God and Soul in Quantum Theory. / by Socratus /

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by isocratus, Mar 22, 2015.

  1. isocratus

    isocratus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    God and Soul in Quantum Theory. / by Socratus /
    =.

    Can the conception of God and Soul have Physical Background?
    My answer is: "Yes, God and Soul have physical background
    and can be explained by physical formulas, equations and laws."
    I will try to prove my position.
    =.
    Question: what is God?
    The Religious answer:
    God is something Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, Spiritual,
    the Highest form of Consciousness, Who created everything
    in the Universe.
    The Physical answer ( in my opinion) is more concrete:
    There is an Absolute, Infinite, Eternal Reference Frame and IT is
    Vacuum in the condition of Absolute Zero: T=0K,
    that take the functions of God and create everything in the Universe.
    Zero Vacuum T=0K is a "solo fabric" of creation everything in the Universe.
    Zero Vacuum T=0K is a Metaphysical / Spirit World.
    How can I prove my opinion?
    1. God does not create this Material World directly Himself.
    2. To create Material World and everything in It, God uses Spiritual Particles.
    3. The modern name of these Spiritual Particles is Quantum of Light.
    Quantum of Light is most phenomenal particle in the World.
    Quantum of Light is the structural essence of the Material World.
    The essence of all material objects is Quantum of Light.
    Through the behavior of Quantum of Light we can understand
    what an Absolute God has the Highest form of Consciousness.
    ==========..
    a)
    In the Vacuum Quantum of Light has maximal speed : c=1
    (from our earthly- gravity point of view).
    No material particles can ever attain this velocity. It means that this
    constant characteristic brings quantum of light to the world which
    is different from Material World and this is Vacuum World of Spirits.
    b)
    Many kinds of so-called different particles (waves) are only different
    manifestation / modifications of Quantum of Light.
    How can I prove this opinion?
    It seems that different particles create different waves: EM-waves, Gamma-Radiation waves, Röntgen-Radiation waves, Light-Waves, Ultraviolet -waves, Super/Ultra-High-TV-waves, Short/Mid/Long wave- length Radio Emission waves . . . but . .
    . . . but the energy of each of them is written by formula: E=h*f.
    It means that the difference between all these particles / radiations
    depends only on frequencies and the background of these modifications
    is one and the same particle: Quantum of Light in different frequencies.
    c)
    Question:
    Why the simple quantum particle electron has six ( 6 ) formulas:
    +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 ,
    E=h*f and e^2=ah*c, E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV and E= ∞ ?
    My answer:
    Because an electron and quantum of light / photon and antielectron
    are one and the same particle in different actions and conditions and
    " The Law of conservation and transformation of energy/ mass "
    unites them together.
    d)
    The Quantum of Light is not static / firm particle.
    Quantum of Light is an elastic particle and can change its geometrical form.
    e)
    Through so-called "vacuum fluctuation / transformation" Quantum of Light
    can materialize or dematerialize its body ( virtual particle can become real
    and vice verse) using its own inner impulse h or h*=h/2pi.
    (Newtonian physics explains movement as a result of outside influence,
    Quantum physics explains movement as a result of own inner power / impulse
    of particle and therefore Quantum physics is only a modern Aristotle's metaphysics)
    f)
    1.
    The potential state of Quantum of Light in the Zero Vacuum is: E=Mc^2.
    2.
    In the straight constant movement its speed is c=1 and its energy is: E=hc
    Quantum of Light behaves like a "particle".
    3.
    In the rotation around its axis Quantum of Light behaves like "wave" with energy: E=h*f.
    In the Zero Vacuum nobody has influence on
    behavior of Quantum of Light. Quantum of Light by himself decided
    in which state He wants to be, it means that Quantum of Light has some
    kind of consciousness. The consciousness of Quantum of Light can evolve.
    Quantum of Light takes part in creation atom, cell, flower, . . . etc . . . and
    in creation every living being. And Its evolution of consciousness is going
    step by step (from atom, cell, flower . . . to a living being ) according to ancient
    Vedas conception: ‘ from vague wish up to a clear thought ’
    g)
    Now . . . . . if . . . .
    If Quantum of Light have some kind of consciousness which can evolve and
    the Absolute Zero T=0K gave the birth to this conscious Spiritual Particles . . . .
    then . . . . then it means that the T=0K by Itself has an Absolute the Highest
    form of Consciousness.
    =====================…
    P.S.
    The tendency to understand "God" by physical laws, formulas,
    equations using the Quantum Theory never will be ended.
    a)
    Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
    https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
    b)
    Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmyths/f/QuantumGod.htm
    c)
    Does quantum theory prove God exists?
    http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/1339-does-quantum-theory-prove-god-exists/
    #
    In 1954 Einstein wrote:
    " All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
    no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
    Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
    but he is mistaken.'‘
    #
    In 1987 Feynman wrote:
    ‘ It is important to realize that in physics today,
    we have no knowledge of what energy is.
    We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
    blobs of a definite amount. ‘

