/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3234180]

Hi Im stuggling to find information about the god equation theory, I know roughly its the supposed mathmatical formulae proving gods existence, but that seems insubstantial to me.

No i do not want to start a theological debate here, please dont come at me with "lolol gods not real".

Simply put im writing a book, and its been suggested by someone who ive bounced ideas of, that including the god equation into the story would work well.

But to me an equation of god, would be an equation which mathematically stated the nature of god or the forces that govern its existence.

Either way, Im wondering if there is any link or info you guys could give me about the actual theory behind this idea, exactly what the god equation theory is (if it is even defined at all).

help a clueless writer out please :)

[Anonymous No.3234188]

>Math and Science
>Supernatural deity of any sort
Pick one.

Every attempt at doing something like this has had to use (at minimum) a flawed premise to get anywhere.

[Anonymous No.3234192]

an equation would be used to define something within natural order, god(s,etc) don't fall under this coverage even if they do exist

[Anonymous No.3234194]

>>3234188
I understand that, and no I dont believe in god, im a scientist by heart, its just im writing a fiction novel and if this theory could bolster the story a little and make it a little unique then id be a fool not to at least try and research it, wouldnt I?

I dont want the actual equation, thats meaningless to me, I just know this theory exists and Id like to know the specifics of it before deciding to throw around ideas that dont make sense.

[Anonymous No.3234202]

>>3234194
If you want a general one, you could use the definitions of the God Hypothesis by Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.3234212]

>>3234188
Doesnt know that god is the greatest scientist and created everything with his infinite wisdom. nothing supernatural about being smarter than you could ever hope to be.

[Anonymous No.3234216]

>>3234212
-3/10
Not even trying.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3234218]

The concept goes like this:

>> X = The probability that the earth, humans, cars, and everything else came into existence by random chance.
>> Y = Probability god exists = 1-X

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the logic fail.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.3234226]

>>3234180
Any god equation would use "assumed numbers" like any other equation on anything you cannot gather solid data on, like the drake equation "proving" aliens, the fermi paradox subsequently disproving it, and most of Stephen Hawking's work on anything.

Could you make an equation to prove you, or anyone else, existed?

[Anonymous No.3234232]

Im sorry guys but this isnt what i thought the god equation theory was at all lmao though.

I honestly thought it was a theory that god could be explained/proved mathematically, or that through a mathematical equation you could find god (the idea that god is somewhere in the universe you just have to find him and the clue is in maths).

Not what im reading, which is perplexing as now i have no idea where this concept came from...

And as for the god equation theory, it seems as petty and retarded as look theres a butterfly therefore god must exist...

Im actually dissapointed this will have no bearing on my work..

I was kind of hoping it would be something like, the whole universe is linked by physical laws, and complex number patterns such as pie, the golden triangle, the perfect spiral etc, where mathematical indicators of the existence of god, or were a part of an equation needed to find/prove god.

I guess this is a waste of your time, very sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.3234239]

>>3234232
You just have to do what all the other people who use math to prove a deity do, make shit up that sounds right/cool; and stop giving a fuck if it bullocks.

[Anonymous No.3234242]

There is no good science or math for that matter, in the god equation. It's all silly guess work.

[Anonymous No.3234241]

The probability of any random thing you think up of being real = 1/infinity

[Anonymous No.3234247]

>>3234242

like Drake's equation only it's fishing in the dark, there is some sense to Drake's equation

[Anonymous No.3234255]

aaaand.. reported for illegal content

[Anonymous No.3234277]

<div class="math">G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)]</div>

[Anonymous No.3234281]

>>3234255
not sure what your problem is here, I was asking for something which apparently doesnt exist, (wow that actually is quite a metaphor).

I think for the purposes of my book, im just gona fudge something together along the lines to the idea from the movie pi, as long as i dont make it to rediculous im sure it will be fine.

Its just weird im sure there was some theory of god being mathematically provable, something pretty well known, but apparently google (after a long time and many different parameters) turns up nothing of real note, nothing that jumps out at me as the thing I thought the god equation theory was..

Maybe im just loosing my mind.

[Anonymous No.3234291]

X + 1 = GOD EXISTS!

How simple do I need to say it?

[Anonymous No.3234309]

>>3234281
oh i don't know maybe it's because you're looking for something religious on a board for actual science, and actual math?

i'll bet your book will be horrible if your powers of reasoning and deduction are this weak.

[Anonymous No.3234340]

>>3234309
I bet your happy with your life, oh wait thats not right...

Anyway insults aside, we are talking about ACTUAL math here, theists have worked on trying to make math conform with the notion of god, and as such this board covers this topic, if you begin declaring valid discussion on mathematics illegal content simply because you dont like the implication of it, thats your problem, and a narrow minded problem it is.

I state again for your small mind, I do not believe in god, and I do not therefore believe in any validity given to the theory in question.

However discussion of theory is what scientists trumpet right, that your willing to test any subject from a scientific standpoint, if only just to disprove the ignorance of fools.

Its what sets you apart from theists, the willingness to set aside your theorys as theorys, and not idealize your science with spiritual belief.

On another note I find you paticulary dense for a scientist.

[Anonymous No.3234349]

you are so fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.3234356]

[Anonymous No.3234361]

>>3234180
>god

You believe in Santa Clause too?

[Anonymous No.3234364]

>>3234340

[Anonymous No.3234367]

So many people fail at even reading, you actually call yourselves intelligent? Do you even call yourself Scientists?

Anyways glad this unpleasentness is over with, I have what i need to carry on with the book.

Thanks to the people that actually tried to help.

[sage No.3234374]

>>3234340
Stupid troll is stupid

[Anonymous No.3234375]

Look into Kurt Gödel.

[Anonymous No.3234380]

>>3234367
We're not too good with fiction.

I recommend you try this thread on /x/, they're much better with that kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.3234402]

>>3234375

But his work was.....

incomplete
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[Anonymous No.3234419]

>>3234367
It's adopted from SETI research
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Equation_of_Creation

[Anonymous No.3234428]

>>3234375
I dont know if this is it, am reading with a hope that this is what i vagueley remember from all those years ago.
>>3234419
This is what i kept getting when i first began researching, some actual equation that doesnt seem to state its theory, and is, to be honest baseless as a construct.

Thank you both.

[Anonymous No.3234439]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula

[Anonymous No.3234453]

ITT: angsty teenagers jealous of God's superior knowledge throwing out random ad hominem attacks.

[Anonymous No.3234490]

>>3234439
That may prove invaluable actually, thank you.

[Anonymous No.3234507]

>>3234180

FUCKING summer

[Anonymous No.3234523]

The concept came from calculating the probability of certain specific conditions existing within our universe that allow matter to form as it did, and various other laws of physicas behaving exactly as they do.
It is a fundamentally flawed equation as we do not know if our universe is unique, the probability has to be recalculated if its not.
And it relies on various other assumptions that are unprovable.

[Anonymous No.3234530]

>>3234194
OP, why don't you just construct a universe where that is possible? You are writing fiction, make it science-fiction (the god genre).

[Anonymous No.3234635]

>>3234530
It is allready, I cant go into specifics, but this relies heavily on two influences, bioneuroscience and the idea of god, as well as the duality of man, schizophrenia, the god complex of phycology and more.

The inclusion of this idea that there is an equation which can define or unlock god through pure maths, does actualy fit in quite well to this whole story.

It might be factually accurate, but itll be better than most of what holywood produces.

[Anonymous No.3234647]

Also, the fact that the god equation is not formally declared as a theorum anywhere means that i have the floor to play with the idea as much as i need to for it to fit the story, which is perfect and exactly why i began this research.

The more technically accurate I can be the better, but where accuracy isnt possible due to the lack of possible comparison, truth writes itself.

Ive gotten pages and pages worth of stuff that can help me along the road to writing this thing, so im just gonna say thanks to the people that helped and get down to the business at hand.