God exists; but how?

[MindOverMatter]

Care to define mind?

That which knows. In respect of God, it is to have complete or infinite (depending on your interpretation of an infinite) knowledge of self.

Seems to me like a good way to explain “Creatio et nihilo”.

The term ‘nothing’ is a key philosophical term which is very important to my philosophy in so far as proving the existence of a ‘Pure un-changing Being’, or ‘pure expression’. This is why it is repugnant to me that you have hijacked the term and given it new meaning. For what reason? Why does calling God infinite nothing explain ‘Creation ex nihilo’? Why not just say “Pure Being”, for in doing so, you salvage Gods ontological existence, and you undo any confusion by providing an ultimate ground for that which changes. Why do you want to be original? Surely being clear and logically accurate is more important?

It may sound like ridicule; but if you read my earlier posts more carefully, you would know what I “MEAN” by infinite nothingness.

Well, I’m sorry but calling something nothing and applying positive ontological descriptions to that which is nothing, is, first of all grammatically erroneous, and secondly darn confusing, and thirdly, irrational. Its basically like saying that non-being is a being. When we say things like this, we ruin good philosophy. Sorry to say.

Could be wrong but I thought I defined it very specifically. When you get to my definition of “mind” you will see that I believe the mind is composed of two components

How can it be composed of anything if its nothing?!!! Out of nothing comes nothing!!.

the spiritual part that I call nous,

Isn’t this a platonic concept? Isn’t nous just another word for mind?

and a material part which I call “the language instinct”, which is the neuronal circuitry of the brain that takes part in language skills.

If you read your next paragraph and replace your “Existence” with my “Infinite Nothingness” the meaning will not change very much.

Yes it will, since existence is being, while nothing is just…well…nothing.

Words are superfluous;

Words and their meanings are very important, especially when one seeks to make important distinctions between beings and being in itself. How are we to describe nothingness if you are content on hijacking the word and robing it of its meaning. This is very poor behavior; did you not know that robbery is a crimminal offense?

Now if you agree with me on that

I never like to disagree with people, but you give me no choice.

yourself which of the two expressions would cause the most ambiguity? You see “Existence” would not fit nicely in my thesis since I define infinite nothingness as the spirit (substance) of God, and then distribute it throughout the universe as nomos.

Well…existence, by its very nature of existing, permeates all that which exists. So, i fail to see why an infinite nothingness would serve as a better definition.

Then when matter reaches a threshold of complexity and corpusculates through abiogenesis, it encapsulates a particle of the infinite nothingness I call bios,

It seems to me that you are trying to naturalize God and rob him of his will. You cannot encapsulate that which is beyond parts. You cannot take parts of God and create new Gods. This is pantheism which you are proposing..

 

[MindOverMatter]

becomes a cell and lives. Later cells diversify and multiply until another threshold of complexity occurs and multicellular organisms are created. When morphogenesis occurs, the organisms also corpusculate and encapsulate a particle of infinite nothingness called nous. Later still, God creates a multicellular with a language skill, which combines with the nous to become the mind and the first man appears. By defining the spiritual component of reality in “physical” terms and then using it as the basis for life, body, mind, and eventually soul, I have built comprehensiveness into my model. I don’t believe that I could use a word like “Existence” in the same way among the various levels of organization that matter takes on its path of complexity.

Well, they have degrees or modes of ‘existing’, and so to say that they are ultimately created by that which is ‘pure-existence’, by its very nature of being, seems to express the reality of things quite accurately.

The rest of your post is a commentary of your ideas about actualization, an idea that I believe we share and may even utilize the same terminology.

You’ve been reading my work? I’m honored.

Later in my thesis when I get to creation I will talk about the realms of Possibilty (God),

You must mean here that God is the root of all possibility, correct?

God is all things possible;

Correction. God is the reason why there are possibilities.

(the noosphere).

Wait a minute, you are starting to sound like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin!! Is that you?

Thank you for your comments,
Yppop

Trust me. The pleasure was allllllllllll mine.

 

[greylorn]

That which knows. In respect of God, it is to have complete or infinite (depending on your interpretation of an infinite) knowledge of self.

The term ‘nothing’ is a key philosophical term which is very important to my philosophy in so far as proving the existence of a ‘Pure un-changing Being’, or ‘pure expression’. This is why it is repugnant to me that you have hijacked the term and given it new meaning. For what reason? Why does calling God infinite nothing explain ‘Creation ex nihilo’? Why not just say “Pure Being”, for in doing so, you salvage Gods ontological existence, and you undo any confusion by providing an ultimate ground for that which changes. Why do you want to be original? Surely being clear and logically accurate is more important?

Well, I’m sorry but calling something nothing and applying positive ontological descriptions to that which is nothing, is, first of all grammatically erroneous, and secondly darn confusing, and thirdly, irrational. Its basically like saying that non-being is a being. When we say things like this, we ruin good philosophy. Sorry to say.:mad
How can it be composed of anything if its nothing?!!! Out of nothing comes nothing!!.

How terribly interesting, observing people arguing about “nothing.”

If he was about and around, Shakespeare might complain about your theft of his comedy plot (Much Ado About…)

Nonetheless, you have at least chosen a topic upon which you are admirably qualified to lecture, digress, expound, and promote.

Your choice to promote your points in loud and annoying type face reminds me of an old song, entitled, “Who Put the Overalls in Mrs. Murphy’s Chowder?” One of its lines spoke to a loud Irish drunk, who, when he had nothing of value to say, “…hollered all the louder.”

My complaint with this post is not the content, which is irrelevant, but the loudness.

If you have “nothing” to say, why not speak it in whispers, in a private room where it does not disturb anyone interested in a civil conversation?

 

[greylorn]

Apparently you didn’t get the idea that reality is run algorithmically at the implicate level and the designer of that algorithm is God. What do you expect of me?

I’ve made that perfectly clear. I expect you to describe the algorithm.

I notice that when talk show people with minds interview, say, liberals, who have some ideas about how to make the world better, the liberals mouth big, confusing words, and wrap more words around their big words, until neither the host nor the viewer knows what anyone is talking about.

You’re using a “big word” here, “algorithm.” Most people reading this site have no idea what that means, They might look it up in a dictionary, but as a fellow engineer, you know that a dictionary definition for such a term conveys little real meaning

Therefore, you can have only two purposes for using the word, “algorithm.”

One is to impress people with your expertise and erudition.

The other might be to introduce the algorithm which you have personally devised which might be similar in some respect to God’s algorithm for universe design. But since when I invite you to expose such algorithm, you waffle, I can only assume that you have no idea what such an algorithm might be and are using the big word to impress other readers.

I am certain that you will succeed in impressing other readers.

Algorithms, as you surely know, are what drive computers and software designers have created some very realistic simulations of reality (games, movies). It is not too much of a mental stretch to transform the simulations that are available on computers to the ground of reality where I contend that a cosmic algorithm (God’s) determines the configuration of all the s-points (an s-frame) and implements the incrementation to the next s-frame to create reality. You don’t need an algorithm to describe the relationship between s-points (you mean s-gaps) and light speed. The relationship between the speed of light and the s-gap is a simple equation.

That is what you have implied. So, what is this simple equation? That is all I ask.

Let me repeat: What is this simple equation?

My guess is that you will not divulge this simple equation because you do not know it.
I’m throwing the gauntlet.

Produce the equation, complete with an explanation of terms, or stop pretending that your theory is sufficiently coherent to be put into physical/mathematical terms.

 

[greylorn]

Hi GL,
I just glanced at your last two posts and I see I have a lot of work to do before I can answer with the effort you deserve. Unfortunately for the last three and next three days we are enteratining visitors from the west coast and since they are our rich relatives and I still have a chance to be in the will, I can’t ignore them; so you just have to wait until I get back to you.
Go out and do some country dancing until I get back. Will be in Philly next two days. So I will beon my way.
Yppop

YP
In a more recent post you’ve claimed to have answered all my questions. Yet I’ve never received a follow-up to this promise. Do you regard a promise to answer as an answer?

If so, I hope you get the opportunity to buy lettuce with California IOU’s.

 

[greylorn]

I’m totally confused. To begin with, I do not know the meaning of the term, “Planck era.” Help?

This lapse was pretty stupid on my part. I try to put esoteric concepts into ordinary language, so in my slow way of thinking, eras and epochs are relatively large scale terms, as commonly used to reference geological periods.

I am accustomed to adjusting the jargon according to the subject. When timing a computer-controlled process, for example, I prefer to think in terms of microseconds or less.

When dealing with subatomic physics, I adjust the terms accordingly. A nanosecond, which as you know is only a billionth of a second, is a rather long time in the context of atomic processes.

It would never have occurred to me to label a time period which is about a nanosecond of a nanosecond of a nanosecond of a nanosecond (did I miss one?) as an “era” or an “epoch.” Duh. My bad.

