From The The Best Schools: “What part of nothing don’t you understand, Dr. Krauss?”

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 25, 2012

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here, on materialist physicist Larry Krauss.

“In modern parlance—following Leibniz’s lead—the problem of the mystery of existence is most often expressed by means of the formula: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This phrase also forms the subtitle to Krauss’s book.

Put like that, the idea does not seem so difficult to grasp. In fact, it can be reduced to three little words:

Why not nothing?

Nevertheless, Krauss doesn’t get it. He titles one of his chapters “Nothing is something.” What does he mean by this? More.

Comments

The routine use of the term, 'counter-intuitive', by all scientists, it seems, in place of the term, 'counter-rational', provides their cover for all that folly. 'Counter-intuitive' has the distinct meaning that you have the feeling that something isn't right; 'counter-rational' that it clearly defies logic. But then, they would have to acknowledge the sorry limit to the scope of their analytical intelligence, since the genuine paradoxes of physics have been proven to be true. Did I spot Goldman Sachs signatures on that promissory note? Or were they Worldcom? Or Enron?Axel_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

bornagain, I don't know if you've heard it, but there is a Kabbalist saying to the effect that when a man dies, a whole world disappears with him. It seems the Multiversers and M-Stringers don't understand that, because the wise discoverers and developes of quantum physics revolutionised physics by routinely accepting and incorporating counter-rational concepts into their view of the world, that does not mean that scientists now have "carte blanche" to indulge in counter-rational flights of fancy, at will - at all; unlike Einstein, they denature science and its methodology, instead of pursuing it, and creating oxymorons, instead of discovering paradoxes. You wonder if there has been a group, nervous breakdown by the scientific estabishment; a mental breakdown of some kind, in the face of the growing wall of mystery it faces. No wonder they are in no state to understand that the logically-binding evidence for theism (which you have so copiously articulated) is now established, and that the findings of the Italian team of physisicts concerning the Shroud of Turin point unambiguously to Christianity as the keystone of the theistic arch. QED.Axel_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Axel:
Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music Inspired by The Story) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU
bornagain77_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Thanks for all of that fascinating material, bornagain. I think that, in our meditations on controversial issues, we are wont to factor into the picture the context of the other party to the discussion, as a result of something the person says that strikes us as particularly notable. What it tells us about their level of understanding of the issue - not necessarily quantifiable in terms of academic intelligence. I remember being struck very forcibly by the comment of someone precisely to the effect you relate above: "Isn’t the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe?" My immediate thought was, no. You don't know him. That is just the kind of thing he WOULD be likely to do. As well as illustrating in another way the infinity of his love for us that he demonstrated on Calvary, imo, he has a quirky sense of humour. Well, 'nerdy' is the word I sometimes use when I bring the matter up with him in jest! Usually, when he causes crazy coincidences for my wife and I to chuckle over. He's really reassuring us of his support, together with a bit of humour, but I still pull his leg. Physical size means zilch to him. He created the whole universe just by thinking about it, and he could annihilate it simply by losing interest in it. Or shrink it to the size of an atom, if he felt so disposed. Though presumably he'd have to change the laws of physics, in view of the import of your explanations and the links you provided above!Axel_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Here is a very fitting song that 'serendipitously' just came up that goes very well with the preceding comment;
When The Stars Burn Down - Phillips, Craig & Dean - Worship Video with lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPuxnQ_vZqY
bornagain77_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

