Jeremy has deactivated. I wish he would come back. He is the only voice of true scientific reason on this forum.

In the theory of Quantum Mechanics there is a number value placed on the quanta of action. It's called "Planck's Constant".

It's an actual number. In the math it's symbolized as an h.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is also a mathematical states within the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics. It is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that forbids any interactions to take place with less than a 'quanta of action' according to the following relationships:



In the first equation "p" is momentum, "x" is position. If anything moves or changes direction or speed it must do so in increments of action that are mathematically related to "h" (Planck's Constant)

In the second equation "E" is energy and "t" is time. If anything changes it's energy value or the length of time it 'exists' in a particular state, it must do so in increments of action that are mathematically realted to "h" (Planck's Constant).

These were the equations that Einstein was always trying to violate in his debates with Niels Bohr. Everytime Einstein would come up with a clever situation that appeared to violate these equations Neils Bohr would point out some important detail that Einstein missed that showed why these equations had not been violated after all.

This is the key to QM. The fact that no one has ever been able to violate these equations is what keep QM standing. If these equations can ever be violated then QM falls.

Why?

Well, two reasons.

1. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (above) would be violated.
2. It would have been shown that a quantum of action LESS than Planck's Constant is indeed possible.

But those two observations and postulates are the foundation of QM. If either one get's knocked down the rest of QM tumbles to the ground like a falling house of cards.

So the 'quanta of action' with respect to QM has a precise number, YES! It's called Planck's Constant.

Here's a photo of Max Planck



He doesn't look real happy does he?

Actually he wasn't happy about his 'discovery'. He didn't intend it to be this way. He was trying different things and came up with this idea that if the world is treated as discrete he could solve physics problems. But he thought he could eventually work it back to a continuum again.

As we now know, there is no going back. Quantum Mechanics stuck.

The world truly is discrete (or digital), insofar as we can tell.

This is what Quantum Mechanics is telling us.

The people who are holding out for a classical explanation are hoping beyond hope that they can restore the 'continuum'. That's really what would be necessary to get away from a 'digital' universe.

I have personally accepted that the universe is digital.

I knew it.

I knew we were simply icons inside of a giant digital virtual reality world. A holographic virtual reality.

I knew it.

I hope nobody pulls the plug on this machine.

The words "discrete" and "digital" just don't compute as having the same meaning.

Are we made up of pixels and just not telling anyone? Lets be discrete about this.... we are nothing but pixels.

Well, yes. Our bodies are indeed make up of pixels in a sense. They are made up of what we call 'atoms' which are in turn made up of standing waves of "quantum stuff" we loosely refer to as 'energy'. And those quantum waves are indeed 'digital' or "quantum" accoring to Quantum Physics. That the very reason it's called Quantum Physics.

But when you ask if we are nothing but pixels I must ask you in return, "Are we nothing but our bodies?"

I think I saw you post somewhere that you believe that we are spirits that inhabit bodies.

So would it matter whether the bodies are digital or analog (discrete or continuous)?

I don't see where it matters from a spiritual point of view.

From a pure 'cause-and-effect' classical physics point of view it might be significant for explanation reasons. There would need to be two different explanations for a digital world or an analog world. From a physics point of view, one one or the other would be the 'true' physical nature of the universe.

Right now science is pointing to digital and QM demands it.

For the universe to be a continuum (analog) then QM must FALL.

Which perhaps it may some day. But it certainly doesn't look like it's going anywhere anytime soon.

Jeannie,

Another thing that you might find interesting is that DNA is also digital data. Without a doubt. DNA is like the 'hard drive' of humanity. And the information stored within it is indeed DIGITAL!

This was driven home very nicely in a lecture I just watched on the human genome. The example given was as follows:

Take a photograph and copy it on a copying machine and continue to make copies of the resulting copies. This process is ultimately analog (even if the copying machine itself is digital in a sense).

What happens? The picture will slowly deteriorate until it eventually become unrecognizable. (with a modern copier this may require many copies, but it will eventually deteriorate).

Now take photo and digitize it and place it into a computer. Now make a copy of that digital photograph and then a copy of that digtial information, and so on (just like was done with the analogy copier).

What happens? The picture never deteriorates. The digital information is copied precisely and exactly every single time. Because it's digital. It's a number!

Well, that's the way it is with DNA. DNA is digital information and this is why it doesn't deteriorate when passed on over millions of years. It does change. There are small 'mistakes' or 'mutations' that do occur during the copying process. Every once in a while a 'bit' of information is copied wrong. This is the very thing that allows evolution to take place.

But overall, the copying process of digital information is highly accurate.

So anyway, for whatever it's worth. Our bodies are digital and so is our DNA which is the "program" for our bodies. DNA is the "hard drive" of humanity.

We re digital biological robots. Or at least our bodies are!

For me God is just that, an energy of love. Not a man on a cloud sending punishment..just the highest level of vibration possible, pure love.

I think that's quite interesting because by your definition of God every human being experiences God and knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that God exists, yet science cannot say a thing about this God because science cannot say a thing about love.