I must need to adjust my thinking in the light of Orwellian physics. An era is now an instant.

No wonder we cannot figure much out anymore!

And I must apologize for wondering about the “quantum effects” of gravity. Nice, obfuscating words. But last I studied these things, gravity was well described by Al’s theory of General Relativity. Gravity is a large-scale phenomenon. Moreover, General Relativity and QM are mutually incompatible.

I am aware that some extraordinarily brilliant fools have devised complex (and dubious)
theories of quantum gravity. None of those I’ve looked into seem to work, and, alas, none have been experimentally verified.

Al’s Gen.Relativity theory has been experimentally verified. Which theory of gravity do you recommend that we discount, so as to support your personal theories?

I consider the s-gap to be the limiting factor on the speed of light…

I’ll keep asking this question until I either get a straight answer, or until you admit that you do not have one.

The “s-gap” is a length. A distance measurement.

The velocity of light is a slightly more complex quantity, expressed as length divided by time. (c=186,000 miles per second, approximately.)

How, exactly, is a length a limitation on velocity? What is the mathematical relationship between the length of an s-gap and the velocity of light?

Give us an equation, please, or have the personal integrity to admit that you have no such equation and never will have.

I;ve asked you before to define the length of an “s-gap,” and the best you’ve come up with is to admit that it might be the Planck length. Then, I’ve invited you to describe a digitized space in which all fixed-length s-gaps are equidistant. You’ve not been helpful, so I’m repeating the question.

In order to make your ideas coherent, you must decide if s-gaps are fixed or variable, and if variable, as you seem to be thinking, what are the parameters which describe their variations?

You’ve not answered these questions, and this surprises me. You’ve contributed good and insightful criticisms to me after perusing my website. I really appreciate this. The level of insights you’ve given me could not have come from someone who did not understand fundamental principles of physics and logic. I’ve adjusted my writings accordingly.

Yet, you’ve never addressed a serious issue which I’ve presented to you, except in vague and uninformative terms. You claim to have done so. Prior to this note, I’ve repeated a number of questions.

I am genuinely sorry if any of my posts have offended you. I respect your intelligence, a tribute which I afford few posters. I do not have the time and energy to schmooze or mollify, so get that I respect your mind and that I am getting tired of your demurrals and obfuscations.

If you don’t want to answer a question, don;'t answer it. But don’t pretend that you’re a liberal on a conservative talk show whose blathering and obfuscations represent answers. Can’t you and I at least tell one another the truth?

 

[jkiernan56]

God is not an Algorithm. If Premise = False then Conclusion = False

 

[yppop]

MOM

Iasked you to define mind and you wrote: That which knows. In respect of God, it is to have complete or infinite (depending on your interpretation of an infinite) knowledge of self.

I must bow to you, MOM; my definition cannot stand up to this brilliant, original definition of yours, simple yet profound. I believe the mind is composed of two components: the spiritual part that I call nous, and a material part which I call “the language instinct”, which is the neuronal circuitry of the brain that takes part in language skills. Your definition is straightforward: THAT which knows. I wonder what THAT is? Your definition is far broader than mine. I thought that by combining the spiritual agency (nous) with the material (language instinct), the definition of a mind would be restricted to humans only. You on the other hand contend that since any organism that “knows”, such as when the Monarch Butterfly “knows’ its way to Mexico, it surely must have a mind!!
By the way, is there more than one interpretation of infinite? I know of only the mathematical definition of Cantor.

You wrote: *The term ‘nothing’ is a key philosophical term which is very important to my philosophy in so far as proving the existence of a ‘Pure un-changing Being’, or ‘pure expression’. This is why it is repugnant to me that you have hijacked the term and given it new meaning. For what reason? Why does calling God infinite nothing explain ‘Creation ex nihilo’? Why not just say “Pure Being”, for in doing so, you salvage Gods ontological existence, and you undo any confusion by providing an ultimate ground for that which changes. Why do you want to be original? Surely being clear and logically accurate is more important? *

Let’s get this out of the way once and for all. In no instance have I used the word ‘nothing’ when I meant ‘nothingness’. A person of your intellect surely can deal with the sublety that the addition of the suffix ‘-ness’ gives a word. Think about bitter and bitterness; sad and sadness; and for example, this construction: rhetorically speaking, you may be dumb, but not necessarily suffering from dumbness. I have explained what I mean by ‘infinite nothingness’ enough times in this thread that I can’t believe that you don’t get it. Why don’t you ponder this paradoxical staement: “Nothing exists” and see how you interpret it. I mitigated the paradox preferring to translate to the statement: “Nothingness exists”, on which I then spend considerable time saying what I mean by nothingness. What I mean, I believe, is equivalent to your Existence. You know, as in Existence exists. I know that is not what you wrote, but below you did write this: “Well…existence, by its very nature of existing, permeates all that which exists”. Kind of like: Well…persistence, by its very nature of persisting, permeates all that which persists”. By the way, grammatically speaking, an ellipsis requires only three dots.

What could “creatio ex nihilo” possibly mean to you? Creation from Existence? I wonder what the good Dominican Father Albert Moraczewski O.P., Phd., meant when he wrote, “Clearly when the concept of creation is used in relationship to God, reference is made to God’s bringing into existence the entire universe and its contents from absolute nothingness (creatio ex nihilo)(see Genesis, chaper 1;2 maccabees 7:28)” in his book Germ Line Intervention and the Moral Tradition of the Catholic Church?

I had intended to answer the rest of your comments, but I see that this may turn into a verbal food fight and I have much better things to do with my life

So just to verify that assessment I decided to analyze your post strictly from a personal point of view and here is what I found:

1. You imply I seek to be original at the expense of being clear and logically accurate.
2. You find my choice of words repugnant
3. I am guilty of being grammatically erroneous (you should check your own writing sometime), darn confusing, and irrational and have ruined good philosophy (whose, yours?)
4. I am guilty of hijacking the word (nothingness?) and robing (would that be a bathrobe?) it of its meaning. (I didn’t know that words only had one meaning each?)
5. Very poor behavior? Robbery? Crimminal offense?
6. I forced you to disagree with people? I think that is what your statement means,why don’t you parse it for me.
7. I am also guilty of naturalizing God and rob him of his will. (Or do you mean robe him of His will?)
8. And finally, I am a pantheist; I think you must mean panentheist? Or have you given new meaning to the word pantheism since you precede it with an allusion to creation of new Gods as in pantheon??

But I want to thank you in one regard (incidently, reconsider your usage of “in regard of God” rather than “in regard to God” when you defined ‘mind’ at the beginning of this post) you made my decision to quit this forum easy.

Have good life
Yppop

 

[yppop]

GL, my friend

That means I’ll need to drop out of this conversation. It would be absurd to attempt to contribute to a conversation which I don’t understand, as other posters demonstrate. I drop out with regrets and apologies, recalling that I earlier advised you privately to publish your ideas.

A promise not kept!

If you read my last post to MOM you’ll know that I made the same promise and plan to keep it.

However, in respect to your sense of humor, I will leave you with the simple equation that I had hoped that you would figure out on your own, but alas it must have been too much trouble because I figure you have the intellect.
Here it is:

[speed of light] = [s-gap] / [Planck era]

I guess you couldn’t figure it out because of a hang-up with the Planck era. I see you may have trouble with the sense of humor of physicists. Certainly you know where the word ‘quark’ came from. Or when Ralph Alpher and George Gamow wrote their paper on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis they talked their colleague Hans Bethe to cosign it so that it could be called the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. Do I need to explain it?

So in the words of an ancient sage:

Who threw the overalls in Misses Murphy’s chowder?
No one spoke,so he yelled all the louder.
It’s an Irish trick, I know and I can lick the Mick that threw,
The overalls’ in Missis Murphy’s Chowder.

Sang it many times.
Yppop

 

[fosio]

Very easy to answer the question in the title.

A god exists b/c there is nothing more powerful than a god to obstruct his coming into being (by the definition of a god as all-powerful) But suppose there were something equally powerful to god to obstruct his coming into being – well then that something would also be god (by definition) – so at least one god must exist.

This is based on the principle that for something logically possible to not exist, something at least as powerful must prevent it from coming into being just as something at least as powerful as a particular fire must prevent it from spreading or something at least as powerful as a tsunami must prevent it from flooding a city.

But then you could ask why is this principle true? I would say it is true because as a logical truth it is part of the inherent logical, rational structure of God and God as we have shown can’t not exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

My complaint with this post is not the content, which is irrelevant, but the loudness.

You don’t have to come to this forum. If you don’t like how i present my views, put me on ignore. Thats the mature thing to do.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I must bow to you, MOM;

Don’t bow to me. I know that I’m an intellectual giant, but i assure you that your worship is not what i want.

my definition cannot stand up to this brilliant, original definition of yours, simple yet profound. I believe the mind is composed of two components: the spiritual part that I call nous, and a material part which I call “the language instinct”, which is the neuronal circuitry of the brain that takes part in language skills. Your definition is straightforward: THAT which knows. I wonder what THAT is? Your definition is far broader than mine. I thought that by combining the spiritual agency (nous) with the material (language instinct), the definition of a mind would be restricted to humans only. You on the other hand contend that since any organism that “knows”, such as when the Monarch Butterfly “knows’ its way to Mexico,

I did not know that butterflies have knowledge of self let alone that they know of a place in existence called mexico.

Anything that has knowledge of self has mind. I would have thought this to be a necessary and obvious factor in the nature of self. But perhaps knowledge of self is a bit problematic in terms of people, since when they go to sleep one could argue that they don’t have knowledge of self. I see my error. So i will change it. Anything that has the nature of “self” has mind. Some people may even disagree with that. Do you disagree with my description of mind?

You wrote: The term ‘nothing’ is a key philosophical term which is very important to my philosophy in so far as proving the existence of a ‘Pure un-changing Being’, or ‘pure expression’.

Whats the problem?
yppop;5434070:

Let’s get this out of the way once and for all. In no instance have I used the word ‘nothing’ when I meant ‘nothingness’. A person of your intellect surely can deal with the sublety that the addition of the suffix ‘-ness’ gives a word.

Adding “ness” to nothing, does not grant ontological significance, and thus doesn’t give your views anymore credibility. Sorry.

Think about bitter and bitterness; sad and sadness; and for example, this construction:

One problem; all these terms can be said to have existential significance. To say that a person is sad is meaningful. But to say that nothingness exists, is a contradiction in terms.

I have explained what I mean by ‘infinite nothingness’ enough times in this thread that I can’t believe that you don’t get it.

Explain to my why i should understand why you use the term nothingness to describe something that positively exists?

Why don’t you ponder this paradoxical staement: “Nothing exists” and see how you interpret it.

The term “Nothing exist” is an erroneous statement if it is meant to be a positive description of reality.

I mitigated the paradox preferring to translate to the statement: “Nothingness exists”, on which I then spend considerable time saying what I mean by nothingness.

You mean nothing.

What I mean, I believe, is equivalent to your Existence.

No it is not. God is existence. Nothingness is nothing. Don’t get me wrong, i understand what you want nothingness to mean, but i don’t see what possible good can come from making things more confusing. Why call God nothingness?

You know, as in Existence exists. I know that is not what you wrote, but below you did write this: “Well…existence, by its very nature of existing, permeates all that which exists”

. Kind of like: Well…persistence, by its very nature of persisting, permeates all that which persists”.

Persistence is not what i mean by existence.

By the way, grammatically speaking, an ellipsis requires only three dots.

I can put as many dots as i like, you will still understand what i mean. But i still don’t understand why you call God nothingness.

 

[MindOverMatter]

What could “creatio ex nihilo” possibly mean to you? Creation from Existence? I wonder what the good Dominican Father Albert Moraczewski O.P., Phd., meant when he wrote, “Clearly when the concept of creation is used in relationship to God, reference is made to God’s bringing into existence the entire universe and its contents from absolute nothingness (creatio ex nihilo)(see Genesis, chaper 1;2 maccabees 7:28)” in his book Germ Line Intervention and the Moral Tradition of the Catholic Church?

This means that God did not use any pre-existing materials to create the universe like Greylorns God. It does not intend to mean that God is nothing, that God literally pulled the universe out of a positive reality called nothing. Surely you are not implying that God is positively nothing are you? This is what you were positively denying in a previous post.

I had intended to answer the rest of your comments, but I see that this may turn into a verbal food fight and I have much better things to do with my life.

Then what was the point of throwing words at me?

So just to verify that assessment I decided to analyze your post strictly from a personal point of view and here is what I found:

If you decide to take things personally i can’t help you.

1. You imply I seek to be original at the expense of being clear and logically accurate.

I think so. Why else would you use the term infinite nothingness. The reason i have a problem with it, is because you can simply say that God is a spiritual entity; there are better words you can use. Surely? I see no purpose in calling God infinite nothingness. You have not gained in anything by doing so. I can understand a person reinventing words or using analogies in order to help people understand a difficult subject better, but i don’t think that you are going to make your life or anyones life any easier by using the term “infinite-nothingness”

1. You find my choice of words repugnant

Only in terms of constructive learning. If you are going to spend more time explaining the meaning of words then doing philosophy, then there is a serious flaw in the words that you are using and the way in which you are using them. Why not just use terms people understand; use analogy. This is only going to make your life more easier.

1. I am guilty of being grammatically erroneous (you should check your own writing sometime), darn confusing, and irrational and have ruined good philosophy (whose, yours?)

Well…you’re not doing philosophy any favors, thats for sure. I might make a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, but I’m content with using language that people can understand.

1. I am guilty of hijacking the word (nothingness?) and robing (would that be a bathrobe?)

Thats fun. Its better then taking things personally.

it of its meaning. (I didn’t know that words only had one meaning each?)

Nothing only has one meaning. Its a term that concerns no being. Its an absence of being. Call me prejudice, but thats just how i see it.

1. Very poor behavior? Robbery? Crimminal offense?

That was just a joke. Lighten up.

1. And finally, I am a pantheist; I think you must mean panentheist? Or have you given new meaning to the word pantheism since you precede it with an allusion to creation of new Gods as in pantheon??

Everybody makes mistakes. Perhaps one day you will admit yours, preferably before publishing your book.

But I want to thank you in one regard (incidently, reconsider your usage of “in regard of God” rather than “in regard to God” when you defined ‘mind’ at the beginning of this post) you made my decision to quit this forum easy.

You are going to give up on us just because i made a few errors? Thats a shame, but I assure you, i am not going to feel guilty for criticizing your work. But i apologize if i insulted you or acted inappropriately. Its been nice talking.

P.s. I think you should consider changing the term Infinite nothingness to something else.

Peace.

 

[greylorn]

God is not an Algorithm. If Premise = False then Conclusion = False

Thank you for your deep insights and clear elucidation thereof.

 

[greylorn]

MOM

Iasked you to define mind and you wrote: That which knows. In respect of God, it is to have complete or infinite (depending on your interpretation of an infinite) knowledge of self.

I must bow to you, MOM; my definition cannot stand up to this brilliant, original definition of yours, simple yet profound. I believe the mind is composed of two components: the spiritual part that I call nous, and a material part which I call “the language instinct”, which is the neuronal circuitry of the brain that takes part in language skills. Your definition is straightforward: THAT which knows. I wonder what THAT is? Your definition is far broader than mine. I thought that by combining the spiritual agency (nous) with the material (language instinct), the definition of a mind would be restricted to humans only. You on the other hand contend that since any organism that “knows”, such as when the Monarch Butterfly “knows’ its way to Mexico, it surely must have a mind!!
By the way, is there more than one interpretation of infinite? I know of only the mathematical definition of Cantor.

You wrote: *The term ‘nothing’ is a key philosophical term which is very important to my philosophy in so far as proving the existence of a ‘Pure un-changing Being’, or ‘pure expression’. This is why it is repugnant to me that you have hijacked the term and given it new meaning. For what reason? Why does calling God infinite nothing explain ‘Creation ex nihilo’? Why not just say “Pure Being”, for in doing so, you salvage Gods ontological existence, and you undo any confusion by providing an ultimate ground for that which changes. Why do you want to be original? Surely being clear and logically accurate is more important? *

Let’s get this out of the way once and for all. In no instance have I used the word ‘nothing’ when I meant ‘nothingness’. A person of your intellect surely can deal with the sublety that the addition of the suffix ‘-ness’ gives a word. Think about bitter and bitterness; sad and sadness; and for example, this construction: rhetorically speaking, you may be dumb, but not necessarily suffering from dumbness. I have explained what I mean by ‘infinite nothingness’ enough times in this thread that I can’t believe that you don’t get it. Why don’t you ponder this paradoxical staement: “Nothing exists” and see how you interpret it. I mitigated the paradox preferring to translate to the statement: “Nothingness exists”, on which I then spend considerable time saying what I mean by nothingness. What I mean, I believe, is equivalent to your Existence. You know, as in Existence exists. I know that is not what you wrote, but below you did write this: “Well…existence, by its very nature of existing, permeates all that which exists”. Kind of like: Well…persistence, by its very nature of persisting, permeates all that which persists”. By the way, grammatically speaking, an ellipsis requires only three dots.

What could “creatio ex nihilo” possibly mean to you? Creation from Existence? I wonder what the good Dominican Father Albert Moraczewski O.P., Phd., meant when he wrote, “Clearly when the concept of creation is used in relationship to God, reference is made to God’s bringing into existence the entire universe and its contents from absolute nothingness (creatio ex nihilo)(see Genesis, chaper 1;2 maccabees 7:28)” in his book Germ Line Intervention and the Moral Tradition of the Catholic Church?

I had intended to answer the rest of your comments, but I see that this may turn into a verbal food fight and I have much better things to do with my life

So just to verify that assessment I decided to analyze your post strictly from a personal point of view and here is what I found:

1. You imply I seek to be original at the expense of being clear and logically accurate.
2. You find my choice of words repugnant
3. I am guilty of being grammatically erroneous (you should check your own writing sometime), darn confusing, and irrational and have ruined good philosophy (whose, yours?)
4. I am guilty of hijacking the word (nothingness?) and robing (would that be a bathrobe?) it of its meaning. (I didn’t know that words only had one meaning each?)
5. Very poor behavior? Robbery? Crimminal offense?
6. I forced you to disagree with people? I think that is what your statement means,why don’t you parse it for me.
7. I am also guilty of naturalizing God and rob him of his will. (Or do you mean robe him of His will?)
8. And finally, I am a pantheist; I think you must mean panentheist? Or have you given new meaning to the word pantheism since you precede it with an allusion to creation of new Gods as in pantheon??

But I want to thank you in one regard (incidently, reconsider your usage of “in regard of God” rather than “in regard to God” when you defined ‘mind’ at the beginning of this post) you made my decision to quit this forum easy.

Have good life
Yppop

Yes! Good work. If you and I had met earlier, maybe 20-30 years ago and worked together on an engineering project, we’d be co-authoring one book instead of separately struggling with our personal theories. Or, we’d have shot one another! In between, we’d have shared ideas, beliefs, and contradictions and helped to support the beer industry.

P.S. M.O.M. had an interesting point. If you were to substitute, literally, “something else” for “infinite nothingness,” doing so would offer at least a different perspective.
If nothing else it would reduce the power of words and their pejorative history to influence our thoughts.

 

[greylorn]

GL, my friend

A promise not kept!

I lied.

If you read my last post to MOM you’ll know that I made the same promise and plan to keep it.

If you do, he deserves it. But what happens if he reads your posts and various others, and finally wises up, acknowledging his imperfect understanding? Stranger things could happen. (e.g.you could admit that my ideas…)

However, in respect to your sense of humor, I will leave you with the simple equation that I had hoped that you would figure out on your own, but alas it must have been too much trouble because I figure you have the intellect.
Here it is:

[speed of light] = [s-gap] / [Planck era]

I guess you couldn’t figure it out because of a hang-up with the Planck era.

Had I figured it out and posted my insight, I’d have robbed you of the opportunity to garner credit. Kindly interpret my restraint in beating you to this insight as pure human generosity.

While awaiting receipt of your appreciation, I will subject your equation to dimensional analysis early in a subsequent day, i.e. when sober.

In the meantime I intend to take exclusive personal credit for annoying you enough to put an idea of yours into analytical terms.

I see you may have trouble with the sense of humor of physicists. Certainly you know where the word ‘quark’ came from. Or when Ralph Alpher and George Gamow wrote their paper on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis they talked their colleague Hans Bethe to cosign it so that it could be called the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. Do I need to explain it?

Actually, I love the sense of humor of physicists, especially Feynman. I confess that while I’ve been taught by a few with a sense of humor, most of my physics teachers took themselves and their subject way too seriously. I have a better appreciation of the sense of humor of astronomers and engineers, from personal experience.

I’ve no clue about the origin of the word quark, except that it may have come from Gell-Mann, a pretentious physicist who I am certain will be proven wrong on everything. Yes, he is brilliant. History has shown that brilliant people can get off on a false track. When you and I come back to this goofy planet, we’ll find (I hope) that Murray’s papers have been put on the same pile of trash as phlogiston theory.

I regard the quark concept as absurd, so admittedly have not attempted to analyze it in much depth. If it made a difference, I would. (Darwinism is equally silly, but it makes a difference, and has the advantage of being easier reading.)

The ABC story is obvious, though I’d not heard of it before you shared it. Thanks! Consistent with astronomers’ sense of humor, which is different from that of physicists, engineers, and programmers. But you know that.

So in the words of an ancient sage:

Who threw the overalls in Misses Murphy’s chowder?
No one spoke,so he yelled all the louder.
It’s an Irish trick, I know and I can lick the Mick that threw,
The overalls’ in Missis Murphy’s Chowder.

