Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe

[james bond]

I'm disappointed. The atheists want proof of God. They get it and they can't understand it or they do not want to believe it. It just goes to show people will believe what they want to believe. Kaku got it right. We do live in a software program. We live in a computer simulation.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

I know you have nothing to say. You fight for your right to say nothing but to provocate. Your behavior remembers me to five young people here, who had "discussed" in the weekend a totally stupid banal nonsense. Now two of them are dead because no one of them was able to control the own negative emotions. Perhaps you should really try to find a way to start to think and to speak, because your thoughtless emotional attacks help you and others nothing at all.

Do you know why a football Championship is so wonderful? Nearly everyone in a championship loses - and all this losers learn a lot by losing. Give it up to try to be invincible. Leave the place behind the skirt of your mother and start to learn.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Let's see the Flat Earthers do real science. ....

No one ever discussed with Christopher Columbus about a "flat earth". That's only a typical prejudice of the US-American world. Columbus miscalculated the size of the Earth and the position of India. He was only lucky that he was saved from the unknown continent America.

More science and less Hollywood is the path toward knowledge.

The prejudce "flat world" (=the Old World believed in a Flat World, while indeed within the Christian Europe always the teachings was the Earth is a globe) was made from an US-American author, who supported the anglo-american stereotype about a kind of superiority of the seddlers in the New World. People who try to find a "New World" - although they don't have any idea what they are looking for - are in the middle of the motivations of the people of your culture. G.W. Bush for example used such a form of argument (Germany is Old Europe = is worth nothing) when he started to prepare his totally idiotic war against the Iraq on completely wrong reasons. And he was successful. He did not only make this senseless war with all its negative consequences - he started also to destroy in this senseless way the good relations with my country Germany. And Donald Trump continues to destroy the relations between Germany including the rest of the world and the USA on reason of totally stupid cliches and stereotypes.

 

[cnm]

There's absolutely no need to think everyone, who is a Christian, is an idiot.

I'm not sure about that, you're making a persuasive argument.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm disappointed. The atheists want proof of God. They get it and they can't understand it or they do not want to believe it. It just goes to show people will believe what they want to believe. Kaku got it right. We do live in a software program. We live in a computer simulation.

Better to say often the people think in a form of self-created matrix - but the world is not a matrix. It's not wrong to think in a matrix - if it is more easy for someone to do so. But everyone should know that our "virtualities" are able to be totally irreal, as well as it are also able to be a good presentiment of the real world. Everything is interacting with everything - and we all need everything. It needs for example such an unbelievable big universe for our existence - but the most people say we are only like a little corn in an endless sea. Both is important. If we take a view at a picture of Hubble - the deep field for example - then we see things, which are representing the natural laws which we need to be here. I heard if in only one of the basic natural constants would be a difference in the 16th position (10^-16) then biological life would be impossible. So even in case an endless number of universes would exist and we could see them all, then we had to study 10,000,000,000,000,000 universes to find one universe with life. And this is only one of the basic constants. In case we had to take a look for only 1 second at every universe until we are able to find one with this constant then we would need more than 300 million years to do so. But take a look out of the window and you will see a lot of life .. hopefully, because otherwise something's wrong.

Some people say natural science destroys all wonders. But how is this all around us not able to be a wonder? The world is still wonderful - everywhere - in the far biggest distances as well as in the most nearest nears.

 

[zaangalewa]

There's absolutely no need to think everyone, who is a Christian, is an idiot.

I'm not sure about that, you're making a persuasive argument.

Then don't be convinced - but indeed everywhere in the English speaking world exists the prejudice people are idiots, who believe in creation.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

You are an extremely good example why it makes not a big sense to try to speak with members of the English speaking world. I hope your culture needs not to long to die and the world has not to suffer to much, because of the decadence of your culture.



PS: Same to you there4eyeM

 

[zaangalewa]

Same to you there4eyeM

You are an extremely good example why it makes not a big sense to try to speak with members of the English speaking world. I hope your culture needs not to long to die and the world has not to suffer to much, because of the decadence of your culture.

 

[james bond]

So what's next? Maybe a few agnostics and atheists will become deists. They will believe in a natural God and start questioning evolutionary thinking. Atheist science with big bang demonstrated God instead of no God, but I doubt those making money from promoting evolution will let their goose that lays the golden eggs go away so easily.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe a few agnostics and atheists will become deists. They will believe in a natural God and start questioning evolutionary thinking.

