(Theory of Everything ≡ Theory of God) Where did I go wrong?

Dear all,

As a statement of my understanding of Jewish tradition, “The Great I am” of the Jews has to be the set of everything that exists otherwise it cannot be omnipresent.

As “The set of everything that exists” is exactly what theoretical physicists are studying, “The Theory of Everything”, which implies they are studying “The Theory of God”.

As a statement of faith, I am assuming string-theory is heading towards the truth about the Universe and it is the best model I have for Physical existence.

Let me explain…

Without words there can be no thoughts, no reasoning, no philosophy and no mathematics. Scientists hold that “The Universe is nothing but mathematics”. If that is so, without words we could not exist.

The Bible states it thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 (Note: this is not part of my argument, just a pointer that this was first thought through 1940 years ago.)

The word is a symbol used to share meaning: any and every symbol, including but not limited to: Letters, normal words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, dictionaries, entire libraries, the world and the whole of the physical Universe, indeed the whole of logical existence.

Note: Logical existence is the name I give to the world of thoughts and ideas. The world of words.

This definition of the whole of logical existence assumes that the word is the most fundamental unit of logical existence. As everything that logically exists is just a meaning and that meaning is by definition: “Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language”

That is it can be shared. It must be a symbol used to share meaning that is a word.

In logical existence there is nothing more fundamental than the word. Everything is a symbol used to share meaning. So the word is the foundation of logical existence.

For example, the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2 has always existed and has never not existed. It existed before time started and will exist when time stops. These happen to be mathematical symbols, but the same is true of paradoxes too. “This statement is false.” has always been a paradox and always will be a paradox and it has never been a part of mathematics. That does not stop the paradox from existing. It can be seen to have an effect on the physical world just because I wrote about it.

“So in the Beginning” was information, which exists outside of time. The meanings are timeless although the symbol used to share that meaning is very much within time.

Every word is defined in terns of other words and so the whole of logical existence is nothing but every possible combination and permutation of words it is truly infinite and limitless.

Words are omnipresent because they are everywhere including are thoughts and dreams.

As the Word is omnipresent and it is equivalent to the set of everything that exists, so it must be equivalent to “the Great I am”.

So, our little defining words are “with God” and the whole of logical existence, “The Word”, is God.

Every possibility is inevitably described within “the Great I am” which provides predestination. Some of these we choose to follow, some we do not. Whether a thought becomes a physical reality is in our hands, this is our free will as we choose. We have free will to choose which reality we live in. We have the possibility to do whatever we want.

Another way of saying this is that in the logical multiverse (of deliberate choices) as in the statistical multiverse (science talks of) there is a Universe out there somewhere for every action to happen in some are no more than fictions because no one would choose them, that does not stop them existing. Just as lies exist.

N.B. One could argue and indeed I have seen arguments for and against the existence of lies and numbers being debated on this forum including arguments as to our own existence. To my mind all of these are a futile arguments in the sense in either there is meaning of some sort or there is not. As we are all busy writing our points of view which are meanings. I do not see how these meanings cannot exist. I expect you to exist although I could be delusional and you could be a figment of my imagination. It may be clever to argue these points but I do not think it is wise, as the evidence of me writing posts is to my "mind" proof that I exist. if you have a "Mind" and you are exchanging meaning then something the thing you are exchanging exists and the mind that is producing these arguuments exists. Which probably means you do to.

So the Word is Omnipotent because there is a multiverse for all of our choices and every choice is possible, however unlikely.

As the Word has all words in it. It is omniscient. Seth Lloyd among others reckons the multiverse is one big quantum computer.

As I understand calabi-Yau manifolds and string theory there is as much space inside a p-brane as outside it. That is while p-branes are quantised in this multiverse inside the p-brane there is room for another multiverse.

The further in you go the more space there is.

The Calabi Yau manifold works a little like 1/x there is as much room between 0 and 1 (0,1] as [1, ∞) except the mathematics is more complicated the mirroring is exceedingly similar. The further in you go the more space there is. What it does mean is that real as opposed to quantised integer measurements are a valid thing to do. This gives uncountably infinite possibilities within this multiverse.

Also that froth of multiverses is expected to be infinite with p-branes touching other p-branes. Please note there is no proof that it is true because, as I said in this multiverse the p-brane is quantised that is there is no way we can measure anything that small and all of our current theories of gravity fall apart at any size smaller than that anyway.

Please note there is no proof that there are an infinite number of p-branes touching this multiverse or the other p-branes.

If we are limited within a completely quantised multiverse then we can not have uncountably infinite possibilities because we have to measure in integer not real mathematics as there are a fixed finite number of places to go. You cannot move an electron pi inches to the right because it would not end in a quantised space. Assuming Calabi Yau and string theory is correct. The population of the multiverse is infinite because there are an infinite number of possibilities of what we can do today and so the Word is omniscient.

Please mote Richard Feynman’s path integral function should be done over the whole of space-time which implies particles can go back in time and into the future, so the cosmos can learn like a neural net. It gives the feedback loops needed for a truly intelligent neural net of p-branes.

The word is omniscient because it has infinite knowledge and an infinite brain to think about it.

Without a desire to share, love; we have no need for the Word. Without knowledge, we have nothing to share, nor know anyone to share it with.

The Word is the most fundamental building block of life. With out a desire to share, love; we have no need for the Word. Without knowledge, we have nothing to share, nor know anyone to share it with.

The whole of evolution can be seen as one slow building process in better and better forms of cooperation through communication; using love, to share knowledge. With the invention of the Word that progress exploded! Each human civilization is richer or poorer directly in proportion to the amount they communicate and with the freedom they communicate. That is the amount they cooperate. It seems that without both love and knowledge, none of creation could happen, with both love and knowledge all of it has to happen.

When taken out to the infinite population of the multiverse an infinite population requires infinite tolerance and infinite love to be that forbearing. So The Word is almost certainly benevolent.

Lastly as stated at the beginning the world is eternal.

So “The Word “is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent and eternal. “He” exists and “He” is God; where “He” is a pronoun for an entity, which includes every sex and is probably of no sex at all as He has always existed and never not existed.

God loves you.

Q.E.D. Assuming Calabi Yau are correct or there is another mathematical reason for the multiverse to be uncountably infinite then: The “Therory of Everything” has to be the “Theory of God”

-- Updated May 6th, 2012, 7:55 am to add the following --

I have spotted one mistake in my understanding of Richard Feynman's path integral formulation does not specify that the position is an integer number of quantum away it is a wave form which is a complex distance away and so the multiverse by current scientific theories is already uncountably infinite.

As a statement of my understanding of Jewish tradition, “The Great I am” of the Jews has to be the set of everything that exists otherwise it cannot be omnipresent.

Incorrect. The god of the Abrahamic traditions is a transcendent god, not an immanent god. This transcendent nature can manifest simply as a higher-dimensional entity wherein the space-time continuum is completely subsumed and transparent to this god's view (and actions). Analagously, we can see the interior area of a circle on a piece of paper from our 3rd-dimensional vantage point whereas a 2-dimensional entity confined to the paper's surface could not.

As “The set of everything that exists” is exactly what theoretical physicists are studying, “The Theory of Everything”, which implies they are studying “The Theory of God”.

Incorrect. Physicists are not studying the set of everything that exist. They (specifically cosmologists) are seeking a single mathematical expression to combine the known (and posited) quantum interactions of the Standard Model. Since the Abrahamic god is transcendent from the material universe, the mathematical expression of the universe's dynamics says nothing about this god's nature per se.

As a statement of faith, I am assuming string-theory is heading towards the truth about the Universe and it is the best model I have for Physical existence.

String theory is under serious criticism these days from some very prominent scientists. It has not produced a single testable conclusion in its 45 years of existence. It is completely unable to accommodate Dark Energy (discovered in 1997). The fact that it is still the most prominently funded school of thought in American universities' physics departments speaks only to the clout of its defenders (who are getting long in the tooth). If you don't believe me, check out books such as Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics," or Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong."


As for your belabored views on words, symbols, and information, I will only bother to point out that your analysis is that of a Platonist through-and-through, every step of the way. I reject Platonic philosophy as fundamentally "putting the cart before the horse."

I am sympathetic to Seth Lloyd's basic premise of a computational universe (though he doesn't even derive his basic premises in his book; he just states them a priori, so typical of an information geek). However, your reliance on string theory and a multiverse undercuts your argument and is ultimately unnecessary. Besides, it is also pointless since a computational universe makes much more sense as an emergent phenomenon rather than the workings of an omnipotent user. I suggest you supplement your readings with a few books on complexity theory.

As a statement of my understanding of Jewish tradition, “The Great I am” of the Jews has to be the set of everything that exists otherwise it cannot be omnipresent.

Incorrect. The god of the Abrahamic traditions is a transcendent god, not an immanent god. This transcendent nature can manifest simply as a higher-dimensional entity wherein the space-time continuum is completely subsumed and transparent to this god's view (and actions). Analagously, we can see the interior area of a circle on a piece of paper from our 3rd-dimensional vantage point whereas a 2-dimensional entity confined to the paper's surface could not.

Thanks for that correction. You are of course quite correct my statement was very badly worded. “The Great I am” is trascendent and subsumes physical existence is correct.

However my point that “The Great I am” of the Jews has to be the set of everything that exists otherwise it cannot be omnipresent is I believe correct and is another way of saying "He" subsumes the whole of physical existence.

As “The set of everything that exists” is exactly what theoretical physicists are studying, “The Theory of Everything”, which implies they are studying “The Theory of God”.

Incorrect. Physicists are not studying the set of everything that exist. They (specifically cosmologists) are seeking a single mathematical expression to combine the known (and posited) quantum interactions of the Standard Model. Since the Abrahamic god is transcendent from the material universe, the mathematical expression of the universe's dynamics says nothing about this god's nature per se.

It is not me who put the title to the Theory of Everything to this phisical search it was Stephen Hawking. Who is quite a reputable cosmologist. My point being is that this is a misnomer.

As a statement of faith, I am assuming string-theory is heading towards the truth about the Universe and it is the best model I have for Physical existence.

String theory is under serious criticism these days from some very prominent scientists. It has not produced a single testable conclusion in its 45 years of existence. It is completely unable to accommodate Dark Energy (discovered in 1997). The fact that it is still the most prominently funded school of thought in American universities' physics departments speaks only to the clout of its defenders (who are getting long in the tooth). If you don't believe me, check out books such as Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics," or Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong."

Thanks for the references I will take a look.

As for your belabored views on words, symbols, and information, I will only bother to point out that your analysis is that of a Platonist through-and-through, every step of the way. I reject Platonic philosophy as fundamentally "putting the cart before the horse."

Well assuming any of the Physicists claims are true about the big bang the mathematical model which expresses the big bang existed at the time of the big bang which is before anyone within the Universe could have thought them. So lets say we agree to differ at this point. to my mind mathematics has a structure that is very specific and is not anything to do with humans or intelligence and cannot not exist whether time and space exist or not. In fact I believe time and space are inevitable because of that structure but I know you disagree.

Similarly I will need to dig out my Plato and make sure I am not just being badly educated here.

I am sympathetic to Seth Lloyd's basic premise of a computational universe (though he doesn't even derive his basic premises in his book; he just states them a priori, so typical of an information geek). However, your reliance on string theory and a multiverse undercuts your argument and is ultimately unnecessary. Besides, it is also pointless since a computational universe makes much more sense as an emergent phenomenon rather than the workings of an omnipotent user. I suggest you supplement your readings with a few books on complexity theory.

I think the only part of that was that which is relevant to the intelligence is that strings/electrons can move in time as well as space. So while I agree the mathematical structure of the whole of the multiverse makes intelligence emergent it was also available at the beginning of the Universe; that is Richard F's formulas when combine with AI implies that time travel is possible for hords of very small beings which can think like a neural net.

The actual intelligence is also subsumed in the whole of history in the Great I am, which is getting back to Plato and not an interesting argument to you as you have already rejected that out of hand.

Thanks for your input.

I have a problem with this belief.. "Scientists hold that “The Universe is nothing but mathematics”. I say that the Universe does not care at all about mathematics. I believe that mathematics is only good when the true and proper formulization is chosen that accurately describes physical reality. All other math is a mental abtraction and does not represent reality.

Max Tegmark for one disagrees with you.

The Mathematical Universe

From his abstract and I quote:

I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure. I discuss various implications of the ERH and MUH, ranging from standard physics topics like symmetries, irreducible representations, units, free parameters, randomness and initial conditions to broader issues like consciousness, parallel universes and Godel incompleteness. I hypothesize that only computable and decidable (in Godel's sense) structures exist, which alleviates the cosmological measure problem and help explain why our physical laws appear so simple. I also comment on the intimate relation between mathematical structures, computations, simulations and physical systems.