Sang it many times.
Yppop

I can’t sing, but played guitar before I rolled a Honda over my outboard wrist. Don’t tell anyone who put the overalls in the chowder. They need a more realistic level of mystery in their lives so that they will stop posting on our forum.

 

[HelenaMT]

At any instant, the universe consists of a static configuration (arrangement) of discrete points (s-points); I call it a cosmic s-frame. Through a process I call the holonomic mechanism, the s-frame is incremented to a subsequent s-frame which has been reconfigured. Because of the displacement of the s-points from their previous position, the incrementation appears at the explicate level as motion of matter (kinetic energy) and the motion of discrete space (radiant energy). The duration between increments I speculate is equal to the Planck era— the time between the singularity and the first time that science can determine mathematically = 10[sup]-43[/sup]. This means that the s-frame increments 10[sup]43[/sup] times a second. Now it seems to me that in any second a beam of light changes constantly from particle to wave. In other words light is alternating between particle and wave in time. I suppose one could figure out how many alternations can occur in a second by manipulating the quantum mechanical equations; this is not within the scope of my thesis. I am merely speculating about physical principles; of more interest to me are the consequences of the spiritual component part of the model and how infinite nothingness/nomos/bios/nous impacts on our lives. I hope this gives you some idea of how I would explain scientific concepts by mapping them into the physical principal of discrete space. I make no claim beyond that the explanations are speculative. If you have any other questions along that line feel free to ask.

Thank you for your interest. Yppop

Ok. Let me see if I have it right. Plank Era means the time between the singularity of the Big Bang and the instant of time we can now measure. The entire S-frame increments 10[sup]43[/sup] times a second, which is the Planck era,meaning every one of those times the distance between all S- points is changed, tranformed to an “updated” S -frame ? (Is God alone responsible for these incremental changes in the S-frame?) But they are not “incremental” to God, in your view, just to us as we measure them at the explicate level.

Another question. Since the part of us that is linked with the “infinite nothingness” is part of the implicate reality outside of measurable space and time, is that part somehow unhinged from explicate space even in life? And is your take on angels or demons (I’m assuming you believe in their existence as a Catholic) that they exist more at the implicate than the explicate level, and so rarely interact with our reality? Do you think our personal “spiritual” experiences are real interactions with implicate reality?

Is your take on prophets that their souls somehow slip into the implicate level of reality and take back images and impressions? Since prophets never seem absolutely clear, if they are real at all, this seems to make more sense than if God had communicated to them directly.

And, finally, if the Big Bang winds up not really being the beginning of everything, does it matter that the Planck Era would no longer apply, or would your theory still work?

Thanks for answering all my past questions, by the way. And I hope you weren’t serious about quitting the forum.

 

[greylorn]

P.s. I think you should consider changing the term Infinite nothingness to something else.

Words have power over human thought which few of us appreciate. Words, and images control human behavior. People spend their earnings according to the programs inserted into their brains by television cartoons, images, and mind-numbing drumbeats. .

It would be interesting to insert the phrase, “something else,” into every arcane religious, metaphysical, philosophical, or physics book which uses a word which is poorly defined.

We tend to accept the meaning of words. Imagine replacing the word “particle” with “something else” in all physics texts. Imagine replacing the words “God” or “soul” or “allah” with "something else in all religious writings.

It could open a mind or two. Maybe not.

 

[jkiernan56]

Words have power over human thought which few of us appreciate. Words, and images control human behavior. People spend their earnings according to the programs inserted into their brains by television cartoons, images, and mind-numbing drumbeats. .

It would be interesting to insert the phrase, “something else,” into every arcane religious, metaphysical, philosophical, or physics book which uses a word which is poorly defined.

We tend to accept the meaning of words. Imagine replacing the word “particle” with “something else” in all physics texts. Imagine replacing the words “God” or “soul” or “allah” with "something else in all religious writings.

It could open a mind or two. Maybe not.

The quote you refer to which mentions changing the term “infinite nothingness” to something else was not meant to be taken literally as you depict. You will not find 'infinite nothingness" as a philosophical term used by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, or St. Augustine. “Infinite nothingness” may mean something to the person who originated it, but to the rest of us it has no meaning. It makes me wonder what they have been smoking.

 

[Detales]

For my part, I likethe term “infinite nothingness,” as that is exactly what the Allnes of God migh appera to be to mortal mind. God has indeed been called The Void, The Great Space, or Emptiness by many philosophers. Yet the Void is equal toe Substance, Fullness, Meaning, Significance, whatever else one might call the Allness of God.