That doesn't flow. They would not evolution by virtue of believing in a natiral god. In fact, such a belief would strength their Tru on science. You really do say the stupidest things .

 

[zaangalewa]

So what's next?

Next step? ... Not to misuse the god given might - never. Murder or war and other destructive ways are wrong ways. Pragmatismus is by the way in this context a wrong philosophy too. The war which ends all wars is only an extended way to do suicide.

Maybe a few agnostics and atheists will become deists.

Every Christian is an Agnostics. That's perhaps the deeper reason why enemies of the Christian religion perverted the expression "agnosticism" into a totally stupid cliche. Agnosticism means not to be able to know god, so to have to believe in god is the way.

They will believe in a natural God

Creation and nature is nearly the same. But god is creator.

and start questioning evolutionary thinking.

As Saint Francis did?

Atheist science

Atheism is a belief. A problem in context of the belief Atheism is it that most atheist believe not to believe. Although every member of every serios religion is able to study physics - Atheism is a serios religion too - is this form "to believe not to believe" a paradox, which is not helpful to try to find out what's right or wrong.

with big bang demonstrated God instead of no God,

The universe expands - this means it started once to expand. The Early Christians were for example always attacked because they were so stupid to believe in a creator - while everyone else "knew" the world had existed since ever and was not created. They had asked "And what did do your god before he made the world"? It needed a few hundred years until Augustinus found an answer to this question. He said: before god made the world existed nothing - also not any time. Gods word of creation was a timeless word. So god made nothing we are able to know, "before" the heavens and the worlds were created, because there was not any "before". And much more than a thousand years later the physicist Albert Einstein found out that this idea is more than only a spiritual dimension. Indeed it looks like with the so called "big bang" every energy was suddenly here. So in physics exists nothing what's "outside" of the universe (there is no "outside") and what was before (there is no "before"). The universe is in the eyes of this physics without a cause. We could call it also the "first cause", because a first cause is always without cause. This word "first cause" was in history often used for god - but inded its wrong to use it in this way. God is creator - universe is creation.

but I doubt those making money from promoting evolution will let their goose that lays the golden eggs go away so easily.

"Evolution" know Christians since Christians exist. It's another word for cultivation. The only new component is it that selective breeding is not only made from human beings. A planless nature is also using this mechanisms. One of the worst and most idiotic discussions in the English speaking world is the never ending discussion "creation vs evolution". Creation and evolution are totally different expressions.

Two example for things, which have nothing to do with evolution: A "circle" for example is existing since ever. It never evolved. Otherwise we had to make a difference in physics in a time before "Pi" was evolved and after Pi had been evolved. We could not use the same mathematics. Another example: It exists nothing what we could call "evolution" in case of the "evolution of automobiles". Cars are not biological entities. This machines are products of our growing knowledge in physics and are produced planful (=teleological). And they follow also the laws of fashion and not only the laws of physics. I think nothing is evolution in case of the existence of cars or any other man made machine or product. All things human beings are doing, which we call "creative", start with an inspiration.

 

[james bond]

Maybe a few agnostics and atheists will become deists. They will believe in a natural God and start questioning evolutionary thinking.

That doesn't flow. They would not evolution by virtue of believing in a natiral god. In fact, such a belief would strength their Tru on science. You really do say the stupidest things .

Another ad hominem attack as your argument. Assertions don't count. You have lost the argument once again. If I had a nickle for every time you self-destructed on USMB, I think I'd be a very rich man.

 

[Muhammed]

Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear.

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

World-Famous Scientist: God Created the Universe

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

That's what I always thought when I was a kid.

Mathematically, why are stringed musical instruments and colors so much like atoms?

WTF? That's just weird shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear.

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

World-Famous Scientist: God Created the Universe

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

Wow, I don't think I've ever watched anyone commit career suicide in real time before.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
OCTOBER 16TH, 2017
P.K. FRENCH

Several months ago there was a flurry of headlines claiming that Michio Kaku had proven the existence of God. In this exclusive interview with the famous physicist, Kaku elaborates on what happened.

I&T Today: You recently made a lot of headlines with your discoveries regarding the possible existence of a higher intelligence. Could you explain what you found?

Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

For example, look at reincarnation. If somebody at a cocktail party says that they are Cleopatra or Julius Caesar, how do you disprove that? How do you falsify that? Well, you ask some simple question and they get it wrong. Then you say, “Ha! I falsified your statement.” And they say, “No, the history books are wrong…How do I know the history books are wrong? Because I am Cleopatra. I am Julius Caesar.”

