God exists; but how?

[yppop]

It appears that now I am talking to my self, but in my last post I said I was contemplating dumping a synopsis of my entire thesis on this post just to show where I am headed. I feel obligated to do that, but will just include Part 1, “Ontological Reality” unless I perceive some interest in the entire thesis, which goes on to use the ontological thesis to define life, consciousness, mind, and soul.

Part 1

1. Discrete space, consisting of a very large finite number of s-points (those defined by rational numbers) that are separated by gaps, is permeated with the infinite nothingness that existed before the big bang and still exists beyond our finite universe, expands as the gaps grow and forms a lattice of discrete space to form our universe. I refer to the infinite nothingness that is coincident with the discrete space of the universe, as nomos.
2. The basic particle of matter — I call it an s-particle — is merely a distortion of the otherwise homogeneous lattice of discrete space. S-particles aggregate and are manifested as strings, quantum loops, or quarks and whatever modern science describes as the basic particle at the explicate level. The distortion that forms the s-particle is a volume of discrete space from which the s-particles are removed.
3. The cosmic structure at the implicate level (the ground of reality) consists of a static and vast configuration of s-points organized as matter appearing in discrete space. Think of the frames of a motion picture film which when run sequentially through the projector produces what appears to be continuous motion, but is not. I refer to each static configuration of s-points as a cosmic s-frame.
4. Given an impetus, the “present” cosmic s-frame increments becomes the “next” s-frame, a new configuration of s-points. The incrementation from one s-frame to the next is manifested as time and energy. The change in position of spatial matter is manifested at the explicate level as ponderable energy; the change in discrete space in which matter appears is manifested as radiant energy. Thus, the concepts manifested as space, time, mass, and energy are all discrete at the implicate level.
5. Incrementation of the s-frames is the result of three requirements: (1) information describing the next position of each s-point relative to its present position; this determines the nature of the change, (2) an initial configuration; this acts as an initial condition and determines an end point or goal in the path of actualization, and (3) an impetus to move each s-point to its new position; this is the cause of the change. These three requirements for incrementation — information, initial conditions, and impetus together are what I call the holonomic mechanism. This is the mechanism that allows intelligent design?
6. Information describing the next position of each s-point relative to its present position is supplied from a cosmic algorithm (the mind of God). Since God is not a determinist in the sense of Descartes, He built contingency and probability into our world holographically. (Note: If a hologram, which contains a three-dimensional image, is broken into pieces, each piece contains the whole image, but with diminished clarity). The laws of physics are sub-routines of the cosmic algorithm.
7. An algorithm can be devised such that the path of implementation that the algorithm imposes on a matrix of activity sites, such as the pixels on a flat screen display, is determined by the initial configuration. (Google “John Conway’s game of life” for a demonstration). For our reality, the initial conditions set for the holonomic mechanism determines the goals of actualization and are manifested as the constants of nature which are essential to the creation of life, mind, and soul.
8. The impetus for change in the configuration of the cosmic s-frame is implemented in the same way that the spiritual component residing within the material neurons in your brain causes the change in the s-points that compose your material body to get you out of bed in the morning.

For a better idea of what I am trying to explain, look at the “game of life” again (see note 7 above). In that game, which was the hit of the artificial intelligence gang back in the 1970’s, it appears as though the blocks are moving across the screen. They are not. What you see is a sequential activation of blocks of pixels. The discrete incrementation is noticeable in this example. I contend reality is like that, but the dimensions are infinitesimally smaller deluding us into thinking that we exist in a world of continuous motion. There is no motion, let alone continuous motion. Or, look closely at your screen to see an example of a 2-dimensional lattice of pixels, a simulation of discrete space, then think of the simulated motion of a computer game or even the cursor and ask yourself what is moving?

Yppop

 

[TheWhim]

I don’t think that the members of the forum lack in interest in your thesis. But you must be aware that you thesis is very difficult to comprehend, and once comprehended very difficult to examine in the process of an argument, especially if one completely lacks in scientific training(as I do). However, I’ll try my best to grasp the general direction of your thoughts.

Then google “Zeno’s Paradoxes”, read what is said about the inconsistency of motion and continuous space, and ask yourself if the assumption of continuous space hasn’t led us down the wrong path.

