Would that not be a mistake to apply human traits/perspectives to an otherwise undefinable, unprovable, entity?Caprican Erock wrote:If I was a God i'd have much better things to do. Perhaps i'll create a supernova today or even throw a couple galaxies together for shits and giggles - I am a deity of course so I can do that. Toying with humans or even bothering myself with taking a peek at what theyre doing? Not so much.
reteo wrote:First, there is the frame of reference argument; our ability to measure reality is based on our senses, which have been known to be fooled. Reason can help with that over time, as a basic theory can produce testable hypotheses that can strengthen or weaken the theory. However, we are still limited to what our senses can input; as it has been mentioned, unless we can exit the universe or perceive additional dimensions, the best we can do are educated guesses based on a reasonably stable theory.
The conscious experience of trichromatic vision is arbitrary. Yet it irreversibly alters how we perceive the universe around us. Only those individuals blind from birth can have a different view of the world around them. Many (most?) birds have tetrachromatic vision. Even given eons of time, our best scientific laws, our most resolute models of the universe might possibly only ever be special cases (derived solutions) of universal principles our senses and therefore our best tools cannot possibly solve/comprehend. The pursuit for a theory of everything has concluded that our best functional models of the universe are at best approximations of some underlying mathematics. The most talked about potential solutions (insert M Theory, etc.) are insofar as we are concerned totally untestable (that is, the last time I checked).reteo wrote:Of course, this is a really roundabout way of saying "Without a new source of perception outside our existing 4-dimensional cage, or a time machine to do some observation of our own in the past, proving or disproving God would be impossible, and attempting to do either is a waste of time better served by studying things that can be understood."
I would want to think that given enough time and ingenuity humanity will eventually "solve" the universe, if you will, but it is as much an assumption as the scientific method is (insofar as we are concerned it's bulletproof, but it's still an assumption).
It is here that I stop to ponder whether our most powerful tool, logic, might be a special case (not as fundamental as we would hope) and therefore limited in its applicability. Indeed, given the infinite universes with infinite possibilities idea, what is fundamental across universes?
I truly do not know, is there a mathematical/logical proof to this end? If so, then where does your later statement (found below) fit?reteo wrote:Of course, once again, if entropy occurs in our universe, it would have to occur in the source as well, or else the source would have imbued our universe with the same infinite source of energy.
Indeed, manipulators of dark matter and dark energy, beings who can act directly on that "stuff" below the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- I don't think I want to meet them.reteo wrote:Once again, however, quantum man may not follow the same rules, and so may be powerful enough to create matter and energy from something even more strange.