    ================ . . .
    My concussions:
    We don't accepted Absolute Reference Frame T=0K and therefore
    we don't know what Quantum of Light and Electron are and therefore
    every speculation is possible. I say:
    1) God is simple: T=0K
    2) Soul is simple: Quantum of Light
    ( c/d=pi, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, h=E/t, h=kb,
    h=1, c=1. h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* , e^i(pi)= -1)
    3) Everything else (material) is complex.
    ========================….
    #
    " If we were looking for something that we could conceive
    of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
    state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start."
    / Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208, by Danah Zohar. /
    =============== . . .
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
    ===…
     
  2. Devils' Advocate

    Devils' Advocate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    381
    It is an interesting presentation. My knowledge of physics is moderate, so please take my response with that in mind.

    A quantum of light is a fancy definition for a photon, correct? So I can replace 'photon' every where you have used 'quantum of light'. This comparison is important for me, as it allows me to make your comments easier to understand.

    The definition you use for the physical answer is:

    The Physical answer ( in my opinion) is more concrete:
    There is an Absolute, Infinite, Eternal Reference Frame and IT is
    Vacuum in the condition of Absolute Zero: T=0K,
    that take the functions of God and create everything in the Universe.
    Zero Vacuum T=0K is a "solo fabric" of creation everything in the Universe.
    Zero Vacuum T=0K is a Metaphysical / Spirit World
    .

    I have significant issues with this definition. For one, your physical definition includes more metaphysical terms than physical ones. Zero vacuum is a term of measurement when you get right down to it. Measurements don't take actions. You seem to be misusing the definition of zero vacuum by allowing it to create when it does not mean that. It's like saying a millimeter created something. Measurements measure!

    Zero vacuum (or vacuum energy) as defined in physics is "is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state" from Wiki. To my understanding zero vacuum is essentially the same as the phrase 'zero point energy'. In either case it refers to the ground state of the building blocks of reality which include the Higgs field, electromagnetic field and so on. In essence zero point energy is a measurement.

    2. To create Material World and everything in It, God uses Spiritual Particles.
    3. The modern name of these Spiritual Particles is Quantum of Light
    .

    Here you are defining photons (Quantum of light) as spirit particles. Okay. You can say that as part of your theory. It is equally reasonable to say that photons are the building blocks of everything else. Not spiritual at all. The bulk of the rest of your theory 'a)' through 'g)' are definitions of photons; how they can interact as either a wave or a particle, and so on. So far so good. When you begin attributing a photon to having some form of consciousness though, that is speculation for which there is no supporting evidence of any kind.

    To finish for now, my central issue with your theory is your attempt to combine the science of quantum mechanics with concepts from metaphysics. If your objective was to use science to define a spiritual consciousness, it is difficult for me to accept your conclusions. Why? Because you used as much metaphysical theory as you did scientific theory. One cannot combine the two and then attempt to say the result is a purely scientific theory.
     
  3. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    I think you have left out what the 'God' and 'Soul' is in your theory. It's self-evident for most but in reality few people here would actually agree on a definition. Unless 'God' and 'Soul' are no more than the physical manifestation are.
     
  4. isocratus

    isocratus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    @Devils' Advocate,
    ===.
    1.
    In my opinion:
    Quantum of particle can be in potential / rest state c=0, h=0 ( E/M=c^2)
    Quantum of light can be "photon" as a particle / corpuscular with
    constant speed c=1, h=1 (E=hc) .
    Quantum of light can be "electron" as a wave / particle / with speed
    c>1, h*=h/2pi (E=h*f).
    Therefore I prefer to write "quantum of light" and of course it is "spiritual particle".
    Quantum of Light has long philosophical history:
    Vedas' - " purusha"
    Plato's - " ideas" ,
    Kant's - " thing in itsel ",,
    Leibniz's - " monades " . . . . . etc . . .
    No matter what they name are, but . . .
    but they are forces that give rise to all Nature's phenomena.
    ===

    2.

    English is not my mother - languish, so it needs to be corrected.
     
  5. isocratus

    isocratus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Universe (as a material reality) was emerged from one common source.
    The ancient Vedic teachers called it – Brahman,
    Lao-Tzu called it – Tao,
    The prophets of the Book called it – Yahweh or Allah.
    Today the scientific community called this "common source"– Big Bang.
    Of course, there is also a scientific possibility that the "common source
    for the material reality " can be . . . 11- dimensions or M- dimensions, . . .
    But tomorrow . . . .
    When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about nothing -
    — the vacuum, that endless infinite void.
    http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
    ===…
    #
    " The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
    is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
    describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
    of something more complex? "
    / Paul Dirac ./
    #
    The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
    What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
    its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
    vacuum is a gross misnomer!
    / Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
    #
    Wikipedia :
    “ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined,
    resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space,
    how can we characterize either? “
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
    #
    "Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
    over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
    said Peter Milonni
    from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
    #
    Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
    nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
    rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
    tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
    If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
    into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
    / Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
    By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
    #
    Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
    particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
    / University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
    #
    Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
    is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
    of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
    additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
    allowing light-light interactions.
    http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
    . . . . . .
    =============================…
     
  6. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    There is a lot off 'stuff' here that probably fits together well in your head, but this is a heavy topic and I think you need yo work on your presentation. But I'm only speaking for myself here, of course.
     
  7. Devils' Advocate

    Devils' Advocate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    381
    Soc, I caught that English isn't your first language. You did pretty darn well anyway as I was able to follow your line of reasoning enough to make what was, I hope!, a coherent reply. Will comment on your second post soon as time permits.
     
  8. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,471
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    look neither high nor low, for the kingdom is in your midst
     
    EdgyDolmen likes this.
  9. Devils' Advocate

    Devils' Advocate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    381
    Bah humbug Wil. Taking a complicated discussion and stripping it of any import by a pithy, and irrelevant quip suits no purpose except to shortchange wisdom. Humbug I say!
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,046
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    I'm afraid that's not quite right.

    The Vedic 'Purusha' or the Platonic 'Forms/Ideas' are not 'forces', they do not exist in time of space ... they refer, in abstract and meaphorically, to 'consciousness'.

    The Quantum 'vacuum' corresponds to prakriti', not purusha, to substance not essence.

    Purusha and the Form/Idea essence ousia cannot be defined in any spatial or temporal sense, nor are they a 'force' or 'energy' in the sense that science understands the terms, not a wave, not a particle ... no mass, no movement ...

    I think you're confounding purusha with prakriti, so I can see a 'quantum of light' as a kind of base physical particle, but I would say it's an error to assume 'the spirit' is a composite structure like matter ...
     
  11. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,471
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    I thought it fit the discussion... pardone muahaha
     
  12. isocratus

    isocratus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    The idea that God Himself is Absolute space (T=0K) seems very strange.
    Strange but it is not new.
    English philosopher Henry More (1614 – 1687) in his books
    "An Antidote against Atheism" and "Enchiridion Metaphysicum"
    wrote that the Absolute space must be a real existence . . . .
    . . . an essential being . . . a genuine spiritual substance . . .
    Absolute space is the divine essence . .. Absolute space is divine . .
    Absolute space is no other than God Himself . . .
    Absolute space is God . . . .
    And this Absolute space can generate "spirits of nature" - active agents
    through whom the will of God becomes expressed in the world of matter.
    / Pages 147 - 148, 162. / . . . . . and
    " Absolute space for Newton is not only the omnipresence of God;
    it is also the infinite scene of the divine knowledge . . . ."
    / page 260 /
    / Book: The metaphysical foundations of modern science. By E.A. Burtt./
    =..
     
  13. isocratus

    isocratus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    @Thomas,

    purusha = active, pure - energy particle - quantum of light /electron
    prakriti = passive - matter particle - proton.
    electron + proton = atom
    ===...
     
  14. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,046
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    Hi Isocratus –

    I'm afraid I have to agree with ACOT in his comment above, purusha does not belong to the realm of physics. It's not a quantum of any sort and cannot be defined according to physical characteristics. Nor, in fact, can prakriti, although it can be likened by analogy to the 'quantum vacuum', it's an analogy, it's not saying the two are the same thing.
     
  16. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    72
    I agree with Tea. We cannot say purusha is electrons and prakriti is protons. Both electrons and protons have purusha-like attributes and prakriti-like attributes. Purusha means spirit and prakriti means matter.
     
  17. isocratus

    isocratus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Purusha means spirit and prakriti means matter.
    Purusha means quantum of light / electron and prakriti means matter / proton
    ===
     
  18. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Again, why? Simply because you like it that way? I doubt Purusha would be as easily translated as Spirit, and I know enough English and physics to question the connection between Spirit and Electron. Can you just tell me why Spirit equals Electron?
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,046
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    OK.

    No it doesn't. Purusha is not a quantum, it has no physical mass, no physical properties.
     
  20. isocratus

    isocratus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    The candle of God is the soul of man.
    / Talmudic proverb /
    It means that the soul is like the flame of a candle . . .
    and the flame of candle is like a quantum of light . . .
    and the quantum of light is like a soul of man
    ===..
     

Share This Page