Well, I know what Zeno’s paradox is about but I’am quite unable to understand how it can be construed to devalue the idea of continuous space. Please explain this farther and perhaps you’d also like to present some arguments of a more philosophical nature also meant to strengthen the indictment directed at continuous space.

 

[yppop]

Whim

Thank you for your interest.

I understand how difficult it is, for someone that hasn’t thought about such things as long as I have (20 years), to think about reality composed of discrete points. The “model of dual reality” that I outlined in post #21 defines a possible way in which God might exist within our world. With such a structure I found that I am able to find answers for many of the questions that I asked myself in my search for the meaning of life. The answers that I have arrived at may not make sense to anyone else; nevertheless I decided to share them with the broad audience that this forum represents, in the odd chance that someone else is looking for a metaphysical view of the meaning of life.

Understanding the model of dual reality is essential to the explanation that I developed of life, mind, and soul. So, let me try a different approach, one that is familiar to all of us sitting looking at a computer screen. If you look closely enough, you can see the small cells called pixels. Each can be activated separately by a small signal. The signal consists of a pattern of 1’s and 0’s (a 1 represents a small voltage; a 0 is no voltage) generated by an algorithm programmed in the computer. Motion on the screen is the result of a sequential activation of pixels; although no motion takes place. The programming of the latest computer games produces an amazing 2-d simulation of real life.

In your imagination, extend the screen into a third dimension to form a 3-D matrix of pixels. By activating selective pixels sequentially, a very realistic 3-D simulation of reality could be produced. This is what I imagine real life to be like at the ground of reality (the implicate level). Instead of a matrix of pixels immersed in glass, reality is a matrix of s-points immersed in the infinite nothingness. Instead of motion being implemented by the sequential activation of pixels, motion in real life is implemented by the incremental reconfiguration of s-points determined by a cosmic algorithm. The cosmic algorithm resides in the spiritual component of actuality (the mind of God), the thing I call nomos. The algorithm calculates the pattern of reconfiguration of s-points, which is manifested at the explicate level (the level we perceive and science describes) as motion and hence energy and time. However, nothing moves, proximate s-points are merely exchanging information about relative positions. And this is what I imagine is taking place at the ground of reality. I give the process the name holonomic mechanism. It consists of initial conditions, an algorithm that supplies information, and an impetus to induce incrementation.

One of the initial conditions determined by the Designer has led the evolution of matter down a path of complexity, which has as an end point, the planet earth. Here a threshold of complexity was crossed; matter organized about a center (centrates) and formed a corpus (the material body of an organism). When the corpus was formed, it captured a particle of nomos that animated the corpus as a living cell. The captured nomos that I call bios enables a cell-specific holonomic mechanism. When associated with a cell I refer to the holonomic mechanism as the cytonomic mechanism. Its initial condition is manifested as cellular genes; its algorithm is manifested as instinctive behavior; and the impetus is manifested as the incipient will to cause motion. Life is nothing more than the cytonomic mechanism acting on the s-points that compose the corpus. The cytonomic mechanism is the primary animating force for bacteria and vegetative life and the autonomic behavior of cells in a multicellular animal.

If evolution is God’s method of creating the biosphere, then He implements the design through mutation by altering initial conditions associated with the cytonomic mechanism. This eventually leads to the creation of multicellular organisms. Again another particle of nomos is captured by the multicellular organism. This I call nous, which is manifested as consciousness. With evolution there is an increase in consciousness with time as more complex and advanced forms appear in the fossil record. There is also an increase in cephalization as the nous is concentrated in the brain until another threshold is crossed and man appears.

Man is the first and only animal with a mind. The mind is an interaction between the material brain and the spiritual nous. Nous controls the s-points associated with the corpus of the animal and holonomically forms the pathways in the brain with an autonomic mechanism. Only in the human animal has the pathways that provide language skill been formed. The mind is the interaction of the language skill and the nous. Memory associated with words is located in the brain; memory associated with perceptions is located in the nous. The nous also is the source of meaning, qualia, and feelings. The most important part of the nous, however, is the soul. The soul is the algorithm that is responsible for the moral decisions that shape a person’s life. Since an algorithm (a sequence of decisions or calculations in which the result of one step is (name removed by moderator)ut to the next) is pure information, the algotrtim that is the soul is an active, changeable agency that is in control of our corpus. It manifests as our personality and acts to develop conscience in the next life.
Yppop

 

[glowingembers]

Yppop,

your idea of a discrete world emerging as an abstraction of a continuous ground is quite similar to how I imagine reality too. Now I have a couple of suggestions.