A few related notes Axel: Astrophysicist Hugh Ross points out that if we lived much later in the universe's history we would not be able to see the Cosmic Backround Radiation left over from the creation event of the Big Bang:
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video http://vimeo.com/31940671
But why did God create such a massively expansive universe? It turns out there is a very good reason and purpose for why the universe is so massive (Besides just giving us a glimpse at how powerful God is)
God created the entire universe for us - February 2012 Excerpt: If the sun were represented by the period at the end of this sentence, our galaxy would be the size of the continental United States.,,, Why didn't God create our modest solar system and a few stars and let it go at that? Because size matters. If the universe weren't as large as it is fusion would be inefficient. As a result, the universe would produce hydrogen, or hydrogen plus a small amount of helium. That means carbon and oxygen — both essential for life — would be missing. http://www.dailypilot.com/news/opinion/tn-dpt-0228-carnett-20120227,0,2022339.story Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
As well, Dr. Ross points out that the extremely long amount of time it took to prepare a suitable place for humans to exist in this universe, for the relatively short period of time that we can exist on this planet, is actually a point of evidence that argues strongly for Theism:
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency. Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now. http://christiangodblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
bornagain77_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Axel you may appreciate this. This fairly old site points out this mysterious fact;
The View from the Centre of the Universe by Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack Excerpt: The size of a human being is near the centre of all possible sizes. http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat24.htm
Whereas this recently updated site,,,
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
points out that the smallest thing visible to the human eye is at 10^-4 meters, which is the directly in the center of all possible sizes of reality (Not 'nearly' in the center!). i.e. 10^-4 is right in the middle of 10^-35 meters and 10^27 meters respectively. Now this is a very interesting coincidence considering that conscious observation is now found to be central to reality itself by breakthroughs in Quantum Mechanics. As pointed out yesterday
“I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. Preceding quote taken from this following video; Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video) http://vimeo.com/37517080
And all the preceding combined (Quantum Mechanics and the interactive scale) goes very well with the following;
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
Pretty neat huh Axel? Verse and Music:
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. MercyMe- "You Reign" Music Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eow2hNlA-k&ob=av2e
bornagain77_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Axel you may appreciate this cool quote I just 'stumbled' across:
"I'm going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured, it was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn't tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made." - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. Quote taken from 3:50 minute mark of this following video Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: A New Measurement 2/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z31oGddiaCU
to reiterate: the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpDwWetu66fBRlPM7zjA5BpHzcu5wBY7AdB7gOz51OQ/edit
bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Re your quote from Psalm 61, my version reads: "Indeed you love truth in the heart; then in the secret of my heart teach me wisdom." You can see that Solomon was to be a 'chip off the old block', asking for wisdom, can't you?Axel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Bear in mind, bornagain77, I was speaking about a spiritual(divine) light - physical light continuum, i.e. light as an interface with both the spiritual reality and the physical reality, as per the Incarnation: "the true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" In another connection, as regards evolution, this site has been a revelation to me, as I'd never thought the question of any significance, my fall-back position being the orthodox Catholic one, i.e. whatever the case, a human soul would have been inserted at some point for the creation of man. Now, it's clear to me that the evolutionists are all unconscionable fantasists. However, until the primacy of the mind is universally acknowledged as pivotal in empirical science, even the total dubiety of evolution strikes me as of relatively little consequence. Although, as long as materialists try to push it at the expense of ID and Creation, it will need to be roundly pilloried for its riotously imaginative and specious origins. However, when the fundamental role of the mind IS eventually acknowledged, the point raised by Max Planck, to the effect that the laws of nature are not bound to continue to act in the same way from one moment to the next, never mind one aeon to the next, must surely throw our knowledge of pre-history from an empirical standpoint into a great deal of uncertainty. So much for the fabled 'promissory note'. We should probably, in any case, I imagine, find that respect for the version of prehistory as set forth in the Old Testament, some of it, presumably, metaphorical, as the surest source of knowledge on the subject available to us, whatever our shortcomings in interpreting it. Planck was raised a Lutheran and seemed to lapse into deism, but some of his reported comments towards the end of his life - as was the case with Einstein - show a quite bitter antagonism towards atheism and its all too lamentable prevalence; and a converse esteem for Judaeo-Christianity as the bedrock of moral order for mankind.Axel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Axel, Here is a 'serendipitous' scripture I just 'stumbled across' that goes very well with post 13:
Psalm 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Axel, of course I see the connection of 'eternal' photons to God;
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
I merely pointed out a few important distinctions, in the corresponding characteristics of light and God, that are missed if one stops at merely the 'eternal' point of drawing a connection between 'physical' light and God: Pam Reynold's who has had perhaps the most monitored Near Death Experience to date of anyone, makes a very interesting ,and somewhat controversial, statement in regards to the connection between God and light in this following video:
The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560
bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

