquiry to a backwards retrogation that hasn't existed since the stagnation of midieval Europe over 600 years ago.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

When did I say that protons and neutrons are elementary, indivisible particles?Never. Go back and look at my posts and stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.Even though I am not a particle physicist, I think I understand the basics of quantum physics. I understand that neutrons and protons are made up of smaller more elementary particles called quarks i.e. up and down quarks and electrons and photons are fundamental particles with no smaller component particles (we are not discussing string theory here, that is a whole other, theoretical ball of wax). My point is that these particles (even though some do pop into and out of "existence" at the quantum level however in more technical terms they converting back in forth from pure energy to matter and vice versa) are real bits of matter and energy, not simply a mathematical fabrications. I am no mathematician but I understand the difference between a totally non-existent (in terms of the universe) mathematical concept used to describe our natural world and the actual physical object that is being described by mathematics. That is, there is a difference between a mathematical object i.e. the equation describing the behavior of matter, and the piece of matter or energy itself that actually exists in our universe. Here is a good explanation of what a mathematical object is from: The Mathematical Experience p.157-158 and 356-358If you want to call subatomic particles mathematical objects than through logical deduction we have to conclude that our entire universe including us human beings are one big "mathematical object or system" which does nothing to further your point that the quantum realm is some mysterious, strange realm of supernatural causation seperate from our macroscopic much more "normal" reality (correct me if I am wrong on this assessment as this is what I gather from your rather cryptic posts). No, I have never heard Werner Heisenberg, you condescending prick (just kidding) , I only mentioned him just previous your post as shown here. I may be wrong, but I think we are saying the same thing using different terminology as far as the nature of quantum physics.Notice that Heisenberg says "not physical objects in the ordinary sense". My take on this is that these "particles" are not tangible physical things that we can isolate, measure and study. Hence Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle explains that the smaller the scale we analyze matter the more we approach the fuzzy boundary which borders between energy and matter and that our very act of observing disrupts the behavior of matter in such a way that it results in the inability to both measure the location and the motion of " particles" of matter simultaneously.Here is what Phillip Davis and Reuben Hersh two Harvard trained mathematicians PHD's and mathematic university professors have to say about Platoism and mathematical objects: Also, this is also what Plato says of reality: I know you will probably bring up Plato's allegory of shadows on the back of cave wall to compare with our present understanding of reality. On this I would agree that yes, we do not have all the answers, and yes there is a possibility that a larger supernatural reality could exist from which our reality is merely a shadow of this larger reality, but then how do we prove this assertion to be true? You have yet to provide any substantial evidence that proves the existence of this much larger reality much less a coherent definition of what this reality is. Can you prove otherwise? Please provide evidence for your unsubstantiated statements.Again why do we have to resort ourselves to some supernatural supreme being to answer this question of why the universe behaves the way it does. Otherwise, we go back to, asking why then does God behave the way he does and on and on infinitim.Both Occalms razor and the logic that the burden of proof lies with the one claiming the existence of something applies here. Ok, then we really are not saying anything different then are we? So are you saying that you have no evidence of some supernatural reality outside of our natural universe? If that is what you are saying, than we are both in agreement. It sounds like you are an agnostic from the way you are talking here. I don't like labels either. My philosophy like I said previously is a wait and see approach. It is just at this moment in time I see know evidence supporting the belief in the supernatural much less in the Christian God of the Bible. I have no clue if we have all the right tools to determine the ultimate reality (whatever that may be). All I know is that we are making pretty good progress using our current scientific method. I am sure that if we could get rid of the political and economic barriers to science that our progress would even further accelerate. Why is it a mystery why the universe would be comprehensible? Even animals can learn a little bit about the world around them. The problem is that they have no organized method like us current humans of passing this information down from generation to generation and thus their knowledge of the world around them nearly resets with every new generation. Even just a few hundred years ago, our knowledge of the world regressed and we barely made it out of the "scientific" dark ages of human knowledge. Here is what Einstein said about the lack of his religious faith: He further expounded later in a letter: Obviously he was not an atheist, but he wasn't a theist either. More likely he is a deist bordering on agnostic. LOL. Hmm it seems there is more we agree on then disagree. I float back in forth between atheism and deism depending on my level of knowledge and understanding of the world around me. Right now I guess you could call me an agnostic atheist (again not mutually exclusive terms).However the burden of proof lays with deists/theists to show evidence that a reality above and beyond that which we can scientifically/mathematically test and verify. That is the ball of "providing the burden of proof" lies on there side of the field. Now they have to deliver. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Touche. I misread your earlier statement about "elementary particles" and unawaredly added neutrons and protons which I agree are obviously not elementary (undivisible) particles. Ok, I am trying to figure out what your philosophy is, so bear with me on the hit and miss attempts to define your world view.So if reality is just in our heads does that mean we are just some part of an elaboorate matrix-like thought experiment of some more powerful supernatural entity (you did say you were a deist to some degree). And if so, what difference does it make since we obviously have no control over this "shadow" reality or of this supernatural entity. Therefore in my opinion we should just continue on the road we are on now of scientific inquiry and back up this reality with Descartes' cogito ergo sum axiom.BTW, I have yet to hear you provide any evidence to this hypothetical reality you speak of. It seems to just be unsubstantiated metaphorical conjecture. Correct me if I am wrong. Just because Heisenberg was correct in proposing his uncertainty principle doesn't mean everything he said about reality is correct. Einstein was initially wrong about the universe being in a eternal state of equilibrium so why could Heisenberg not be wrong about about reality existing only as a result of direct observation of things and that it does not exist independent of observation. In fact Heisenberg, Schrdinger and Einstein (as well as many other early 20th century physicists) were at odds about the fundamental nature of reality.As far as who is correct? Who knows. I don't claim to be the fountain of all knowledge but I also propose not jumping at every conjecture of knowing what reality is that someone conjures up, no matter what there credentials are. This is why I treat weak atheism/materialism as somewhat of a default position. It makes no hard assertions of what is or is not true. It just states that until proven otherwise, the reality we can measure, observe, test, logically deduce is the reality its adherants believe really exists, not some conjectured unsubstantiated supernatural reality that defies the currently known laws of physics and human logic. If evidence of a greater reality is discovered than this can be accomodated. Yes, I have heard much of what you are proposing before (i.e. Brian Green's 'The Elegant Universe', Stephen Hawkins "A Brief History of Time', Michio Kaku's 'Hyperspace' and of course Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) and for the most part I agree with it. That is matter acts as a wavefunction and that this uncertainity of the position/motion of matter/energy is more evident at the quantum level than at more macroscopic levels due to statistical reasons (as you so eloquantly illustrated). My only exception to this is why does it have to be "designed"? In the same way in which all matter/energy from atoms to galaxies are statistical ensembles. Ok, I see where you are going with this know. I thinks this is where M-Theory, specifically the superstring theory portion attempts to answer the problem of information transmission. That is 1 dimensional energy strings vibrate in different manners and there interactions of which result in the creation of the whole manazery of elementary particles of the standard model. I am not an expert in this area and correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that this M-Theory proposition (including superstring theory) is the latest thinking by a large majority of theoretical physicists. Ok, you are proposing an unknown deity (deism) of which we know nothing about. This does not get around the problem of why and how does this deity that operates outside (as well as inside) our universe exists. You are just adding more layers to the problem that already exists of which Occam's razor would tell us we shouldn't try to add to many layers to an already obfuscated explaination of reality. Yes, that is more evident now.I just believe we should tackle one problem at a time without as I said previously adding more layers onto our existing reality. If we see evidence for the existance of some supreme being/entity/whatever I will concede my previous view (as most atheists would as well). I just see no reason to as of yet. Prove me wrong.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I am still behind the power curve in reading Kaku's latest books (I am cheap and get most of physics books from the library). I will see if I can borrow this one from someone (usually my Dad or my sister hands me down physics books they have bought and read). I still hold to the KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) axiom and try not to add too many layers like I said previously to an already obfuscated reality (maybe I should write a book on this ). Sounds good. Will read up on it. Wasn't this a proposal for a Star Trek episode? I think the pilot episode with Captain Pike was loosley based on this idea wasn't it? And of course, the Matrix is also based on this proposition of a higher reality. Plato, Descartes and many others were definately deep thinkers in writing about these concepts. Sounds like you have done a lot more research in this area then myself I will have to catch up. I have not heard of Bell's Theorem so I will have to look it up.The only philosophy I have taken is through a Great Courses tape series on Philosophy on my 75 mile drive to work. Maybe I will take a course in that in my next semester of college.My 4 year old is tugging on my arm to go outside and play so I will have to finish this facinating discussion later.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Ditto on Onfire's statement. Are you saying that your belief in God does not require any evidence to support it? If so than why not believe in the Greek Pantheon, the Viking religious structure of Thor and Vahalla, or the infamous cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Self-removed off topic statements.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