It seems more understandable to me that the expansion of the universe is the expansion of the “chunks” of discrete space rather than the “gaps of nothingness” between them, because the expansion of the universe is something that we can actually observe. And what we observe is the chunks, not the gaps. If it was the nothingness that expands, then I don’t see how we could observe it, and it’s also unclear to me how nothingness could expand (or shrink) anyway.

We might also imagine the continuous ground of being in a more abstract way as a “space of all possibilities”, from which certain possibilities become actualized in (observable) space and time. The set of actualized possibilities could be regarded as “discrete” in relation to the set of all possibilities; the unactualized possibilities being the “gaps”. The observable reality (universe) then consists of the actualized possibilities and grows in space and time as more and more possibilities become actualized.

 

[Detales]

Yppop,

Fascinating thread, it being of far greater significance than many on here. It is a destinct pleasure to know that others have read David Bohm, Chardin, and others. I did not recognizes some of the names in your quotes in post #1, but it was fascinating to look them up.

It is taking a bit of effort to comprehend your gist, as I have not been thinking in your terms for your twenty years. But I have given all of this some thought and agree with a lot, and some parts sort of, sideways, one might say. My own quest was necessitated by suddenly and very unexpectedly experiencing a state of awareness rather different than ordinary waking awareness, and finally I had to go outside the Church for an adequate explanation and dynamic that held all the factors in a sane relationship, as well as providing a long term sustained, practical, and predictive paradigm.

I am fascinated by your notions of space. I myself conclude that there is space as we experience it physically an imaginatively, space as we mathematically describe it and its dynamics relative to matter, time, and dimensions, and Space, as a fundamental ALL-containing Infinitude.

I also can see a reason for describing God as triune, but for a radically different reason than the “persons” analogy most often presented by christianists who hold to an anthropomorphic exegisis of Diety. It seems to me, in fact, that you are attempting to fit a discription into a christianist standpoint that won’t ultimately hold the entire, necessary, and inevitable conclusion you seem to be heading for. But as Schelling said, “The question is not how the phenomenon must be turned, twisted, narrowed and crippled so as to be explicable, at all costs, upon principles that we have once and for all resolved not to go beyond. The question is: ‘To what point must we enlarge *our *thought so that it shall be in proportion to the phenomenon?’” This may be a disturbing process, analogous to taking the famous red pill. I wish you the best in courage and clarity in this quest.

So, I’m wondering how you apply Bohm’s notion of “measure” as the basis of Western thought to your idea of space and s-points. and/or do you agree with his notion?

Also, in regards ot space/Space, I wonder if you have read your fellow engineer’s two works called *Pathways Through to Space *and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. The engineer in question is Franklin Merrell-Wolff. He, like you, devoted decades of intense thought to the subject, but perhaps from a slightly different angle.

Have you used Korzybski’s “structural differential” as a tool in arriving at your thesis?

What do you have to say regarding Bell’s theorum and Karl Pribram’s work relative to your brain/soul analogy?

Did you know that the picture frame idea was thousands of years old, first propounded by the Rishis who claimed they could slow their percptions to percieve the frequency pattern of the frae-void-frame sequence?

You seem extremely sincere in your search, and whatever I think of your conclusions or process, I have to admire greatly that you have a sense of persistent and energetically devoted curiosity about the matter. That can only be commended and encouraged. So far I would hold you as an exapmle of a genuinely enquiring mind. Rare.

I will re-read your posts so far and see if I can gain a better working grasp of your meaning.

Bindar Doondat

 

[cranster]

Note: If a hologram, which contains a three-dimensional image, is broken into pieces, each piece contains the whole image, but with diminished clarity

Yppop,
Fascinating and very, very difficult to get the mind around. A slight tangent here, I don’t know if you’ve seen “Fabric of time”. It’s about the shroud of Turin. When I read what you said here about holograms it reminded me of something that was stated in fabric of time. The Shroud contains several gigabytes of holographic data. The information on the shroud is a quantum hologram, if I remember correctly. You might find it fascinating if you haven’t seen it.