"backed up by religious/spiritual experience second." Why the need for that at all? It preceded your scientific studies on a subliminal level, anyway. Anyway, nobody has an advanatage over anyone else in that regard, mystics only have intimations we shall all have on the full scale when we die. I understand the worth of your concentrating on empirical science, the absolute need for it, particularly since it is so lacking in our adversaries. I tend to ramble more, so remaining a bit more focused on here wouldn't harm me, I expect. Did you get my point, thouhg, about photons being eternal and the seeming significance of it with regard to the Cosmic Christ? Or would a dignified silence be kinder to me?Axel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Axel, as I have maintained in my posts thus far, I find the greatest strength to establishing, scientifically, the relationship of God/Christ to light, both spiritual and physical, and our relationship to that light, both physical and spiritual, to be best shown by heavy emphasis on empirical evidence first, backed up by religious/spiritual experience second. As far as hallucinogenic drugs, I do not doubt that people have had profound spiritual experiences while on them, and I have heard a few such experiences first hand, but I've also heard some extremely strange experiences from people using hallucinogenic drugs that can only be described as nothing more than deep fantasy of the person. Thus that renders those experiences void of any practical apologetic purpose save for the person who had the experience. My own personal 'spiritual/mystical' experiences are by comparison to some of the 'wild' stories I've heard from hallucinogenic experiences, is far more modest in that Christ, in His love, was there for me in a tangible, very real, way at a very low point in my life. I did not see visions, nor did I hear choirs of angels singing. I was merely a sinner touched by a small measure of grace.bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

If photons are eternal, Bornagain, does that not suggest that like Christ they are an interface with the godhead - of which he is, himself a part! Surely, only God can be eternal, and is so, both in his own person and in his Mystical Body, his adoptive sons and daughters. Re our resurrected bodies, the Catholic church teaches that, at minimum, our bodies will be like Christ's resurrected body, as we can extrapolate from the Gospels, i.e. able to walk through locked doors, well, not subject to the physcical limitations of our current nature. And yes, Christ ate food to prove to his disciples that he was not a mere ghost; but is that not we would expect? Would we imagine that in heaven our bodies would rely on food? Indian holy men and, I believe, some Christian saints have gone for very long periods without food, pesumably eve water, without which we are suppose to expire within, is it, four or five days? Also, Christ, himself, true God and true man, fasted in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights - though I believe that number is said to be figurative, meaning a long time, as also the forty years the Hebrew people lived in the wilderness under Moses leadership. In any case, though true man, I think Jesus must have had a very strong constitution, as although it was thought remarkable that he died after 'only' three hours on the cross, in view of the stresses he effectively put himself under throughout just the three years or so of his ministry, the wonder, to me, is that he didn't die of a heart attack within a very short period of being crucified, if not before. Like you I can't see enough of those NDEs. One I found particularly fascinating was written by a youngish man, who in his youth, had accidentally overdosed on some hallucinogenic drug in a lavatory cubicle at a rave, and having passed out, had a 'near death' experience. But such testimonies you have to read, yourself, to sense the utter authenticity of them. Unfortunately, the person who ran the thread lost interest in it eventually, and I've not been able to find it, such as it was up to that point. Have you had mystical experiences that might be compared to the kind of theophanies that some hallucinogenic drugs are said to engender? I don't doubt that there is a connection? Except that the former will come at a heavy price. St Paul of the Cross eventually begged God not to visit him with mystical experiences for that reason.Axel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Another important distinction to make between higher dimensional 'spiritual light', and physical light, is that when we sunbath, or such as that, though we receive a good feeling of warmth from the sun, we are not, nor have I ever anybody claim to being, in the presence of God. In fact there is also an interesting fact to point out that we do not receive our nourishment/energy directly from the sun, but we must receive our nourishment/energy indirectly, in a indirect route, by the photosynthesis of plants. And, interestingly, photosynthesis can rightly be thought of as a 'miraculous' process in its own right:
Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis: Algae Familiar With These Processes for Nearly Two Billion Years - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: "We were astonished to find clear evidence of long-lived quantum mechanical states involved in moving the energy. Our result suggests that the energy of absorbed light resides in two places at once -- a quantum superposition state, or coherence -- and such a state lies at the heart of quantum mechanical theory.",,, "It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans," says Scholes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203131356.htm Non-Local Quantum Coherence/Entanglement In Photosynthesis - video with notes in description http://vimeo.com/30235178
Another interesting thing to point out, besides this disconnect between sunlight and our ability to get nourishment/energy directly from sunlight as plants do, is that there is a very different kind of light, than sunlight, operating, on a massive scale and in a different way than sunlight, within each of our bodies;
Biophotons - The Light In Our Cells - Marco Bischof - March 2005 Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism. http://www.international-light-association.eu/PDF/Biophotons.pdf The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another? Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions. ,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php
Of Note from Near Death Experiences, is the fact that eating food is not necessary to maintain the health of your spiritual body:
What is the spirit world like? Excerpt: In addition, one is free from the restrictions of the physical body; eating, for example, is possible, but not necessary to maintain the physical body. In the spiritual world, one realizes that life on Earth has, like life in the womb, been preparation for a fuller, freer and richer eternal existence. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/paranormal03.html Our Heavenly Bodies Excerpt: People in heaven get along very well with translucent spiritual bodies.,,, Since the spiritual world is a world of mind and imagination, food is not necessary. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research18.html
Verses and Music:
John 4:32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” Kutless - Promise of a Lifetime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKy5WXEu8lY
bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

