About omnipresence

[STT]

I think omnipresent is possible in this sense that everything is present to God.

 

[Gorgias]

The concept of omnipresence is invalidated by the fact that the future does not exist as an ontological entity, only as a set of possibilities.

You’re making a frame of reference error here.

The notion of “future” is a relative one. What is “future” to you today is not “future” to you tomorrow. What (was) future (and “only a set of possibilities”) to Ulysses S. Grant in the 19th century is ‘past’ (and has distinct and determined reality) to us today.

By the same token, what is “future” to a human is not “future” to God. God exists in an eternal “now” – all is present to Him. Therefore, what you call “future” or “set of possibilities” is to God “now” and real.

Your notion of “invalidation” only occurs to you as such because you’re misunderstanding (or misconstruing) what “future” means.

 

[STT]

You’re making a frame of reference error here.

The notion of “future” is a relative one. What is “future” to you today is not “future” to you tomorrow. What (was) future (and “only a set of possibilities”) to Ulysses S. Grant in the 19th century is ‘past’ (and has distinct and determined reality) to us today.

By the same token, what is “future” to a human is not “future” to God. God exists in an eternal “now” – all is present to Him. Therefore, what you call “future” or “set of possibilities” is to God “now” and real.

Your notion of “invalidation” only occurs to you as such because you’re misunderstanding (or misconstruing) what “future” means.

There is no set of possibilities in yous system of belief, the block universe. The future is unique. We of course have free will.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no set of possibilities in yous system of belief, the block universe.

The so-called “block universe” is not a feature of Catholic teaching.

The future is unique. We of course have free will.

True dat.

 

[Tyrel]

The so-called “block universe” is not a feature of Catholic teaching.

While this is true, I think the B-theory of time does follow from doctrines such as omniscience, Divine Simplicity, Immutability (etc.).

 

[STT]

While this is true, I think the B-theory of time does follow from doctrines such as omniscience, Divine Simplicity, Immutability (etc.).

That is not true. I discuss this in here:

Past, now and future are all real in B-series. This at first glance is consistent with God’s omniscience and Divine simplicity. Things however are subject to motion. This means that we need a reference point in block universe to keep track of changes. The position of this point is however subject to change which God should be aware of it. Therefore there is a conflict between B-series of time and God’s omniscience and Divine simplicity.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So you accept my syllogism as a logical and rational response since logically correct implies rational, since rational generally means to reason with logic. But now it is not sound?

Here is an example:

Premise#1: All elephants can play the piano.
Premise#2: Jumbo is an elephant.
Result: Therefore Jumbo can play the piano.

This is a logically correct argument - since the result follows from the premises, but it is not logically sound, since the premise: “all elephants can play the piano” is incorrect.

Your premise: “nothingness exists” is incorrect or at least loosely stated. The extended premise I offered “nothingness exists as a concept” would be correct. The other possible extension: “nothingness exists as an ontological entity” would be incorrect. And I am not interested in explaining “why”. If it is not self-evident for you, then there is no reason to continue.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This comment makes me sure you know something about the special and general theories of relativity (though you don’t seem to be aware of the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity), but your comment also makes me sure that you either don’t know anything about the A- and B- theories of time, or you might just be mixing them up.

Generally speaking the interpretations are secondary (at best!) to the mathematical equations of the theory. We certainly like to “visualize” the results coming from the math, but it is just an “icing on the cake” - if possible. The invariants of the space-time continuum are verified so precisely that until some experiment will falsify them, they must accepted as correct. And in that case the A-theory “wins” and the B-theory “loses”.

On the A-theory the present is ontologically privileged. On the more popular versions of the A-theory (namely, growing block theory and presentism) the future is not actual. On the B-theory there is no ontological difference between the past, present and future; all are equally actual.

Physical actuality cannot be separated from the “where”. Where is that ontologically existing past, or future? (In my opinion it cannot be separated from “when” either, but since you disagree, I only concentrate on the “where”.)

Your last three sentences here are so riddled with grammatical errors that I, sincerely, can’t make heads or tails of them.

Indeed, I made a mistake by using “is” instead of “does”, but that could have been “fixed” quite easily. The “fixed” version is directly above. I happened to write: “where IS that illusionary past and future reside”? (which was grammatically incorrect) instead of “where DOES that illusionary past and future reside”? Mea culpa. Not that an explanation is an excuse, but I added the second part later, and did not adjust the verb correctly. Yes, it was my fault. So “where” IS that past and the future?

For instance, the Molinists who believe that God has, in addition to knowledge of all necessary truths and knowledge of all contingent states of affairs, a sort of ‘middle-knowledge’ which consists in what people would freely do in non-actual circumstances.

What WOULD people do is completely different from what WILL people do. I certainly know that a tossed coin will land on either heads or tails (or none if someone snatches it in the air), but I cannot know what the actual result WILL be. (Yes, I am aware that having perfect knowledge of the starting parameters would enable one to “know” the final outcome - IF such a perfect knowledge would be possible. Check out chaos theory for details.) The point is that it is insufficient to know what “X” will do in all the different circumstances of C[sub]1[/sub], C[sub]s[/sub], C[sub]3[/sub],… C[sub]n[/sub],… it is also necessary to know which C[sub]y[/sub] will be actualized.

Even if it weren’t, why on earth think the A-theory is true, much less the specific versions of the A-theory on which the future does not exist?

As soon as you can show “where” the past and the future exist, and how can they be observed, I will be willing to contemplate that B-theory.

I think the claims of the alchemists and astrologers can be falsified; I do not think any of the Catholic faith has been falsified.

The point is that most of the assertions of your faith cannot be falsified. Many of them cannot even be defined, much less measured. But the ones, which can be measured are usually not substantiated by the experiments.

This is tangential, obviously, but genocide is perfectly conscionable on secularism, as can easily be demonstrated.

Most certainly, but that was not my point. Indeed under some circumstances genocide can be justified, but no one in his sound mind would confuse this act with “LOVE”.

The problem is that it is next to impossible to agree on the meaning of simple words, like “good”, “bad”, “evil” and also “love”. That is the fundamental stumbling block.

Where shall we go now?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Where shall we go now?

Well, since you are derailing the thread, out of boredom perhaps, maybe because you have either lost the argument or found yourself at a stalemate, why not start a new one about love, goodness and God.

 

[yppop]

Here is an example:

Premise#1: All elephants can play the piano.
Premise#2: Jumbo is an elephant.
Result: Therefore Jumbo can play the piano.

This is a logically correct argument - since the result follows from the premises, but it is not logically sound, since the premise: “all elephants can play the piano” is incorrect.

If you were able to read, you should recognize that I know what “sound” logic means and there is no need for this sophomoric comment.

Your premise: “nothingness exists” is incorrect or at least loosely stated. The extended premise I offered “nothingness exists as a concept” would be correct. The other possible extension: “nothingness exists as an ontological entity” would be incorrect. And I am not interested in explaining “why”. If it is not self-evident for you, then there is no reason to continue.

If you had the least modicum of forensic skill you would have asked what I meant by “nothingness” . Loosely stated?? How loose can two words be? By the way you have used the word “entity” in in opposite senses in our discussion. And then, of course, the the classic, “If it is not self-evident for you,…” smoke screen thrown out whenever one doesn’t have an answer. You are right about one thing, “there is no reason to continue.”
Yppop

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If you were able to read, you should recognize that I know what “sound” logic means and there is no need for this sophomoric comment.

No, I am not convinced that you understand the concept. You can look it up here: iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

If you had the least modicum of forensic skill you would have asked what I meant by “nothingness [exists]” .

Existence could refer to “ontological existence” OR “conceptual existence”. The concept of “nothingness” exists, but it has no referent in reality. The phrase “nothing exists” is a self-contradictory proposition, unless the word “exists” means “exists as a concept”.

 

[sonofbarry]

How would you suggest we ‘prove’ such an assertion? What methods or tools would be reasonable to utilize?

I’m not making any suggestions as to the methods or tools of proof. I simply asked whether the existence of God outside of time and space had been proved or not.

I suppose there are no tools or methods, other than the introspective concept of ‘revelation’.

Does the Bible refer to God existing outside time and space? If so, that would assist the discussion. I haven’t the time to look it up, so any advice would be appreciated.

Don’t over-think it. It was just a question.

 

[yppop]

No, I am not convinced that you understand the concept. You can look it up here: iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Existence could refer to “ontological existence” OR “conceptual existence”. The concept of “nothingness” exists, but it has no referent in reality. The phrase “nothing exists” is a self-contradictory proposition, unless the word “exists” means “exists as a concept”.

Enough with this silliness, here is a plausible argument for God’s omnipresence.

• The Dedekind-Cantor axiom of continuity implies that every point in space can be represented by a single number on the real number line and every number on the real number line is associated with a single point in three dimensional space.
• The rational numbers on the real number line can be distinguished from the rest of the real numbers and described in set theory as aleph(null). The real numbers are described as aleph(1). This allows us to identify two modalities of space: discrete space with the rational numbers, and continuous space with the real numbers
• Using the duality of space we can describe objective reality as a hylomorphic structure with discrete space providing the model for the material part and continuous space providing the model for the spiritual part.
• Just as the rational numbers are countable and hence are separated by gaps on the real number line, the D-C axiom implies that there are gaps in discrete space.
• It can be argued that matter is nothing more than specific configurations of discrete spatial points that are immersed in an infinite extent of continuous spiritual substance, and that every discrete spatial point that forms every particle of matter in the universe is immersed in an infinitude of the spiritual substance. We are immersed in the Mind of God and in that sense God is omnipresent.

Note that the hydrogen atom whose volume is determined by a single point particle called an electron is 30,000 times the volume ast the proton around which the electron rotates? forms a probability wave? or whatever other scheme? science might invent. The proton is composed of 3 point particle quarks. Matter seems to be disappearing into the immaterial and I contend that the immaterial can only be spiritual. In order to explain the connection between continuous space and the spiritual we would have to wade through a lot of other amazing CONCEPTS (your favorite diversion) before I could explain to you how this immaterial, psychical, spiritual substance, the Mind of God, that can be modeled with continuous space, the real numbers, and aleph(1), exists in your own befuddled head. But you will have to wait until my book appears on Kindle sometime this summer.

Yppop

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not making any suggestions as to the methods or tools of proof. I simply asked whether the existence of God outside of time and space had been proved or not.

That’s kind of difficult to answer, if we don’t know what standard of proof you’d accept, isn’t it?

I suppose there are no tools or methods, other than the introspective concept of ‘revelation’.

I don’t know that I’d call revelation ‘introspective.’

In any case, a variety of philosophers and theologians have tackled the question of the existence of God. Their arguments aren’t empirical measurements, inasmuch as empirical measurements are often used in the service of “proof”, but they do provide reasonable, logical argumentation for the claims.

Does the Bible refer to God existing outside time and space? If so, that would assist the discussion. I haven’t the time to look it up, so any advice would be appreciated.

Genesis 1:1 - “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…”

In other words, God does not exist within created spacetime; He exists outside it and has created it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Enough with this silliness, here is a plausible argument for God’s omnipresence.

• The Dedekind-Cantor axiom of continuity implies that every point in space can be represented by a single number on the real number line and every number on the real number line is associated with a single point in three dimensional space.
• The rational numbers on the real number line can be distinguished from the rest of the real numbers and described in set theory as aleph(null). The real numbers are described as aleph(1). This allows us to identify two modalities of space: discrete space with the rational numbers, and continuous space with the real numbers
• Using the duality of space we can describe objective reality as a hylomorphic structure with discrete space providing the model for the material part and continuous space providing the model for the spiritual part.
• Just as the rational numbers are countable and hence are separated by gaps on the real number line, the D-C axiom implies that there are gaps in discrete space.
• It can be argued that matter is nothing more than specific configurations of discrete spatial points that are immersed in an infinite extent of continuous spiritual substance, and that every discrete spatial point that forms every particle of matter in the universe is immersed in an infinitude of the spiritual substance. We are immersed in the Mind of God and in that sense God is omnipresent.

Note that the hydrogen atom whose volume is determined by a single point particle called an electron is 30,000 times the volume ast the proton around which the electron rotates? forms a probability wave? or whatever other scheme? science might invent. The proton is composed of 3 point particle quarks. Matter seems to be disappearing into the immaterial and I contend that the immaterial can only be spiritual. In order to explain the connection between continuous space and the spiritual we would have to wade through a lot of other amazing CONCEPTS (your favorite diversion) before I could explain to you how this immaterial, psychical, spiritual substance, the Mind of God, that can be modeled with continuous space, the real numbers, and aleph(1), exists in your own befuddled head. But you will have to wait until my book appears on Kindle sometime this summer.

Yppop

What a word salad. What you “contend” with the word “spiritual” is of no consequence. There is physical existence, which interacts with our senses. By observing the physical realm we created “abstractions”, or “concepts”. Abstractions do not “exists” on their own, no matter what Plato said. Abstractions are “inert”, they cannot interact with the physical
reality.

If you wish to create an analogy with numbers, use the real numbers, which are subdivided into algebraic numbers and transcendent numbers. No number can be BOTH algebraic AND transcendent.

 

[yppop]

What a word salad. What you “contend” with the word “spiritual” is of no consequence. There is physical existence, which interacts with our senses. By observing the physical realm we created “abstractions”, or “concepts”. Abstractions do not “exists” on their own, no matter what Plato said. Abstractions are “inert”, they cannot interact with the physical
reality.

If you wish to create an analogy with numbers, use the real numbers, which are subdivided into algebraic numbers and transcendent numbers. No number can be BOTH algebraic AND transcendent.

This smoke screen you’ve created tells me only that you didn’t, wouldn’t, or couldn’t understand my post and I opt for the last option. What I have presented is a plausible mathematical approach to explaining how God can be omnipresent physically by using the rational numbers on the real number line to represent discrete space and the real numbers, namely the irrationals, to represent continuous space. My argument then postulates that the physical elements, space, matter, energy and time are derived from the discrete space and the spiritual and psychical elements are explained using continuous space as a model.

This can most easily be done with the rational numbers as the foundation of objective reality and not with the algebraic/ transcendental split.

Sorry Vera, there is a God who is omnipresent. You prove the contrary, or at least provide a well thought out, plausible argument for the contrary.
Yppop

 

[Tyrel]

That is not true. I discuss this in here:

Yes, we were discussing this point. I have now responded to you in the latest comment in that thread.

 

[Tyrel]

Vera_Ljuba, I apologize for getting back to you only now. I had prepared a comment, and due to a technical difficulty, it was entirely lost before I could post it. I find that somewhat discouraging.

Generally speaking the interpretations are secondary (at best!) to the mathematical equations of the theory. We certainly like to “visualize” the results coming from the math, but it is just an “icing on the cake” - if possible. The invariants of the space-time continuum are verified so precisely that until some experiment will falsify them, they must accepted as correct. And in that case the A-theory “wins” and the B-theory “loses”.

Allow me to make this point in its own post, just to put the appropriate emphasis on it. The A-theory is the one which states that there is a real objective difference between past, present and future times. Versions of the A-theory like presentism and growing block theory suggest that the future is literally unreal. The B-theory, on the other hand, treats all these times as on an ontological par. I think you are confusing one for the other. This is a seemingly pedantic but extremely consequential point; to be confused about this is to condemn oneself to be confused about this entire discussion. It is, therefore, extremely important to get these straight. The B-theory suggests a ‘Block’ universe (you can think of ‘B’ as standing for ‘Block’ if you find it helpful, so long as you remember that the connection is entirely contrived for your convenience).

