World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God
(Photo : Nasa/Getty Images)
Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, one of the most respected scientists today claimed that he found definitive proof of the existence of God. The information he shared created a great stir in the scientific community simply because of his status as one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory, which is highly regarded everywhere in the world.
Some say it's proof of God, but I'm just accepting that we live in a #matrix @michiokaku https://t.co/sE4OdKBcs9
— jacilyn hayden (@jacilynh) June 8, 2016
The report on Feroces Mente explained that to come to this conclusion, he made use of what is called as the "primitive semi-radius tachyons," which are theoretical particles that are capable of unsticking the Universe matter or the vaccum space between particles. They then leave everything free from the influence of the universe that surrounds them.
While working on this theory, Kaku discovered what he says is the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence rather than by random forces. To put it simply, as stated by Catholic.org , he said that we live in a Matrix-style universe.
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence," the scientist said. "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."
So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before.
There have been a number of scientists who do believe in an omnipotent deity, though. Seventeenth-century French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal, and eighteenth-century Swiss mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler, for instance, are noted by Oddee.com to be believers of an omnipotent being.
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
Personally I have always thought that string theory is kind of "loopy" .
Could I have selected a more unpopular topic ? Apparently not . The liberal anti-religion fanatics will just stay away . The conservative religionists will be put of by the lingo from string theory . I guess this topic is already dead .
I do physics for a living, and string theory is still way above my head. I can't contribute anything meaningful. There's only a handful of people on earth that really understand this stuff.
11 dimensions is too damn many ! Usually if a theory requires more than 5 dimensions it becomes unwieldy ...
Exactly. 6 is my limit.
Who knows? Our whole universe could be enveloped in the tip of a needle used by a (to us) monstrous being to mend a hole in its socks. That could lead to the "Thread theory".
I can't conceive of such a "monstrous being" having to bother with anything as mundane as socks . It would be free to go barefooted [if it even has feet] ...
And I am unable to conceive of the magnitude and infinity of the universe. I am not Einstein, although many of my students have told me I look like him, so I am not equipped to discuss such a topic intelligently. However, I have stated elsewhere on NT a number of times that I follow Frank Lloyd Wright and Spinoza's and Einstein's concepts of "God" being nature.
Spinoza seems to be the main philosopher behind that concept of god . But I am just guessing since there was no room for philosophy in my engineering curriculum .
The older history of mathematics contains many brilliant minds who had that view of things . As it said in the article :
Seventeenth-century French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal, and eighteenth-century Swiss mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler, for instance, are noted by Oddee.com to be believers of an omnipotent being.
This story might be a hoax.
I think it is more of an exaggeration than a full on hoax .
How can you prove the existence of God by using tachyons without first proving the existence of tachyons? You can't prove one assumption with another.
That's not necessarily true. We proved that neutrons must exist (conservation of momentum during radioactive decay) long before we observed them.
Not neutrons, neutrinos. Damn autocorrect...
How can you prove the existence of God by using tachyons without first proving the existence of tachyons?
You should take that question up with Dr. Kaku . For a basic primer you might want to watch the Dr.'s above video .
I found this handy little read:
Is God a Mathematician?: Mario Livio: 9780743294065: Amazon.com ...
Looks both relevant & interesting . Thanks for posting that P ...
I wouldn't be surprised. Even the best science writers would be out of their depth when it comes to string theory.
This story might be a hoax.
Not surprised.
I would have been quite surprised if you gave anything in a comment that demonstrated you even bothered to expose yourself to the material in the article . And of course you haven't ...
"God" has to be supernatural . God ( the creator of the "universe" ) cannot exist entirely within nature.
Because God must be supernatural, no one can prove or disprove it's existence.
I'm not sure if the definition of god you have chosen is the one that Dr. Kaku is referring to . His explanation is based in quantum physics . Watch the above video for clarification ...
God cannot exist within nature Petey, it has to transcend nature. A God that exists solely within nature will not have been capable of creating that nature.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it's possible that evidence of his existence may be discernable through science.
No matter what "proof" scientists come up with , it will never be true proof. We cannot measure anything outside of this existence and God must come from outside this existence, or it isn't God.
If I were to look at this from a purely scienfitc aspect, I woukd say that tachyons have not been proven to be anything other than imaginary and that it's illogical to attempt to prove the existence of an imaginary being with imaginary particles.
Neutrinos were "imaginary" too, but they were essential to describing decay.
Neutrinos were "imaginary" too, but they were essential to describing decay.
Unless I'm missing something, there's a big difference between inferring the existence of particles with almost no mass (a neutrino) and a particle that is massless moving at or faster than the speed of light (a tachyon). The existence of tachyons may be impossible in anything other than a theoretical or hypothetical sense.
Again, not so. We can infer the existence of things (neutrinos, gravitons) without observing them.
Unless Nature is God.
Are you trying to confuse John Russell ? It doesn't take much ...
JR - that is your 'speed dial' answer anytime the concept of god comes up. You need some new material.
I think this stuff is really cool. I love learning about string theory. I wished I understood the math better, but I understand the fundamentals of it.
Great series on string theory is " The Elegant Universe ". You can find it here:
Funny to think of god as a mathematician... but I can get that.
I wished I understood the math better
Let me point out that some math is beyond not just human comprehension but beyond potential application . I suggest you look up "The curse of dimensionality" for a better explanation . I have a PDF on my computer about that topic but am having problems finding a URL link . Is there some way I can copy the PDF directly into a comment ?
I don't think so.. but you can put in a link to a PDF.
Still can't find the URl to link to . You might want to google "curse of dimensionality" . But this is very abstract material .
LMAO !
Good one Kavika!
Is is possible that we confuse purpose for divinity, when describing the intelligence? In a sorta Spinoza-Slant, why does the question of purpose vs. chance necessarily mean a divine being?
why does the question of purpose vs. chance necessarily mean a divine being?
It depends what is meant by divine ...
This is what I mean by divine, petey. The divine grape vine.
Are those Concord grapes ? They look delish ...
They are Merlot grapes, petey. A mighty fine grape I may add.
I don't believe I've ever had those . Merlot wine yes but not the grapes ...
Merlot is my favorite wine.
I've heard on the grapevine that any wine is your favorite wine Perrie.
Well.... uchum... yes.
I love that movie.
If you had the wine, you've had the grapes, petey.
Kaku doesn't have the best following in the purely scientific community. However, I did enjoy he and all the others like him in What the Bleep , so much that I own a copy of it. I tried to get tickets to see Kaku at a local seminar, but it quickly sold out so he does have an impressive following in the sci-fi quasi-scientific community.
Here's some more reading that illustrates where Kaku is coming from.
He's been around awhile . He seems to have craved attention even back in 2001 ...