I meant to include the video link. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LYQQO5uFtAAxel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Thanks for your response and the links, bornagain77, though I have in mind the Cosmic Christ as referred to in this video of an interview with Fr Richard Rohr, a Franciscan friar. We may still be at odds over it, but as I can't imagine you getting this wrong, if we still differ, I'll take it that we are talking past or over each other; not really sharing the same topic!!! I see such a 'spiritual light-physical light' continuum, with its defining poles corresponding with a 'faith-knowledge continuum', in turn, corresponding with those of the time-space continuum. As matter of fact, regarding faith-knowledge, I shouldn't be at all surprised if everyone who has ever been acquainted with Christianity knows it to be true; but other factors make it unpalatable to some. Certainly many do know for sure, and I expect, like the extreme examples of the Apostles, are required to bear heavier crosses - while given extra strength to endure them with grace and equanimity. Oddly, and I speak as a former rabid, adolescent agnostic, for some reason, in that mindset, we are wont to feel that by withholding our assent, we are 'teaching God a lesson!' With a clearer mind, we would know that it was not God but his Church, his adult representatives we have it in for. And abjuring the former, because of the latter is not strictly logical. At least, we discover that, when we have to deal with the adult world as adults, and, with a little uncomfortable help fron God, to our astonishment find we are not such virtuous hot-shots, ourselves. As someone told a friend of mine, when anyone goes on about the churches being full of hypocrites, tell them that, if they ever come across a church that isn't full of them, whatever he does, not to join it, as he would surely spoil it.Axel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

First to the 'confetti' statement: Actually when I reference the fact that a photon is reducible to infinite information I am not 'bandying' it about, but I have a fairly good, but 'rough', idea as to exactly what that would entail: This following video is very interesting for revealing how difficult it was for mathematicians to actually 'prove' that mathematics was even true in the first place:
Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335 entire video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 1-10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90
Godel's and his incompleteness theorem can be picked up here in part 7 of the preceding video:
BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 7-10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldUAw2Aux0
As you can see, somewhat from the preceding video, mathematics cannot be held to be 'true' unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God. Thus this following formal proof, which was referred to at the end of the preceding video, shows that math cannot be held to be consistently true unless the highest infinity of God is held to be consistently true as a starting assumption:
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
I love this following quote by Godel. Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the 'Theory of Everything', also had this to say about God:
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Footnote as to God, as a man, bringing completeness to the 'theory of everything':
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video http://vimeo.com/34084462
As well to your leaning towards physical light and spiritual light forming a continuum, although there are many parallels between the overriding characteristics of 'spiritual light' and that of 'physical light',,,
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/ Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Special Relativity – Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674
,,,There is a very important distinction between 'physical light' and the 'higher dimensional' 'spiritual light' (besides the common distinction that people have equating 'spiritual light' to meaning 'gaining deep understanding'). The following quote on the Shroud of Turin draws out one such distinction.
"It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was "lifted cleanly" from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state." Kevin Moran - Optics Engineer
,,,If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural, 'spiritual', light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image on the Shroud I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light' while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth.
Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/
bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, I believe that the term, 'infinity', has some strange connotations in physics, and you are wont to bandy it about like so much confetti; but would not your statement above validate my contention that physical light and spiritual light form a continuum?Axel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

"Photons being reducible to infinite information gives even a layman like me a solid clue as to where photons come from in the first place. And the clue is surely not ‘nothingness’ as Krauss would like to maintain!" Krauss et al. evidently can't handle facing the reality that the reference-frame of our world of space-time is subordinated to the absolute reference-frame of light. They remind me of the quip of American comedienne, Lily Tomlin: 'Reality is only a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs.' We should call them, 'stuff junkies' - 'stuff' being their undesigned universe, of course.Axel_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Here are a couple more links related to the preceding:
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201
It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not 'physically real' but was merely 'abstract'. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity', (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity', to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011 http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Chris Tomlin - Indescribable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTvr755V8s
bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

