Spinoza's Notion that God is Nature is almost the proper definition....Almost ...that is except that If there is a God he or it is total probabilty of multiple variables.

Assuming the theory of the big bang is correct.  I certainly am no believer , but assuming this big bang happened and it was the cause of all subsequent effects and the cosmos and that that is Spinoza's notion of God being nature then it is a theory that needs major modification because for the big bang to have ever happened is a pure mater of probability.   As the theory goes.  In Nature, all of mass and energy were originally deposited in the singularity of a super dense gravitational mass, a super sized black hole containing virtually everything in the entire Universe so the theory goes.  That is almost poetic. Which maybe why the sad old theory of the singularity that goes big bang is so enticing to so many.




But wait for the big bang to have come from this massive density of infinite singularity of mass and energy it had to reach critical mass in the same sort of way that a nuclear bomb will have to have critical mass to begin with and after that it needs  a trigger or a point of no return from which there is no other future prospect than a big bang to have that big bang.  Many conditions have to be met by the theory of the big bang in order for any of it to have ever happened. First, somehow, somewhere, at some time, all of the elements of mass and energy had to come together and become compressed in one entity before something triggered the massive explosion called the big bang.  That is a sequence or even a code much like the reels in an old fashioned slot machine designed to simulate natural probability.    First all conditions have to be right each one clicking into place like the characters on the reels lining up and having each to satisfy the conditionality of multiple variations that are possible  until eventually the jackpot is hit and there is a big bang.


Say the president never really intended to negotiate with Iran and instead of having peace talks actually intended to bomb all their nuclear facilities without warning, First he would need to have the nuclear weapons necessary for the job selected and put into place  with code to launch them and code to direct them on missiles directly to their targets and there have to be codes and keys entered to get the nuclear bomb to have its big bang with variables as to when , where, delivery , timing plus the bomb has to be loaded and ready with critical mass.  So the same with the theory of the big bang.  All about conditional multi-variable probability that  there should be a big bang or just a small big bang over Iran. If A  and B then C?  God then has to be probability as the determining factor of everything that the periodic table can and DNA can code into existence.  That does not sound very scientific until you put it into a mathematic formula to define god which then has every thing to do with those simulation casino slot machine reel configuration where in order to receive the major big bang jackpot all the reels have to line up such that  aces or cherries all line up on a line that is also happening to be yet another conditional probability for a jackpot to occur. So it goes like this: If all the conditions are met a big bang is likely if not inevitable because that is not necessarily known.  Maybe something other than a big bang could have otherwise happened instead?


One can open a combination lock on a safe by knowing a set of calibrated moves for the dial of lock.  These safes can only be opened with the right combination of numbers...

Praying is an attempt to influence probability in coming events, I am pretty convinced now that the nameless God of the ancient monotheist Hebrews is Probability itself.

That nameless monotheistic Hebrew God is non other than probability. One prays to influence inevitable coming events and their outcomes. If you were going to give probability a name and anthropomorphize it I guess you could call it good luck but that would not include other kinds of luck including bad luck and no luck at all. There are good luck gods in plenty of other religions. If you were not going to name one it would be because it was the embodiment of probability. That may not sound very scientific but considering the number of times people around the world pray every minute of every day it actually maybe an important insight. It is sort of the same type of analogy the string theory believers are found of using . String theory is an analogy type of science and it has something in common with conditional probability as a major underlying dimension of cosmic reality. String theory actually has less science and mathematics behind it. Maybe you can calibrate various strings with frequency and wave but that is pretty arbitrary. Probability can easily be calculated in advance knowing as many of the known or knowable variables on the onset of any attempts. Praying is the magical thinking hoping for a favored or more favored outcome rather than just any outcome. Still knowing there is a multiplicity of possible outcomes is entirely different than saying a string in some tone or frequency is going to match. We can calculate the probability of life existing on earth sort of but can't say it evidences itself because of harmonics in nature.

Weather "Conditions" signify probabily! Never really thought about that before....

Did you know we use the word "condition" and "conditions" to describe the weather . The reason why is that weather is conditional on probability. Probability determines the weather . That is why we can have normal conditions that are in an average range and statistical outliers in either very calm or extraordinarily raging. Weather is incremental we mostly have chronological posting of "conditions" from various weather stations and we chart those incremental changes. Average has it own trend over time but that does not prevent statistical analysis showing extremes much of the time and even conflicting with what we see as normal seasonality. It is amazing I never before linked the idea that weather conditions are using a word that is all about probability. The idea of weather conditions says that weather is all about probability. Those that worship a god that regulates the weather and fertility are just worshiping probability as I said before. If God is anything he is probability as a dimension of reality.

Probablility is 100 Percent of the Tme an Expectation of Coincidence.

Every outcome in probability is a coincidence. Every coincidence can me made into a mater of calculation of probabilities. Sooner or later every possible coincidence should occur. It seems to us humans that unexpected things happing when something else is happening is a coincidence is only a fallacy . Why shouldn't coincidences always be occurring. When it comes to our genes being replicated in all the cells in our body that certainly would not be a coincidence. It seems like a coincidence when you meet you aunt by accident as a tourist on the other side of the world? Well maybe not. Not a coincidence at all . If all the laws of physics and of the natural order of things can work in multiple locations and even beyond at great distances in the cosmos, then the probability says it makes perfect sense. As it happens everything else that happens that we don't consider to be any special type of coincidence is also just as much of a coincidence itself.

Simple Proof Shows Entropy Does Not Exist.

If Entropy or the tendency towards system decline exists as a law of nature, thermodynamics then that law of nature and definition has to be modified. My thinking is that the modification is to say limited entropy in fixed systems probably exists. The problem is the notion of the entire universe tending toward an entropic state does not have supporting data. Where do I find supporting data? I say there is at least , maybe at most 14 billion years of supporting data. That is 14 billion years of light transmissions to telescopes on and around the earth. The 14 billion light year distance is a bit of an absurd number since galaxies thought to be in the deepest cosmic field have structures that are exactly the same as much more "modern" galaxies much closer to the earth in light years. We can immediately extend the age of the universe knowing that deep field galaxies are seen after 14 billion years of light transmission because it might take a galaxy more than a few billion years to assume that form as it does with more modern closer galaxies. Aside from that problem of distances and suspected age of the universe as a discrepancy of science, entropy as a law of physics also finds itself in question. One should expect, if entropy is a rule and law of nature that a galaxy a few million light years from earth should have more indicators of entropy in longer term decline than a more ancient galaxy some fallaciously assume was quickly generated after the big bang about 14 billion years ago. That is absurd since the deep field is in all direction around us and not concentrated at some spot in the sky where everything could have originated. Entropy if it existed would mean that the laws of physics should be quite different in the deepest most ancients corners of the known universe especially if there had been a big bang. The familiar structures of spiral and barred galaxies we see at close range are visible in the dark field only there they can appear to be closer together. So if we want to prove that entropy is correct we must do the following: 1. We need to prove that the laws of physics and nature are not the same the further we go back in cosmic history. 2. we need to prove that more modern manifestations of physics has suffered a decline in regenerative traits over time such that we, if we assume we are the most modern phase of cosmic reality , are in an entropic decline more than more a more structured past. 3. We need to figure out why our laws of physics and our perceptions about mathematic order in our physical reality are able to regenerate themselves. 4. We have to have an experiment where not just a system declines but where laws of physics just stop working or work more intermittently. No such experiment exists. For a while cold fusion experimentation seemed to be something like that but more ongoing tests showed a tendency for labs to repeat results. Where can we find an example of a decline from which no regeneration of patterns was possible longer term? Not from the astronomical data we have going back some 14 billion years. The conclusion is the proof that astronomical data assuming the most distant galaxies and cosmic features are time gone by or even some sort of time machine where we look back into the distant past because there is no entropy in any of that data. What then is entropy? It can remain the second law of thermodynamics but has to be modified as defined. Entropy is a decline in a thermodynamic system one with set non regenerative reflexive properties. A bomb blows up. Energy is released and the bomb is not going to regenerate itself after the explosion to repeat the cycle. It maybe true that a star or a galaxy blowing up also might not immediately be able to regenerate itself. There can still be system entropy just not cosmic laws of physics progressive entropy.

Casino's have the edge, in the long run the house always wins. Probability in casinos is fixed. In their electronic slot machines the entire process of having odds and probability is simulated.

Nature, the regulating laws of nature, is the house of probability simulated or natural if you prefer. Nature also has fixed odds and those odds favor nature being what nature is. It is the casino and their electronic and mechanical games, even decks of cards, that simulate probability. Even if not simulated nature's probability and odds favor the house of nature. It is clear that the reason why chemists , physicists, biologists can repeat the same results in the same experiment by multiple scientists in multiple locations is quite simply because where the variables are limited the games are fixed. The fact that I can reproduce the results of so many experiments under the same experimental conditions as the original experiments tells us that the odds favor the house of nature. Now I get what Einstein meant by "God does not play dice with the universe." God's Casino is a place where the odds favor the house. I have started working out an entire 100 percent mathematics religion Where probability itself is God. I may end up building the world's largest casino house of worship that is 100 percent tax free as a religious organization. In both Japan and China their temples had in them a kind of game of chance which happens to be a very ancient ritual. If you pray to God you are trying to influence probability possibly. The odds are you would exist and that you won't.

If There Was 100 percent certainty in the Universe we would not need probabilty.

If There was 100 percent certainty in the Universe we would not need probability. Maybe there is 100 percent certainty?    Probability is an interesting concept which seems to pertain to assaying the future rather than analyzing the past. It is pretty clear that if we know what happened in the past everything that happened was 100 percent certain so long as memory is good.  What is the probability of getting 4 Aces in a poker hand verses what was the probability of having that exact hand in a particular hand?  It was 100 percent certain because the event occurred.  Probability of that 4 aces card hand is not possible to change after the event occurs.  You can speculate about other possibilities that never happened . Yes the odds would be what future probability would be except all the hands of cards ever dealt are now history and cannot be changed.  There fore the past is at least theoretically 100% certain even if we don't have a clear memory of all of it or any of it.    The future is completely speculative and that is where probability seems to become most useful.  Probability allows us to predict future outcomes at least to some degree.  If this becomes a principle of physics then if we look back in space and time with astronomy then the probability of any of it is irrelevant.