 

[Tyrel]

Having appropriately emphasized the most seminal point already, I will now attempt to proceed.

Physical actuality cannot be separated from the “where”. Where is that ontologically existing past, or future? (In my opinion it cannot be separated from “when” either, but since you disagree, I only concentrate on the “where”.)

This comment is used merely to illustrate the point: if you mix up the terms, you’ll end up arguing with a ghost. I am a B-theorist. In what follows I will try to ignore comments in which you clearly presume that I am an A-theorist about time, since that point of confusion should be cleared up by now.

What WOULD people do is completely different from what WILL people do. I certainly know that a tossed coin will land on either heads or tails (or none if someone snatches it in the air), but I cannot know what the actual result WILL be. (Yes, I am aware that having perfect knowledge of the starting parameters would enable one to “know” the final outcome - IF such a perfect knowledge would be possible. Check out chaos theory for details.) The point is that it is insufficient to know what “X” will do in all the different circumstances of C[sub]1[/sub], C[sub]s[/sub], C[sub]3[/sub],… C[sub]n[/sub],… it is also necessary to know which C[sub]y[/sub] will be actualized.

What people would do is, indeed, very different from what they will do, are doing, or have done. It is a counterfactual conditional. However, it seems trivially easy to account for how God could know what people will do, even if (for the sake of argument) God couldn’t know what people would do. I was simply noting the fact that if God had a comprehensive knowledge of what people would do, he could derive what they will do on the basis of knowing what actual state of affairs he elected to actualize. This amounts to an atemporal operation analogous to deriving what will happen from nomological facts.

The point is that most of the assertions of your faith cannot be falsified. Many of them cannot even be defined, much less measured. But the ones, which can be measured are usually not substantiated by the experiments.

If that is the point then my feeling is it has been poorly expressed. It seems to me that Catholicism is eminently falsifiable (certainly more falsifiable than any other religion, and measurably more falsifiable than naturalism). The Church has done a pretty impressive job of defining her beliefs, enshrining her teaching in authoritative sources.

You say that some assertions of the faith can be measured and, of those, most are not substantiated by experiments. First, what measurability has to do with verifiability escapes me entirely. Perhaps you mean verifiable by measurable? Second, if you do mean verifiable, then I’m curious what you have in mind. To my mind most of the predictions Catholicism has made have been surprisingly verified by modern science (e.g., the absolute beginning of the universe a finite time ago). There are, admittedly, theologically speculative theories which have been falsified by science (e.g., geocentrism), and there is currently at least one genuine conflict between the infallible teaching of monogenism and our currently best understanding of population genetics. However, to suggest that this amounts to a majority of potentially verifiable/falsifiable Catholic beliefs being falsified seems way too quick (at best).

Most certainly, but that was not my point. Indeed under some circumstances genocide can be justified, but no one in his sound mind would confuse this act with “LOVE”.

Suppose one commits genocide out of ‘love’ for humanity. Isn’t that entirely coherent (putting aside whether it is morally sane)? It seems to me that it is. I don’t think you can get the clean distinction you want here.

The problem is that it is next to impossible to agree on the meaning of simple words, like “good”, “bad”, “evil” and also “love”. That is the fundamental stumbling block.

That seems both untrue and irrelevant if true. Most of us are in basic agreement about the meanings of those terms, even if we disagree about the references of those terms. Even if we disagreed on their basic meanings, that would amount to no difficulty which couldn’t be resolved with either a translation scheme, or an agreement to play a common language game for the purposes of argument.

Where shall we go now?

Before we go anywhere, I suppose, I’d like to get your reaction to these latest comments, and in particular I’d like to know that you don’t, or will not in future, have the A- and B- theories mixed up.

 

[STT]

Yes, we were discussing this point. I have now responded to you in the latest comment in that thread.

It is question of now and whether God knows it or not. He is not omniscient if He doesn’t know it.