Physics and God

The Proof of God

Outline:
- Part I, the Mathematical Universe
     - Timeless Physics (of Barbour)
     - Many-Worlds (of Yudkowsky)
     - climax: Ultimate Ensemble (of Tegmark)
- Part 2, the Argument for God
     - Gödel's Proof (of Gödel)
     - Aquinas' Ways (of Aquinas)
     - Anthropic Argument (of Collins)
     - Anecdotal Evidence
     - climax: Anselm's Argument (of
- Part 3, the Mathematical God
     - Absolute Infinite (of Cantor)

PART ONE
I think that the spiritual and scientific "dimensions" are the same. Souls are like drinking straws pushed through layer cakes where each layer is a dimension. Your higher selves are sections of different layers of cake in the straw, or how your soul manifests on separate dimensions. Each person has six higher selves, one from dimensions 4-9. I suppose that one could say that they have 7 higher selves, but 10D, where every possible universe, every possible lifeform, every possible soul, is compressed into one single dot, is basically God. So those people that say "You are God!" are right- you are a manifestation of God on the 3rd dimension. So is everything else in this dimension with a spirit.

There are not "infinite dimensions". Furthermore, one cannot "visit" a higher dimension. That is like looking at a pitcher with 10 cups of water and saying, "Let us drink the fourth cup." You cannot separate the fourth cup from the third, fifth, or ninth, so you cannot drink the fourth cup. Following the same logic, you cannot visit the fourth dimension.

When many spiritualists go about describing different "dimensions" which they have "visited", I think that talking about were universes, of which there are infinite parallels. If the many-worlds theory of Quantum Mechanics is to be believed, for every choice you make, there is an alternate universe created in which you made the other choice. And this is not limited to the choices of intelligent beings. This is true for dogs, plants, and hurricanes. There are infinite universes, and each one is unique.

This means that everything you could possibly think of, no matter how strange, exists. In fact, it exists because you simply think of it. The thought travels up to the 10D, and then that spirals down to another universe with whatever possibility you think of. Imagine the same cake was really colorful and had ten layers, each layer a different color or shade of color, and the straw is still forced through the cake. Now imagine that the 10th layer is only big enough for one straw. Now imagine that there are infinite cakes, each with a different color combination (even if the difference is just a fraction of a shade), that all share this one straw-size 10th layer.

A common misconception is that time is a dimension. From our 3-dimensional viewpoint, 4-dimensional animations rotate through time. From a 2-dimensional viewpoint, 3-dimensional objects rotate through time. 4D people do not "move through time", as some would say. They move through 4D space. Math can portray higher-dimensional space; thus, it must be reality. Time is an illusion. A number of problems in physics arise from the assumption otherwise.

Time is not a dimension. Time does not exist. As Julian Barbour said, "Change merely creates an illusion of time, with each individual moment existing in its own right, complete and whole." Mr. Barbour actually composed an entire book on the subject, entitled The End of Time. In the book, he named these moments "Nows", and said that we interpret the Nows through "time capsules", or "any fized pattern that creates or encodes the appearance of motion, change or history." An example of a time capsule would be a brain. Physics arranges Nows by their inherent similarity to each other.

But how could this exist? Time is an integral part of physics- namely, relativity theory. How could there be space-time without time?

Actually, Barbour has worked that out, too. With a combination of his best-matching method, ADM formalism, and the many-worlds interpretation, he has developed a full, timeless model of physics that explains all experimental results and actually smoothly transitions most of quantum mechanics and general relativity to a timeless universe intact.

Once upon a time, Mach (the same guy who figured out the speed of sound) stated that the perfect theory of relativity would have no underlying background grid. Newton's theories had the universe as a gigantic grid of space with time ticking by like God's stop watch. Then, Einstein took a step towards the Machian ideal by combining space and time into a grid that can be warped and bended. However, although this was a step in the right direction, it still had a grid.

Barbour collaborated with Bruno Bertotti to develop a technique called "best matching" for deriving gravitational equations directly from astronomical measurements of objects' spatial relations with each other. This matches the accuracy of Einstein's general relativity in predicting gravitational effects, but also explains away the appearance of the accelerated expansion of the universe without invoking elements such as dark matter or dark energy. What is fantastic, though, is that Barbour's model of gravity would successfully reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, a problem which haunted Einstein for years before his death.

Now, one of the main issues with a timeless universe is causality. In his book, Barbour says that there is no way that causality could exist in a universe without time. After all, if correlation does not imply causation, then what does? Thus, causation is unnecessary in our timeless universe. This is a difficult fallacy to tackle, but the Bayesian Eliezer Yudkowsky explained, in Timeless Causality, how it would work. Causality is the basis of reductionism, so it is essential for all science. In a timeless universe,

This gives some interesting results, when considered spiritually. Now, claims of psychic behavior seem just a bit more credible. Daryl Bem, in his paper Feeling the Future, analyzes several experiments that seem to confirm the existence of psi, or "anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect".

calls his universe without time and only relative positions 'Platonia' after Plato's world of eternal forms.
He marshals as evidence a non-standard analysis of relativity, many-worlds theory and the ADM formalism. Since, he believes, we should be open to physics without time, we must evaluate anew physical laws, such as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, that take on radical but powerful and fruitful forms when time is left out. Barbour writes that our notion of time, and our insistence on it in physical theory, has held science back, and that a scientific revolution awaits. Barbour suspects that the wave function is somehow constrained by the 'terrain' of Platonia.
Barbour ends with a short meditation on some of the consequences of 'the end of time'. If there is no arrow of time, no becoming only being, creation is equally inherent in every instant.
There is no general agreement that the ideas expressed in the book have any predictive power and thereby constitute a scientific theory.



Bibliography:

[url=http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf]Ultimate Ensemble[url]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything]E8 Theory[/url]

[url=http://www.tenthdimension.com/textonly.php]Imagining the Tenth Dimension[/url]

[url=http://caps.ucsf.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bem2011.pdf]Feeling the Future[/url]

[url=http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=]Julian Barbour article in Discovery Magazine[/url]

[url=http://www.platonia.com/nature_of_time_essay.pdf]Nature of Time[/url]

[url=http://platonia.com/barbour_bertotti_prs1982_scan.pdf]Mach's principle and the structure of dynamical theories[/url]

[url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/qr/timeless_causality/]Timeless Causality[/url]

[url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/q8/many_worlds_one_best_guess/]Many Worlds, One Best Guess[/url]

[url=http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/28/4/045005/pdf/0264-9381_28_4_045005.pdf]Einstein gravity as a 3D conformally invariant theory[/url]


PART TWO

GODEL'S PROOF
==================================

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by or strictly implied by a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Gödel defined being "god-like" as having every positive property. He suggested that "positive" should be interpreted as being perfect, or "purely good", without negative characteristics, as interpreting "positive" as being morally or aesthetically "good" (the greatest advantage and least disadvantage) would include negative characteristics.

This proves of the coherence of a God, which is vital for following arguments (notably, Anselm's argument).


AQUINAS' WAYS
==================================

In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God's existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument. Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work. Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.

- The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion, the transition from potentiality to actuality, in the universe we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.

- Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.

- The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.

- Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good- a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.

- The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.


ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
==================================

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.

The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence. Although all of these accounts can be dismissed as examples of the anecdotal fallacy, Sankara's Dictum states otherwise.

In the 8th and 9th centuries CE, Indian philosopher Sankara proposed a dictum that if something is impossible, we cannot have a perception (even a non-verdical one) that it is the case. Thus, it follows that, if we have a perception that [i]p[/i], then even though it might not be the case that [i]p[/i], it is the case that [i]possibly p[/i]. If mystics perceive the existence of a maximally great being, it follows that the existence of a maximally great being is at least possible.

An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called "Born-Again Christians".

The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them.

The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.

In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person's consciousness and unites them to one another. God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.

In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person's understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people's hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.

The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.

Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.

Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one's subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself. In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: "I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects."


ANSELM'S ARGUMENT
==================================

Anselm of Canterbury proposed two ontological arguments in the second and third chapters of his book [i]Proslogion[/i]. He defined God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived".

The first argument stated that existence is greater than non-existence. Thus, God- who is greater than all conceivable things- exists. Malcolm's definition of God makes this a logically necessarily true statement. This argument has been criticized by Thomas Acquinas and Immanuel Kant, who both stated that existence cannot be a perfection of something. However, this can be amended by the redefinition that [i]necessary[/i] existence is a perfection.

In order to properly understand this argument, one must understand the difference between 'greatness' and 'excellence'. A being's excellence in a particular world depends only on its properties in that world; a being's greatness depends on its properties in all worlds. Therefore, the greatest possible being must have maximal excillence in every possible world. It is possible for a being with maximal greatness- as proposed by Anselm- to exist, so a being with maximal greatness exists in a possible world. If this is the case, modal axiom S5 ("if something is possibly true, then its possibility is necessary") states that a being of maximal greatness exists in every world, and therefore in this world.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Anselm's thesis was proved by Prover9, an automated theorem prover for first-order and equational logic.


OTHER ARGUMENTS:

- The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

- The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all human thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

- The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of God.

- Qualia-based arguments: Some philosophers see the existence of Qualia (or the hard problem of consciousness) as strong arguments against materialism and therefore for the existence of material and immaterial entities.

- The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.

- The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause. Its proponents are mainly Christians.

- Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as morality (Argument from morality), beauty (Argument from beauty), love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.

- The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

- The argument from degree, a version of the transcendental argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree in order for such properties to be coherent.

- Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability and the Evolutionary argument against naturalism, which demonstrate how naturalism is incapable of providing humans with the cognitive aparatus necessary for their knowledge to have positive espitemic status.

- Argument from Personal Identity

- Argument from Meaning

- Argument from the "divine attributes of scientific law"