I am not allowed to add links as a newby but if you want to check it out look at the Cornell University site lookup "General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology" and look for "The Mathematical Universe".

Thanks for your reply Tibbir. I think that it is quite thought provoking. I agree with some of what Max Tegmark says but definitely not all of it.

I strongly agree with the first statement.

"I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans."

He and I completely agree upon that aspect of reality.

This second sentence I have a slight disagreement with.

I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure.

I do not see the Universe as is an abstract mathematical structure. I truly believe that primarily it is a physical geometric structure that can be described by a mathematical formulization. Here is what I have a problem with ... the phrase abstract mathematical structure. This implies that the Universe is existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. This is incorrect. He basically contradicts the first statement. Perhaps he was having an off day when he said that.

Are you a pure mathematician? I suspect not. If you study pure maths for any length of time you get to understand that mathematics has a very rigid structure. For example Pythagoras's theorm cannot be other than what it is. The chinese invented it 4000 years before Pythagoras and their proof is much simpler but the rule that the square of the two sides of a right angled triangle always equal the square of the Hypotenuse in Euclidean geometry is always true. Similarly pi cannot be another number.

These structures exist independently of thought. All mathematical proofs will always prove what they prove and cannot be broken. There are proofs we may have missed that may be simpler. That does not mean they do not exist just that we have not thought of them yet. The proofs will not change with time they are constant facts of existence.

This is why plato believes in meaning before physical existence. He was a mathematician and any mathematician will tell you the same thing the structure of proof is identical.

Science use maths pre-multiverse mathematics to explain the big bang. The mathematics did not spring out of thin air it is impossible for it not to be there.

Look at a few pages of any Degree level Mathematics course book with proofs in and you will see the logic cannot change it is a fixed constant and time cannot rot it.

I am repeating myself Number theory is one of the easy subjects for a lay person to pick up.

-- Updated May 9th, 2012, 5:04 pm to add the following --

Hello.

If you want to see my more complete version. I have not added peoples previous comments in yet

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3bGTz9 ... edit?pli=1

Max Tegmarks abstract can be found here. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

Hello Tibbir,

Yes you are quite correct I am not a mathematician. I am interested in logic and philosophy. Not to be difficult but I have to make one point clear. The use of the word abstract should have no place in mathematics that describes physical reality. Definition of abstract = "thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances" I have no problem with math based on logical proofs and evidential support. I have no problem with math that accurately describes physical reality. To me physical reality is not abstract. Hopefully that clears things it up some what. I am interested in very precise details and truths, everything has to be exactly correct.

Actually I also have a little problem with this statement you made above.

For example Pythagoras's theorem cannot be other than what it is. The chinese invented it 4000 years before Pythagoras and their proof is much simpler but the rule that the square of the two sides of a right angled triangle always equal the square of the Hypotenuse in Euclidean geometry is always true. Similarly pi cannot be another number.

This is a limited truth see below:

Those statements are limited truths. They are fine for Euclidean math not for the real world our physical reality. For example: Pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. In flat 2-dimensional space (Euclidean geometry), it can be proved that this ratio is the same for every circle. So far you are correct. Once you know this, you can calculate the value of the ratio - not exactly, but to any desired precision. You can also prove that pi is also the ratio of the area of a circle to the square of its radius, and so forth.

What happens on the surface of a sphere? Uh oh trouble ahead. Instead of straight lines, we have "geodesics" - the shortest distance between two points without leaving the surface. A geodesic on the surface of a sphere turns out to be a portion of a great circle - a circle, like the equator or a line of longitude on a globe, whose center is at the center of the sphere.

Look at a globe. It probably has a set of circles of different radii, all centered at the North Pole. These are lines of latitude. The line at 45 degrees of latitude, for instance, has a radius that is the portion of any line of longitude between 45 degrees and the North Pole. How long is this radius? It's half the distance from pole to equator, or 1/8 of the full line of longitude. The length of a line of longitude is the same as the length of the equator. Thus the circle's diameter is 1/4 of the length of the equator.

How long is the circumference of the circle? A little geometry will convince you that it is the length of the equator divided by the square root of 2. Now, what is the ratio of the circumference of this circle to its diameter? It's 1/sqrt(2) : 1/4, or 2*sqrt(2) = 2.8284... That's noticeably less than pi.

What you said really was essentially correct because you referenced Euclidean geometry. I am interested in physical realities ultimate truths. Not bad for a non mathematical guy like myself. Hopefully I got my math right. So what’s my point? Euclidean geometry is only an approximation of reality its technically not true because it really does not represent our physical reality. I guess maybe we will have a difference of opinion on this and that is okay you make good points and are interesting to talk to. I just believe that math only exists because we have minds that invented a system that helps us describe and define things. It does not exist or have any meaning independent of us. I believe physical reality exists without math. Math helps us humans understand reality it in itself is not reality.

My point was not that Euclidean geometry describes the physical world. My point was that there is a defined and precise structure to it. That structure cannot be any different than what it is. The structure exists independently of the "physical" Universe/multiverse, which is why I follow Plato in believing the word and mathematics as a sub-set of words exist independently of a "Physical" existence. The structure is not physical but logical or abstract as Tegmark would call it.

The reason Max Tegmark calls it abstract is because it is mathematics, which exists independently of time, that is used to explain the big bang. It exists outside of the multiverse, independent of the "physical" world. That is maths is independent of anything "physical".

We have a problem in English in that we do not have a tense for something which is always true and can never not be true something which is constantly true regardless of whether it is raining or snowing or the world comes to an end tomorrow. A tense for something which is true regardless of whether it is before this moment in time at this moment in time after this moment in time or to the left , right, above or below this moment in time assuming we find more time dimensions. It is true regardless of time.

There is mathematics, I suspect a lot of it, which has nothing what so ever to do with this multiverse. e.g. Euclidean Geometry has nothing to do with our physical multiverse, other than for a few thousand years we thought it did. That does not stop it from existing. Now it is used as a simplification used in primary school maths lessons and building because it is quite accurate enough for most of those needs. That does not make it a physical object you can touch or match a physical object you can touch. As you pointed out we live in a non-Euclidean world.

The mathematics that describes the multiverse from the beginning to the end has just such an existence it always existed and has never not existed and cannot not exist.

We see it as a passage of time but seen externally it is just a mathematical model, within a much large form called mathematics within a much larger set the set of all words.

The physical multiverse is a subset of mathematics (the set of self consistent truth) is a subset of words (the set of all meanings)

For example the words for the relationships in a family exist mother, father, daughter, son, sister, brother, aunt uncle, etc are alll words.

Those family relationships have always existed within time because they were an inevitable part of the multiverse. So the meanings of mother, father, brother, sister etc have also existed independently of the physical universe.

Because they can be taken out of that model and used out of context. This is called writing fiction. e.g. Terry Pratchett's Disc World.

Historian's can look back an pick out words from the past. Science fiction writers can make up words for future technologies. Quite often the words of these visionaries do get taken up: e.g. Robot.

What I am saying is that our thoughts exist outside of the physical Universe, it is called imagination, because the existence of the mathematics is not limited by time, nor the existence of words. From my original post:

For example, the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2 has always existed and has never not existed. It existed before time started and will exist when time stops. These happen to be mathematical symbols, but the same is true of paradoxes too. “This statement is false.” has always been a paradox and always will be a paradox and it has never been a part of mathematics. That does not stop the paradox from existing. It can be seen to have an effect on the physical world just because I wrote about it.

As Tegmark says it is our Brains that misinterpret an "abstract" existence as a "Physical" one. We are basically a load of meanings all tied together. Most of your thoughts are words. Unless you go lie on the beach and soak up some sun for a few days. Our thoughts have access to all the meanings but the "physical" world, at least as we understand it, has some very mathematical limitations to it; but not all of mathematics e.g. Euclidean geometry is a part of this physical world. nor all the meanings of our words. (The symbols are in this world but they could be describing Zaphod BeebleBrox not in this world at least I do not think so not as a physical entity)

We have a problem in English in that we do not have a tense for something which is always true and can never not be true something which is constantly true regardless of whether it is raining or snowing or the world comes to an end tomorrow. A tense for something which is true regardless of whether it is before this moment in time at this moment in time after this moment in time or to the left , right, above or below this moment in time assuming we find more time dimensions. It is true regardless of time.

Does Spanish approach the fulfilment of this need with 'ser' and 'estar' ?

I am not an expert but having quickly looked at a Spanish text book and yes it does look like ser would be the appropriate verb as it is an essential being. An existence which does not change with respect to time.