BTW Agobot,I have not forgotten our discussion. I am still reading through the 31 page "Mathematical Universe" paper in the link you sent me.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

The non-locality, wavefunction nature of matter at the quantum and macroscopic levels is generally accepted now by the majority of today's physicists and is accepted teaching in physics departments of most universities and colleges. It just hasn't quite filtered down to high-school physics and elementary school science yet and therefore it seems to defy the common sense factor of non college physics educated folks. As to the existence of a higher consciences or a "supernatural" sentient being, as George Bush infamously would say "the jury is still out to lunch" on this one. There is no conclusive evidence in my opinion (and to that of many scientists) that we can definitively point to, to say "see, because of xxxx there has to exist a supernatural being/higher consciences".I am still reading through the material you are providing me, but it seems this talk (even by highly acclaimed scientists and philosophers) about a higher consciencess/reality/entity is still just fanciful metaphysical conjecture without any conclusive empirical evidence. Not that this is bad in any way, it just needs to be substantiated like any other scientific hypothesis. Just my humble opinion. You seem to be putting more emotion into these assertions than necessary. I highly doubt Einstein was down on his knees pleading defeat (unless you could provide proof of this or are you meaning this in a non-literal metaphorical way?). He did remark that one of his greatest blunders was not acknowledging the Big Bang as a viable theory over the Steady State Theory. Einstein was human(though a very intelligent one) and just like everyone else was prone to mistakes, emotional outbursts, frustration, etc.Modern theoretical physicists such as Brian Green, Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawkin and others have taken on Einstein, Heisenberg ax Planck, Niels Bohr and Schrdinger's mantle and hopefully new discoveries and more powerful tools such as CERN can give us more insight the fundamental nature of reality whether it be a hyperspace of higher dimensions and M-Theory or something else entirely.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan