| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Evgenij Barsukov" |
| Date: |
28 Jul 2004 09:01:20 AM |
| Object: |
Probability of God |
Considering that there is absolutely NOTHING as starting condition,
will ever something arise aout of it? Here is calculation of
probability for such event:
http://members.tripod.com/~sudy_zhenja/something_out_of_nothing.html
Now, as we know probability of creation of the most simple object, what about existance
of infinitely powerful, infinitely complex being, which you would properly call "God"?
See calculation here:
http://members.tripod.com/~sudy_zhenja/god_probability.html
Regards,
Evgenij
--
__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Probability of God |
28 Jul 2004 09:21:03 AM |
|
|
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Considering that there is absolutely NOTHING as starting condition,
will ever something arise aout of it?
[snip]
Heisenberg Uncertainty - 100% that energy is not absolutely
determined over conjugate variable time.
Empirical check: The sum of matter plus energy less potential
fields is a grand total of zero within experimental error. Goes
to show what can be done with nothing if one is clever about it.
Vote for Kerry! Pull America's plug and be done with it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Enterprize Company" |
|
| Title: Re: Probability of God |
28 Jul 2004 10:43:00 AM |
|
|
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Considering that there is absolutely NOTHING as starting condition,
will ever something arise aout of it?
[snip]
Heisenberg Uncertainty - 100% that
Heisenberg Uncertainty was based on Bohr Model Atom. It was incorrect just
like the QM Model still is. Everything has certainty, it is just a matter of
time to get there intelligently and more accurately. Creation has Certainty. It
was placed there. There's nothing uncertain about that. When a person says it's
not there and when they try to figure out other ways to explain it, they end up
with things so complicated they don't understand anything.
If one creates a work of art, it just exists and can be admired. But if you
try to figure out all the trillions of details of how it was done universally
keeping creation out of it, one tends to loose site of the beauty of the art
itself.
energy is not absolutely
determined over conjugate variable time.
Empirical check: The sum of matter plus energy less potential
fields is a grand total of zero within experimental error. Goes
to show what can be done with nothing if one is clever about it.
Matter plus energy are potential fields. This is like saying apples plus
oranges - apples plus oranges is a grand total of zero.
Vote for Kerry! Pull America's plug and be done with it.
Why have just a negative view of the world? Doesn't this add to suffering?
Why not help find solutions for the world, and make the place a better world
for people to live in. A positive good view is better. Love is better than
hate. Good is better than Evil. Freedom is better than Control and Slavery.
Helping the poor reduces the poor.
People often say look at all the poor people in the world, why doesn't
someone help them? Well why doesn't start with them?
--
Uncle Al
You're not my Uncle.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Probability of God |
28 Jul 2004 10:51:18 PM |
|
|
"S. Enterprize Company [insignificant]" wrote:
Heisenberg Uncertainty was based on Bohr Model Atom. It was incorrect just
like the QM Model still is. Everything has certainty, it is just a matter of
time to get there intelligently and more accurately.
Wrong again S. Enterprize Company [insignificant].
Uncertainty Principle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22smart1234%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Probability of God |
28 Jul 2004 10:14:53 PM |
|
|
(S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message news:<20040728114300.23951.00002757@mb-m28.aol.com>...
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Considering that there is absolutely NOTHING as starting condition,
will ever something arise aout of it?
[snip]
Heisenberg Uncertainty - 100% that
Heisenberg Uncertainty was based on Bohr Model Atom. It was incorrect just
like the QM Model still is. Everything has certainty, it is just a matter of
time to get there intelligently and more accurately. Creation has Certainty. It
was placed there. There's nothing uncertain about that. When a person says it's
not there and when they try to figure out other ways to explain it, they end up
with things so complicated they don't understand anything.
If one creates a work of art, it just exists and can be admired. But if you
try to figure out all the trillions of details of how it was done universally
keeping creation out of it, one tends to loose site of the beauty of the art
itself.
Not true. Some things are very uncertain. For instance, I think the
certainty of you ever posting anything to sci.physics that is actually
physically meaningful and displays any trace of even a meager
understanding of the subject is very close to zero.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Evgenij Barsukov" |
|
| Title: Re: Probability of God |
29 Jul 2004 09:17:38 AM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message news:<20040728114300.23951.00002757@mb-m28.aol.com>...
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Considering that there is absolutely NOTHING as starting condition,
will ever something arise aout of it?
[snip]
Heisenberg Uncertainty - 100% that
Heisenberg Uncertainty was based on Bohr Model Atom. It was incorrect just
like the QM Model still is. Everything has certainty, it is just a matter of
time to get there intelligently and more accurately. Creation has Certainty. It
was placed there. There's nothing uncertain about that. When a person says it's
not there and when they try to figure out other ways to explain it, they end up
with things so complicated they don't understand anything.
If one creates a work of art, it just exists and can be admired. But if you
try to figure out all the trillions of details of how it was done universally
keeping creation out of it, one tends to loose site of the beauty of the art
itself.
Not true. Some things are very uncertain. For instance, I think the
certainty of you ever posting anything to sci.physics that is actually
physically meaningful and displays any trace of even a meager
understanding of the subject is very close to zero.
I hope you guys all read original message, because the spin Uncle has
given to it takes in far away from original matter of discussion.
Regards,
Evgenij
--
__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Probability of God |
29 Jul 2004 09:43:09 AM |
|
|
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Igor wrote:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message news:<20040728114300.23951.00002757@mb-m28.aol.com>...
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Considering that there is absolutely NOTHING as starting condition,
will ever something arise aout of it?
[snip]
Heisenberg Uncertainty - 100% that
Heisenberg Uncertainty was based on Bohr Model Atom. It was incorrect just
like the QM Model still is. Everything has certainty, it is just a matter of
time to get there intelligently and more accurately. Creation has Certainty. It
was placed there. There's nothing uncertain about that. When a person says it's
not there and when they try to figure out other ways to explain it, they end up
with things so complicated they don't understand anything.
If one creates a work of art, it just exists and can be admired. But if you
try to figure out all the trillions of details of how it was done universally
keeping creation out of it, one tends to loose site of the beauty of the art
itself.
Not true. Some things are very uncertain. For instance, I think the
certainty of you ever posting anything to sci.physics that is actually
physically meaningful and displays any trace of even a meager
understanding of the subject is very close to zero.
I hope you guys all read original message, because the spin Uncle has
given to it takes in far away from original matter of discussion.
Regards,
Evgenij
"Now, as we know probability of creation of the most simple
object, what about existance of infinitely powerful, infinitely
complex being, which you would properly call "God"? See
calculation here:"
Ha ha ha. Science and religion are are orthogonal. Science is
empirical - pure math with boundary conditions constrained by
observation. Religion is faith - it has no basis in anything.
Religion is specifically divorced from empirical constraints,
self-consistent frameworks, and contingent logical processes.
Religion cannot be calculated by definition.
1) Anything that supports religion supports religion.
2) Anything that ignores religion supports religion.
3) Anything that contradicts religion supports religion - test
of faith!
4) Anybody who criticizes religion is thereby proven unfit to
judge.
It's a lovely construct as long as you are in management (or
enforcement).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Evgenij Barsukov" |
|
| Title: Re: Probability of God |
29 Jul 2004 01:54:28 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Igor wrote:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message news:<20040728114300.23951.00002757@mb-m28.aol.com>...
Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
Considering that there is absolutely NOTHING as starting condition,
will ever something arise aout of it?
[snip]
Heisenberg Uncertainty - 100% that
Heisenberg Uncertainty was based on Bohr Model Atom. It was incorrect just
like the QM Model still is. Everything has certainty, it is just a matter of
time to get there intelligently and more accurately. Creation has Certainty. It
was placed there. There's nothing uncertain about that. When a person says it's
not there and when they try to figure out other ways to explain it, they end up
with things so complicated they don't understand anything.
If one creates a work of art, it just exists and can be admired. But if you
try to figure out all the trillions of details of how it was done universally
keeping creation out of it, one tends to loose site of the beauty of the art
itself.
Not true. Some things are very uncertain. For instance, I think the
certainty of you ever posting anything to sci.physics that is actually
physically meaningful and displays any trace of even a meager
understanding of the subject is very close to zero.
I hope you guys all read original message, because the spin Uncle has
given to it takes in far away from original matter of discussion.
Regards,
Evgenij
"Now, as we know probability of creation of the most simple
object, what about existance of infinitely powerful, infinitely
complex being, which you would properly call "God"? See
calculation here:"
Ha ha ha. Science and religion are are orthogonal. Science is
empirical - pure math with boundary conditions constrained by
observation. Religion is faith - it has no basis in anything.
Religion is specifically divorced from empirical constraints,
self-consistent frameworks, and contingent logical processes.
Religion cannot be calculated by definition.
There is another way to look at it. You can see religion itself
as _part of the system_, where system as a whole is governed by
laws of thermodynamics.
Only processes that are allowed by thermodynamics to take place
spontaneously are processes that increase the entropy (or, more
generaly, decrease the Gibbs potential). Because
religion existed during thousands of years, obviously it _is_
allowed by thermodynamics and therefore satifsies criterion for
existance - e.g. does contribute to increase entropy of the system.
Now, how does it do it? Well, it summarizes all the empyrical
evidence of a "external" to humanity criterion for good and bad.
It basically starts with the aciom "anything that you do can
and will be judged". And this is a useful acciom (even if they
use wrong justifications for it). The _thing_ that is providing
this judgement _external_ to Life is the laws of thermodynamics,
which define any act that leads to decrease of entropy as
temporary fluctuation marked for elimination. See details about
thermodynamical purpose of Life (which is basically a catalyst
of entropy increase, that thermodynamicaly stabilizes itself
using part of released energy) here:
http://members.tripod.com/sudy_zhenja/evg_life_definition.html
While process "religion" does not know the actual criterion for
this judgement, it act in best possible empyrical approximation
to this knowledge, and is therefore useful for thermodynamics.
Certainly the actual understanding of criterion itself (as described
in above definition of Life) is much better, but allas, it is not yet
understandable for wide public so religion will still have to do
for a while.
To summarize - see, you _can_ evaluate religion scientificaly -
just look at it as if it is one of the processes in your "reactor" in which
you observe the unstationary thermodynamics of the entire humanity.
Regards,
Evgenij
--
__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