So here's a clearly a vivid example of a God that can be experienced by humans yet remains completely elusive to science and the scientific method of discribing everything in quantitative mathematical terms. Love cannot be quantified or digitized.

Love is an analog continuum.

It violates Quantum Mechanics.

And therefore must not be 'physical'.

Love must be spiritual.

And since we can know love, then we too must be spiritual.

Wow! I feel like I just participated in some kind of absolute philosophical proof of spirit!

I believe all do experience God, I don't think all know it. All experiences are defined by those experiencing..some need only a breeze on their face others need a lightening bolt. We are spiritual beings having human experiences..so love is spiritual. I don't believe love to be as simple as an emotion, it's a force of nature, the basis of our creation.
These of course being my own opinions, feelings and thoughts. I am an emotional thinker I don't need scientific backup for what I feel...

Well, that makes sense to me.

After all, science is entirely based on quantitative measurements and mathematics. It can only say things about physical things that can be quantified mathematically.

Clearly all of life is not based on physically quantifiable things.

And as you point out, love is certainly one of those things that is beyond the reach of the scientfic method.

So you already have proof that non-physical 'things' exist.

No need for the approval of science. It simply isn't applicable.

I thought this might be a possibility to explain away "ME", I REALLY REALLY hope there is a backup generator!

Nope.

"Aware–adjective
1. having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger.
2. informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated: She is one of the most politically aware young women around. "

So, "awareness" is basically synonymous with "consciousness" and/or having a mental capacity. Minerals and plants lack brains and, thus, mental capacity. So, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply that to non-sentient things, especially rocks!

Is it POSSIBLE to apply the term to non-sentient things? Sure; but that's called animism/pantheism/Inconsistent with Atheism (or whatever you want to call an avidly non-spiritual view).

I was confronting the inconsistencies in Abra's worldview, speaking ABOUT HIS perspective. I never said there was or *should be* anything "scientifically sound" about belief in God. In fact, the two views oppose like oil and water.

God is not a "term"; He is a being, a spiritual being. The Creator; The Triune God; the Beginning and the End. He is also known in Scripture as "I AM," a name insinuating how He is the essence and definer of existence. More descriptions can be found throughout Scripture!

The Book of Genesis. And it's He.

It makes perfect sense. Well, from a Christian perspective; "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be," meaning that there is "worldly thinking" and "godly thinking"; the sinful mind cannot understand godly things. It makes perfect sense in that because of man's defiance bringing death, someone had to pay the price to make things right again; God did that in our stead.

That's just dismissive and, frankly, simply untrue. Even secular historians admit that Christ, the man, existed and died via crucifixion; the question is what did it mean?

Also, what? What on earth did you base that assumption on? The Passion Plays are meant to REENACT--i.e. depict AGAIN and dramatically events that PREVIOUSLY HAPPENED--the events of Christ's death and Resurrection.... o_O

Again, I never said nor ever will say Christianity is "scientifically sound." It is not nor should it be; it is faith, not empiricism!

Abra, I'll respond to your post later! That'll give you something to dread. >:D

Either you did not read my response or were unable to...accept the logic of it. Either way, I will repeat myself more thoroughly; hopefully, you'll actually read it this time! Please do; I take the time to read every word of your "sagacious" posts.

Sure isn't! Oh, and for reference: Job.

Mmm, already addressed this; thanks for paying attention!

It is not a bet; God already knew the outcome. "A bet" entails both parties not knowing what will happen; hence, it is a "gamble," a bet. The reason God allowed Satan to carry out his request was to prove a point: That Job did not serve God and live according to His laws because of the blessings he had.

...And? God was protecting Job; Satan obviously needed to ask permission because God had placed "a hedge of protection" around Job.

Again...and? God already knew the outcome. The point was not that God needed to test Job because He was unsure what would happen; the point was to demonstrate Job's loyalty.

It was not just "an entire family"; It was JOB'S entire family; a blessing God had given to him, among so many other things; God had the right to allow this to happen, because He blessed Job with it in the first place; He could allow it to be taken away.

Please, please understand what I've written this time. It is difficult to explain any more simply and clearly than that, save for hand puppets.

Actually, this story confirms in every single sense God's character(istics).

1. All-knowing and all-wise (synonymous terms, actually): God knew the outcome from the beginning; otherwise, why would He allow such things to happen for the purpose of proving Himself wrong? THAT would be inconsistent and prove his knowledge finite. He knows suffering strengthens and has a purpose; otherwise, He would not allow it.

2. All-compassionate: Freewill is a blessing, but we abused it; therefore, suffering exists. Death exists. Despite this, God blesses man; completely undeserved. I'm not sure if you've ever read the end of Job, but God actually restores everything Job had. So, the purpose of the suffering was met (showing Job feared God NOT because of his possessions), and Job again received blessings. Did God need to? Nope. But He did.

God had complete control over what happened; what Satan did and the fate of those involved. He is actually God, after all.