At that point, the conversation is over....​

`

Sounds like a really interesting guy to talk to and hang out with (frequently not the case with brilliant scientist types).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another ad hominem attack as your argument.

It wasn't my argument. You don't make arguments, you only make ridiculous, laughably absurd claims. There is no burden on anyone respond to this absurd , authoritative preaching with arguments. Especially considering you areon the wrong side of science amd history .I don't take time to argue against flat-eargers' absurd claims, either. In fact, i don't think you even know what an argument is.

Your absued, authoritative claims come with no argument, and the appropriate response to them is to rebuke and mock them.

 

[james bond]

Another ad hominem attack as your argument.

It wasn't my argument. You don't make arguments, you only make ridiculous, laughably absurd claims. There is no burden on anyone respond to this absurd , authoritative preaching with arguments. Especially considering you areon the wrong side of science amd history .I don't take time to argue against flat-eargers' absurd claims, either. In fact, i don't think you even know what an argument is.

Your absued, authoritative claims come with no argument, and the appropriate response to them is to rebuke and mock them.

Then how do you explain the Big Bang Theory? If there were these invisible quantum particles in crazy motion causing havoc to regular physics and infinite temperature and density, how could they exist if there was no space? Even Stephen Hawking admitted the quantum particles needed space. Someone had to create the space. Next, someone had to create time since these particles had to have motion.

Just because you cannot explain does not make me absurd. It makes you silly and absurd. It 's no wonder people laugh at you while they laugh along with me .

 

[zaangalewa]

Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear.

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

World-Famous Scientist: God Created the Universe

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

Wow, I don't think I've ever watched anyone commit career suicide in real time before.

Explanation? Mathematics and music is the same. In case of parallel universes for example only mathematics builds a bridge to this universes. If this is real then mathematics is perhaps an element of an over-universal power. The question is: Where is the song (where are the unknown natural laws), which we don't hear now?

 

[james bond]

Now, Kaku is back to saying, "Universe was created." I wish he make up his mind.

"Dr. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, and he believes that theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence. After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles – which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”"

I can get behind his "Matrix" if he's saying the world is like a computer simulation.

Kaku Says Scientific Evidence Proves "The Universe was Created!" [VIDEO]

 

[G.T.]

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery


Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

For example, look at reincarnation. If somebody at a cocktail party says that they are Cleopatra or Julius Caesar, how do you disprove that? How do you falsify that? Well, you ask some simple question and they get it wrong. Then you say, “Ha! I falsified your statement.” And they say, “No, the history books are wrong…How do I know the history books are wrong? Because I am Cleopatra. I am Julius Caesar.”

At that point, the conversation is over. You begin to realize that no matter how you falsify that statement they can come back and say, “No, no, no, the history books are wrong.” And, how do you falsify that? You cannot. So, there are certain statements that are not falsifiable.

Same thing with the existence of God. I don’t think there’s any one experiment that you can create to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, it’s not a falsifiable statement. You cannot create an experiment that disproves the existence of God. Therefore, it’s a non-falsifiable statement.

Personally, I think there’s much wisdom in the God of Einstein. Einstein basically said that there are two types of gods. One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.

The universe is gorgeous. The universe is very simple, and it didn’t have to be that way. The universe could have been random. It could have been ugly. It could have been a random collection of electrons and photons. No life, no vitality, nothing interesting at all. Just a random collection of a mist of electrons and photons. That could have been the universe, but it isn’t. Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant. And you can summarize most of the laws of physics on one sheet of paper. Amazing. In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long. That’s called the unified field theory. We want to summarize all of the laws of physics into one equation that is one inch long.

Now, one version of that is called string field theory, which is a branch of string theory. String field theory allows you to write this equation, this one inch equation. In fact, that’s my equation. I’m a co-founder of string field theory. Now, that’s not the final theory because now there are membranes, and things are more complicated. We have yet to create a one inch equation for strings and membranes. But just for strings we already have a theory that’s only one inch long that allows you to summarize the laws of nature. So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty,[the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.

If you’re an English major, you know that English literary criticism gets more complicated every year. Every time someone writes a PhD thesis on James Joyce or Hemingway, they say, “What did he really mean by that sentence?” Well, it gets more complicated every year! Physics is the opposite. It gets simpler and simpler every year. And ultimately we want to get it down to one inch.

There is a theory about whether or not the universe is a simulation of some sort, like the movie The Matrix. And then the question is how do you prove it? Or how do you disprove it? Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.