 

[yppop]

Yppop,

It seems more understandable to me that the expansion of the universe is the expansion of the “chunks” of discrete space rather than the “gaps of nothingness” between them, because the expansion of the universe is something that we can actually observe. And what we observe is the chunks, not the gaps. If it was the nothingness that expands, then I don’t see how we could observe it, and it’s also unclear to me how nothingness could expand (or shrink) anyway.

Hello glowingembers (nice name)

The ground of reality, your undifferentiated nothingness, my infinite nothingness, I imagine to be formless (or undifferentiated, if you will), immutable, eternal (without and beyond time) and, of course infinite in both dimension and extension.

Into this background, a form was introduced, a form we now call the singularity. It consisted of an vast number of points separated from the Infinite Nothingness. I call these points that are differentiated from the Infinite Nothingness, s-points. S-points are discrete, meaning there is a separation from one another; were they not discrete, they would be continuous and would blend in and be indistinguishable from the background of infinite nothingness. Since the s-points are separated from one another, they form a three dimensional lattice, which was induced to expand. The lattice (our universe) expands because the s-points move apart; the ground (infinite nothingness does not move). The infinite nothingness, which has the properties of continuous space, being infinite does not move, change, expand, or curve; in addition, since the finite universe comes from the infinite nothingness, the infinite nothingness is the cause of the universe.

We might also imagine the continuous ground of being in a more abstract way as a “space of all possibilities”, from which certain possibilities become actualized in (observable) space and time. The set of actualized possibilities could be regarded as “discrete” in relation to the set of all possibilities; the unactualized possibilities being the “gaps”. The observable reality (universe) then consists of the actualized possibilities and grows in space and time as more and more possibilities become actualized.

Only the finite is caused, the infinite is without cause. Furthermore, since all that we are or can be, all that we know or can know, is contained within the singularity, the infinite nothingness must be all that is possible. I refer to it as the realm of possibility. This is, I believe in line with your last paragraph.

Thank you for your response
Yppop

 

[yppop]

Yppop,
I am fascinated by your notions of space. I myself conclude that there is space as we experience it physically an imaginatively, space as we mathematically describe it and its dynamics relative to matter, time, and dimensions, and Space, as a fundamental ALL-containing Infinitude.

Yes, space is indeed fascinating, since as I believe it is the foundation of everything in the universe, including us
.

I also can see a reason for describing God as triune, but for a radically different reason than the “persons” analogy most often presented by christianists who hold to an anthropomorphic exegisis of Diety. It seems to me, in fact, that you are attempting to fit a discription into a christianist standpoint that won’t ultimately hold the entire, necessary, and inevitable conclusion you seem to be heading for.

I have no problem with the “persons” aspect of the Trinity. 'Persons” can be defined in such a way as to make the personhood of the Trinity plausible. I contend that the personhood of each of us is defined by the way that the particle of infinite nothingness, the nous, controls the s-points that constitute our corpus and is manifested as behavior.

So, I’m wondering how you apply Bohm’s notion of “measure” as the basis of Western thought to your idea of space and s-points. and/or do you agree with his notion?

Mainly I borrow the terminology, implicate and explicate, from Bohm and am in agreement with him in that at the implicate level, reality is a unified whole. His solution for the double slit dilemma calls for a particle being simultaneously a particle and a wave. This dual nature can best be explained with a discrete space model of reality, rather than continuous space and with an algorithmic model rather than a mathematical equation.

Also, in regards ot space/Space, I wonder if you have read your fellow engineer’s two works called *Pathways Through to Space *and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. The engineer in question is Franklin Merrell-Wolff. He, like you, devoted decades of intense thought to the subject, but perhaps from a slightly different angle.

Haven’t read those books, but I will. Thanks for the reference.

Have you used Korzybski’s “structural differential” as a tool in arriving at your thesis?

Not familiar with Korzybski. Will look in to his ideas.

What do you have to say regarding Bell’s theorum and Karl Pribram’s work relative to your brain/soul analogy?

I believe Bell’s theorem that demonstrates that quantum events are non-local.

I used the term “holonomic” then discovered that Bohm and Pribham used the same term to describe a brain-consciousness theory in which memory and information is stored in interference wave patterns not in the brain cells. This is not unlike my idea that language is stored on the brain cells and meaning, sensation, and qualia are stored in what I call nous. The interference wave patterns are characteristic of holographic phenomena. I am still working on a final model of the brain/mind/soul entity and plan to study Pribham/Bohm in more depth.

Did you know that the picture frame idea was thousands of years old, first propounded by the Rishis who claimed they could slow their percptions to percieve the frequency pattern of the frame-void-frame sequence?

I didn’t know about the Rishis’ involvement with the “frame” concept. The void separating the sequential frames is a subject for some interesting study. Right now, I consider the void’s spatial dimension, the gap width, to be the limiting factor on the speed of light and since the gap has been growing, I contend that the speed of light of slowing down, the possibility of which has been of interest to several cosmologists. It obviates the need for inflation theory to solvie the horizon problem. I’ve also seen an article that uses the variable speed of light (VSL) to explain the observations that lead to the need to introduce dark energy. I think a variation of the temporal dimension of the gap would have even more interesting consequences; I just haven’t given them any thought.

I am in the process of writing a book on these ideas, but have scant hope of every completing it. Consequently, I am throwing these ideas out for anyone to use as they see fit wherever they care to. I subscribe to my favorite mathematician, Gregory Chaitlin’s, attitude expressed in this quotation”…For an idea to be successful, you have to give it away; you have to be willing to let other people think that it theirs! You can’t be possessive, you can’t be jealous…” Meta Math, the Quest for Omega – pg. 90

Thank you once again for your very encouraging and generous comments.

Yppop

 

[Detales]

“Consequently, I am throwing these ideas out for anyone to use as they see fit wherever they care to. I subscribe to my favorite mathematician, Gregory Chaitlin’s, attitude expressed in this quotation”…For an idea to be successful, you have to give it away; you have to be willing to let other people think that it theirs! You can’t be possessive, you can’t be jealous…” Meta Math, the Quest for Omega – pg. 90”

Yes I agree with this concept, as I is consistent with the ideas of Charity, Love, and community. It is also counter to much of commercial theory regarding scarcity and money supply. There are other ways than those we are entrenched in.

I’ve also read of the Argentinian Magueijo’s work on VLS, and it makes sense, and I find it interesting that his theory also allows for postulating an infinite number of Creations within the Big Bang model. This infinity of creations, from my perspective, both harmonizes the Infinity of God with an infinite manifestatin, and cancels the arguments about time before the BB and the inconsistency of such a single begining with and eternal God, eternality not properly admiting an element of duration. This is a quote about that from Discovery Magazine:

"“Astronomers have recently discovered that the expansion rate of the universe seems to be accelerating, driven perhaps by the same vacuum energy that shaped the universe some 15 billion years ago. According to Magueijo’s calculations, this surge in the expansion rate is but a prelude to another stupendous infusion of energy from the vacuum in the far distant future. When that happens, the universe will essentially undergo another Big Bang. This sequence of Big Bang, expansion, Big Bang, would never end. If the varying speed of light theory is right, the universe is eternal.”

The idea of simultaneously effected particles also plays into this, as it obviates the horizon problem.

 

[yppop]

Hello Detales
The multi-verse theories: Magueijo’s successive BB’s; Linde’s Bubble universes; and the Big Crunch are all designed to eliminate the need for a single universe with a beginning, creatio ex nihilo. All of these creation theories are at best speculative science. I favor the *creatio ex nihilo *scenario for two reasons: (1) it is the only one we observe, and (2) my thesis is predicated on how God exists, which assumes the existence of God, which is best supported by the creatio ex nihilo scenario.

I find no inconsistency between a single beginning and the eternal nature of God. To me eternal means beyond time. Furthermore in my model, time is a construct that is only manifested at the explicate level of reality (as is energy and many of the other variables of physics). I believe that all that is occurring at the implicate level of reality is an incrementation of reconfigured cosmic s-frames. You might say we are a part of a giant hologram.

Let me recommend a book with an interesting slant on time—that time does not exist. The book is: The End of Time, by Julian Barbour.

But I don’t disagree completely with your statement that begins with: “This infinity of creations…” Even though I don’t agree with the multi-verse scenarios, I do believe in parallel universes. The Parallel World hypothesis is a legitimate scientific interpretation from quantum mechanics. Our existence in parallel worlds means there is another dimension in time. If the time we experience in this world is tangential time; then the time across parallel worlds is radial time. Hence, radial time might be considered to “harmonize the infinity of God with the infinite manifestation”.

The concept of parallel universes also allows us to reconcile many theological questions about salvation, the nature of heaven; why God allows evil, etc.

Now I am off to bed and thanks once again for your fine thought-provoking post!
Yppop

 

[yppop]

Hello one and all,

I got diverted to other threads and was discussing issues I had intended to discuss in this thread. Jumping from one thread to another was too time-consuming so I decided to continue what I had started here. A number of respondents express difficulty in understanding my thesis, so I will try another approach. What I am presenting is a description of HOW God MIGHT exist. The thesis is based on certain assumptions that can be derived from scientific theories and observations.

The first assumption is that the universe was created according to the big bang theory. There are a number of alternative big bang scenarios. There is only one scenario that is supported by observation and that is a single expansion of space from and into an indescribable background. All the rest are speculations that are designed to demonstrate that there is no beginning of the universe. Such denials of a beginning are intended to deny the Catholic concept of creatio et nihilo, creation from nothing. The challenge then is to describe a how the “nothing” is transformed into the universe.

Consider the “nihilo”, the nothing from which the universe emerged. I prefer to call it “infinite nothingness”. I chose this term because it expresses both aspects of space: dimensionality (infinite) and nature (nothingness).

Dimensionally, space is volume and the Greek that dealt with that aspect was Euclid. He built a system of geometry with which we construct the dimensions of space (volume) from points, lines, and planes. The basic building block of space is dimensionless points. Mathematicians create space (volume) from dimensionless points by invoking the concept of infinity. They are forced into to this because Euclid and all who followed assumed that the nature of the space that forms the foundation of the universe is continuous.

The second aspect of space: its nature. We describe the nature of space with words like: void, false-vacuum, nothing, nothingness. At its primary nature, space is either continuity or discreteness. Secodarily, space is either empty (void) or contains something (such as a false-vacuum among others), leaving two ambiguous words, nothing and nothingness (denoting nothing in particular). But then again nothing matters (does it or doesn’t it matter?). As the queen said to Alice, “What did you see on the road?” Alice replied, “Nothing!” The queen: “My you have good eyesight, what does nothing look like?” See how ambiguous the word nothing is? I will use it normally and let the context give it meaning and instead grab the word “nothingness” to do a job for me.

I use the word “nothingness” to mean that which came before and exists beyond the only universe we know or will ever know. The space that contains nothingness is of infinite dimension; its nature is continuity. Although the infinite nothingness does not contain matter, energy, or time, it is not a void. It must contain something in order to cause the universe to emerge from its own nature. Cosmologists have no answer; the best they can do is to invoke a quantum fluctuation from something like a false-vacuum. However, a false-vacuum contains virtual particles in the form of residual energy. And yet, science claims that there was no energy, time, matter, or space before the big bang. The space that defines the dimension of the universe; that emerged from the big bang, cannot be the same space that existed before the big bang. For this and several other observations, I contend that there are two different kinds of space involved in creation; one is continuous the other is discrete. The existence of two kinds of space makes it possible to describe how God exists in our world. The infinite nothingness, the continuous space, is the spiritual component of reality; the space that defines the universe, the discrete space, is the “physical” component. I use “physical” in describing anything associated with all the elements of objective reality: space, time, energy, and matter.

My thesis assumes that God exists; given that, then any explanation of how God exists demands that what came before the big bang and exists beyond our universe, the infinite nothingness, must be God. And the something that the infinite nothingness contains is the incipient universe, the cause of the dynamics of reality (expansion of space, motion of all types, etc.), and the design of all that exists within the universe, including living matter. I have already pointed out that energy, the thing that science contends impels the dynamics of reality, did not exist before the bb, so, what could possibly be the impetus for the cause of creation? I believe that the source of creation is a thing rarely discussed in this forum, but has attained a scientific stature equal to energy as a driving force of reality; that thing is INFORMATION; and the information I am talking about is in the Mind of God.

To be continued –

Happy Mother’s Day
Yppop

 

[greylorn]

YP,

I’m presuming that the theories you are putting forth here are those to which you’ve alluded in off-forum conversations, and if so, Great! It is about time you are putting them out for a stress test.

