, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


As my dear readers know, this blog likes math. Actually, this blog likes math even more when that math catches up with logical proofs, proofs that have been know for a few centuries.

This is on account of the LEX ARMATICUS that your humble blogger has defined which states that the Visibiliium Omnium is governed by the et Invisibilium. And since the et Invisibilium governs the Visibilium Omnium in total, it must also be the case that it governs its respective sub-sets as well. Therefore, what we have is Laws of the et Invisibilium that appear across different subsets of the Visibilium Omnium.

A good case in point is what is known as the State of Necessity. This blog has identified this same law appearing in the ecclesiastical, political and legal subsets of the Visibilium Omnium. We have explained just this in our post titled Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005.

Note bene: William of Ockham was a 13th/14th Century Franciscan Friar who developed his methodology known as Ockham’s (Occam’s) Razor during his lifetime. Currently, Ockham’s Razor is one of the most useful tools presently applied in the area of financial and market analysis. But I digress…

Below is an article that I ran across with an interesting headline: Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God. Putting this headline in a historical context, what this post says is that contemporary scientists have added more supporting evidence for another 13th Century theologian and philosopher”s proofs of the existence of God. That 13th Century theologian and philosopher, and rival of William of Ockham is St. Thomas Aquinas.

So what we have below is nothing new. What the subject matter of the post represents is just another proof (using a different sub-set of the et Invisibilium) to confirm the correctness of the work done in this area by St. Thomas Aquinas and contained in his seminal work, the Summa Theologica.

So enjoy the below and remember, being Catholic has its advantages. Things that we have known for centuries are a source of sensation among the pagans.

And the next time Francis pontificates about the Catholic Church Middle Ages, you dear reader will know better. Say what you will, their work has withstood the test of time.

Oh and this. Unlike today, those Catholics definitely didn’t pray to neither Gaia nor to Francis the “god of surprises”!

The original post can be found here.

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.

In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.

Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”.

You get it, right?

But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.

The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.

Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin’s Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: “It’s totally amazing that from this argument led by Gödel, all this stuff can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook.

“I didn’t know it would create such a huge public interest but [Gödel’s ontological proof] was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence…

“It’s a very small, crisp thing, because we are just dealing with six axioms in a little theorem.

“There might be other things that use similar logic.”