Thanks for the thought, but I had actually addressed those things before. Now, if you actually read what I wrote this time, you might actually get lucky and stumble upon comprehension.

God actually gave those people hundreds of years and far too many chances to repent. They did not. So, being God and knowing they would not change, He commanded Israel to destroy those nations. Does that make more sense?

Jesus never, ever, ever...ever...denounced Yahweh. He called God "His father" and stated repeatedly His love for Him. He and the Father are One. Scour the Gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--You will find no example of such "denouncement." Cute idea, though!

What Christ denounced was the laws the Pharisees concocted *in addition" to God's law; man-made "rituals" that were meant to make them "holy." Jesus denounced turning God's Law into a business, which was what the Pharisees were doing.

Jesus perfectly fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. The two testaments go hand-in-hand (if you actually read them, that is!).

There are very few things that I do not understand. But one, is how one person (you, actually) manages to speak so much without considering a word of what others say.

Also, please: Do not use the terms "all-wise, all-compassionate" again unless you intend to think about it first. You seem to thoughtlessly use the terms.

An all-stupid, all-hateful God would simply kill disobedient creations. Instead, God, Yahweh, chose to create a system to teach these people to understand the significance of what sin has done: It has brought death.

The sacrifices are to help man to understand:

A.) God's righteousness. He cannot tolerate sin without it, in some fashion, being payed for. First, God designed the animal/food sacrifices; then He sent His son to be the ultimate sacrifice for all mankind, not just Israel. It all comes together perfectly.
B.) Man's sinful state.
C.) God's love and mercy in accepting the sacrifice of another instead of destroying man.
D.) Obedience. The point was not blood, but obedience. Over time, man made it all about blood, but the original point was giving up something for God and obeying.

I really hope this makes sense this time. If not, I feel sorry for you.

Also, it's no wonder Greek mythology included blood sacrifices; Most cults mimic Christianity!

You seem to have prolific difficulty understanding the fairly straightforward concept of "sacrifice."

Before I again futilely try to explain, please just tell me: What do you think a "sacrifice" is? What is it for?

What's the point of being a "god" if you have flaws? To have superpowers? That is why Greek mythology is meaningless and "beautifully" (because some people don't get sarcasm, I included quotation marks!) reveling the evils of mankind!

Obviously, you have not studied the Bible in depth. Or if you have read it, you have utterly failed at comprehending it in even its most surface sense.

Even the "nicest" person by man's standards is downright evil by God's. Man's expectations are very low indeed, in comparison.

God hates evil. God hates the evil that man, for a catastrophic moment, loved more than God. God wants man to WANT to be restored; He could very well have forced him to or simply eliminated man, but instead allowed the choice. Which would you have rather had? (Or perhaps you would enjoy being a robot?)

No, actually, it is not. The supposed "contradictions" that you saw stemmed directly from your misunderstanding of each of the concepts involved. Clearly, you have failed to understand what little--if any--Scripture you've read. I feel sorry for you being so enslaved by your presuppositions, instead of reading the text as it really is.

I do not understand how a person can, on the one hand, criticize what is or is not "scientifically sound" then turn around and spout his religious beliefs as if they were absolute truth. Science is about discovering the truth.

You are either interested in discovering the truth or resigned to believing that which cannot logically be true and is unsound. Truth is truth and logic is logic.

If Christianity is not scientifically sound then it is probably not true.

The word "GOD" is just a word. It means different things to different people. Christianity claims to own that word along with the word "sin." I reject their authority over those terms.

You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but I don't think you are in any position to talk about what is 'scientifically sound.'

About awareness and consciousness:

I am making the assertion that awareness and consciousness come in degrees. I am looking at the deeper meaning of the terms, not the common usages or definitions in a dictionary.

(You might worship books a little too much.) Try thinking for yourself on these things.

I see.





The terms "sin" and "sinful" are meaningless to anyone other than a person indoctrinated in the Christian based faiths that seem to own that term. It boils down to mean "disobedience of God" or "rejection of God" referring the the God of authority outlined in scripture.

But scripture also states that God is love, so I will suggest that it is the way of love, not obedience, that is the saving grace of spirit.

To be in servitude to anyone is in opposition to freedom and responsibility. Slavery and servitude under the punishment of death is tyranny.

("The wages of sin is death" mentality)

Instead I would interpret that concept to mean he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. What goes around comes around. The law of cause and effect is the law of God. If you live with hate and violence that is what you will attract into your life. If you live and practice love, you will be "saved."

God is Love.

God is love so who is God ?.
Love created no one .
Love is just an emotion .
God is the creator by definition .
Do we have any proof of one creator, multiple creators or no creators at all ?!!!.

love is more than an emotion....

I still did not receive a reply to all my questions .
Calling love more than an emotion does not answer me at all .
.

I can not answer all your questions.. we all get to figure that out on our own. Thats the fun part I can only go by what works for me. Believe me when I say..I really wish I had all the answers. I meditate..I get much information that way.. like prayer is asking and stillness in meditation brings an answer.
I didn't receive a reply to all my questions...ha, who do you think I am GOD?