Wallstreeter, I am a layman myself. ,,, But I just listed the experimental evidence, that is readily available on the internet for anyone to use, showing that 'photons', (not protons), do not pop into being from nothing, as was Krauss's contention in the video, but that photons are actually reducible to infinite information. Photons being reducible to infinite information gives even a layman like me a solid clue as to where photons come from in the first place. And the clue is surely not 'nothingness' as Krauss would like to maintain! :)bornagain77_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

opps I meant virtual protonswallstreeter43_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

BA77 is there any way to break this down for us laymen? From my understanding of this is that protons don't just pop out of nothingness but are in different phases of existence? Fascinating stuffwallstreeter43_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Stu7, I just post the link address. I don't even know how to do the 'fancy' embed for videos that you guys do. LOL,,, And Yes, you can tell that Krauss is definitely fighting his own ability to reason. Trying his best to convince himself that 'Nothing is Something' is even a logically coherent statement to begin with. A comment or two on his assertion that photons can pop into being from 'nothing'. Quantum mechanics, actually quantum teleportation, has shown us that photons can be reduced to 'infinite information';
How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862 Quantum Computing - Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
It should be noted in the preceding paper that Duwell, though he never challenges the mathematical definition of a photon qubit as infinite information, tries to refute Bennett's interpretation of infinite information transfer in teleportation because of what he believes are 'time constraints' which would prohibit teleporting 'backwards in time'. Yet Duwell fails to realize that information is its own completely unique transcendent entity, which is completely independent, even dominate, of any energy-matter, space-time, constraints in the first place. This following recent experiment blew a hole in Duwell's objection to Bennett, of teleporting infinite information 'backwards in time', simply because he believed there was no such path, or mechanism, to do so:
Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011 Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html
Moreover this following experiment added to the proof that Quantum information is now shown to be 'conserved', thus blowing another major hole in Duwell's objection:
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of the infinite quantum information contained in a single photon must be complete and instantaneous.) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Another objection to Krauss's contention that photons can pop into being out of nothing for 'no reason at all' is the fact that there is now actually reason to believe there actually is a very important reason for why photons pop into and out of being: i.e. it seems even the 'exotic' virtual photons, which fleetingly pop into and out of existence, are tied directly to the anthropic principle through the 1 in 10^120 cosmological constant for dark energy:
ELECTROMAGNETIC DARK ENERGY Abstract: We introduce a new model for dark energy in the Universe in which a small cosmological constant is generated by ordinary electromagnetic vacuum energy. The corresponding virtual photons exist at all frequencies but switch from a gravitationally active phase at low frequencies to a gravitationally inactive phase at higher frequencies via a Ginzburg–Landau type of phase transition. Only virtual photons in the gravitationally active state contribute to the cosmological constant. A small vacuum energy density, consistent with astronomical observations, is naturally generated in this model. We propose possible laboratory tests for such a scenario based on phase synchronization in superconductors. http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpd/17/1701/S0218271808011870.html Shining new light on dark energy with galaxy clusters - December 2010 Excerpt: "Each model for dark energy makes a prediction that you should see this many clusters, with this particular mass, this particular distance away from us," Sehgal said. Sehgal tested these predictions by using data from the most massive galaxy clusters. The results support the standard, vacuum-energy model for dark energy. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-dark-energy-galaxy-clusters.html
Further note:
Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Special Relativity - Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674
bornagain77_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Anyone seen this discussion between Krauss and Dawkins? The fun begins at 45:50 What I see is a man who is desperately seeking for answers, but ones that fall within only a limited, selective framework; and so almost pleads that we bend logic, just this once, just a little, to accomodate a reality that excludes the supernatural. It really is sad when you see two clearly intellectual men, that are so utterly locked into a restricted set of boundaries that they will willingly appeal to faulty logic just to accommodate their position. OT: BA77, what code do you use to embed a video in the post? You're always one step ahead of the rest of us..Stu7_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

The infamous Krauss striptease for Craig, where he revealed underneath it all he believes that 2+2=5 is as revealing to his lack of a coherent logical basis as the fact, you have pointed out here News, that he really believes “Nothing is something.”
2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm-zIYFQRnM
How do debate someone for whom logic is merely moldable playdoh? that is forever plastic that can be adjusted to whatever whim of belief they want to hold beforehand. As Mr. Arrington pointed out recently in cleaning house, it is fruitless to constantly debate someone who refuses to accept basic foundational precepts of logic.bornagain77_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply