Lets make it really obvious...

Mathematical proof of the existence of God.
Posted on April 1, 2011 by The Physicist

Physicist: This derivation isn’t particularly easy, but bear with me. It’s essentially a re-phrasing of a joint work by Descartes, Godel, and Hawking.

Beginning with the unitarity of quantum probability you find the non-vanishing deism coefficient manifest.

The set of neononontological logical absolutes is provably finite, whereas the set of Descartian, or singly self referencing (once recursive), logical postulates is substantially larger. For example, permitting God to create an object so big that he can’t move it, while simultaneously noting that (being all powerful) he can certainly move it, is a statement contained within the Descartian set, and outside of standard (mortal) logic. By necessity, the more all encompassing logic is infinitely larger.

Indeed, using a Cantorian decomposition on the larger set one can clearly see the smaller set made apparent. That is to say, the restrictions of mortal absolutes form a fractal “Chopra surface” on the larger set in “absolutes space”.

The quasimobius structure of absolutes space is established by the most basic mathematical inference. So, once a single point in the Descartian volume has been established, then the remainder of the set follows immediately by Godelian extension. But, keep in mind that the initial premise is based on quantum unitarity (which has been mathematically and experimentally proven), and as such, the projection hypothesis holds.

The “projection hypothesis”, an inescapable result of modern quantum theory, postulates that consciousness is an integral part of the structure of the universe. Moreover, according to Alan Sokal, a PhD physics professor from New York city, “…the distinction between observer and observed; the tex2html_wrap_inline1395 of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.” (reference)

Therefore, by psuedodyadicism, the existence of any consciousness capable of comprehending an almighty or all-encompassing system, induces (technically: “projects”) a “pocket” into absolutes space, establishing an interior point, allowing for the divining of the existence of the whole of the set of Descartian absolutes. Obviously, this only strictly implies the existence of neoDescartian absolutes, but the paleoDescartian set follows immediately.

Obviously, the ratio of the q-measure of the higher postulates to the totality of absolutes space is the probability that those higher postulates hold in our universe. (This technique is common practice in most of the scientific community, but is almost unheard of in physics circles, which are mired in orthodoxy.)

But, having a higher dimensionality than the set of mortal absolutes (being circular, they have a dimension of \pi) implies immediately that the ratio is 1-1. I.e., an almighty consciousness capable of everything must necessarily exist. QED

Of course this only holds for our universe.
17:09 Mon 27th Feb 2012
 
Avatar Image
jomifl
Best Answer
To paraphras..Anything can exist anywhere, but probably doesn't and most likely never will, perhaps. ;o)
18:24 Mon 27th Feb 2012 Go To Best Answer

1 to 14 of 14

Not read it. But did you know in the 1600s Archbishop Ussher used similar very intricate and advanced mathematics to prove that god created the world at 9.00am on a Monday morning in October 2004 BC?
Amazin wot yer can do wi' numbers.
QED
Question Author
I got lost immediately...but do agree Mosaic.....the strangest things ARE possible!
A mathematical proof with no numbers, how things have moved on since I did algebra. :-)
The “projection hypothesis”, an inescapable result of modern quantum theory,

No

The projection hypothesis is an interesting idea but it is very definately *not* an inescapable result of modern quantum theory!!

I know it's something Leonard Suskind is interested in by I doubt even he would say it was inescapable!

Frankly any "scientific" writing that uses terms like "obviously" or "inescabably" should be setting off huge alarm bells that this is bunkum of the highest order
Mosaic, you could do better with your numbers, you're 2000 years out.

I have sometimes wondered exactly where it was 9am. Probably GMT (God Mean Time).
heck aye jno!
That's happen why they let me go from finance.....
To paraphras..Anything can exist anywhere, but probably doesn't and most likely never will, perhaps. ;o)
Evidence material to the alleged existence of God is nowhere more conspicuous than in the clamour of His self-appointed elocutionists in lieu of His own ineffable silence.
^^That’s eloquence!
Question lifted from this website -

http://www.askamathem...the-existence-of-god/


As some people from the above website have correctly pointed out, it's a joke post. One can no more prove mathematically that God exists than prove that He doesn't.

Many sentences in the question give this nonsense away but one of the most obvious is the word, “psuedodyadicism”. "Dyadics" are theoretical mathematical entities relating to vectors. As we all know, the word, “psuedo” means something false, fake or spurious...

“... Therefore, by *psuedodyadicism*, the existence of any consciousness capable of comprehending an almighty or all-encompassing system, induces (technically: “projects”) a “pocket” into absolutes space, establishing an interior point, allowing for the divining of the existence of the whole of the set of Descartian absolutes...”

Utter tosh! Funny though!
//^^That’s eloquence!//

Well it came down to a toss-up between that or, "Oh fiddlesticks!" . . . darned if it didn't come up tails.
in my uneducated ignorance i have no idea what you are waffling on about but in my 67 years i know bulls__t when i see it and i see it now
The date at the top of the post should have given the game away, never mind the obscurantist text ;)
^^ Just so. 'Fiddlesticks' would have sufficed, Mibs. :o)

1 to 14 of 14

Latest posts