Don’t expect that to be a lot of fun (speaking from experience), and I’d suggest that if anyone says that he, she, or it agrees with you, it probably means that they don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.

Now I’m still reeling from, and dealing with the set of comments you offered re: my website. But now, my friend, it’s your turn.

I need to seek understanding before offering any disagreement or agreement, and prefer to tackle that process just a few issues at a time.

1. If space is discrete, there must be such a thing as the distance between points. Is this the Planck length? Or do your ideas accommodate a variable separation?
2. How many dimensions in this discrete space?
3. If three, are they orthogonal? If so,
   a. Why?
   b. Do the discrete points line along the orthogonal lines? If so,
   
   
   i.

   This would make the separation between space-points longer for objects
   moving between points which do not lie on the same line of orthogonality.
   Does that affect motion or energy exchanges in those directions?
   ii. Poo! I forgot my question. You’re off the hook for now.
   ​

(Sorry about the ugly formatting. I’m going to have to lodge a complaint with CAF re: the INDENT function.

 

[yppop]

YP,

I’m presuming that the theories you are putting forth here are those to which you’ve alluded in off-forum conversations, and if so, Great! It is about time you are putting them out for a stress test.

Don’t expect that to be a lot of fun (speaking from experience), and I’d suggest that if anyone says that he, she, or it agrees with you, it probably means that they don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.

Now I’m still reeling from, and dealing with the set of comments you offered re: my website. But now, my friend, it’s your turn.

I need to seek understanding before offering any disagreement or agreement, and prefer to tackle that process just a few issues at a time.

1. If space is discrete, there must be such a thing as the distance between points. Is this the Planck length? Or do your ideas accommodate a variable separation?
2. How many dimensions in this discrete space?
3. If three, are they orthogonal? If so,
   a. Why?
   b. Do the discrete points line along the orthogonal lines? If so,
   
   
   i.

   This would make the separation between space-points longer for objects
   moving between points which do not lie on the same line of orthogonality.
   Does that affect motion or energy exchanges in those directions?
   ii. Poo! I forgot my question. You’re off the hook for now.
   ​

(Sorry about the ugly formatting. I’m going to have to lodge a complaint with CAF re: the INDENT function.

Hi GL

Nice to hear from you again. No one has expressed much understanding of what little I have written so far. The concept of discrete space immersed in continuous space doesn’t seem to resonate with many people. I tend to think of such a structure as the stars in the night time sky, with the stars representing the discrete points and the black background the infinite nothingness, with the proviso that the discrete points are much closer than the visible stars kind of like the milky way on a very clear night (something I have only seen a couple of times since I was a kid and one of those times was in Arizona).

Yes there is a distance (s-gap) between the s-points ( those points associated with the discrete space that is involved in the creation of the universe) and at the present time I would surmise that it is a Planck length. I contend that the s-gap increases with time resulting in the expansion of the universe. And since the s-gap increases in time we can extrapolate back in time until the s-gap was infinitesimal and all the s-points that construct the universe were squeezed into the singularity. I also contend that the s-gap determines the limit of the speed of light, which was much greater earlier in the history of the universe, thus obviating the need for inflation.

There are only three orthogonal dimensions; God has no need of more.

The main reason I describe reality consisting of two kinds of space is that it is the only way I can imagine the world having a dual nature in which the physical and spiritual are commingled. My intent is to describe HOW God exists and am neither interested nor capable of working out the details. However, there are 14 possible ways for crystalline structures to fill up three-dimensional space, a couple of which are orthogonal; they are called Bravais lattices. I am certain that one or more of the lattices structures will be applicable to my thesis.

I believe at the ground of reality (the implicate level), objects do not move through space. What appears as energy in objective reality (explicate level) is nothing more than the sequential reconfiguration of all the s-points in the universe (at the implicate level). Energy didn’t exist prior to Newton, only matter and motion. When Newton invented the concepts of “force” and “mass” he introduced abstraction as a tool of science (an important tool without which science could not have advanced). Leibniz introduced the concept of vis-viva as the product of the mass times the velocity squared, which eventually was referred to as “energy” by Thomas Young.

Thank you for the pertinent questions. I plan to discuss infinity and the arguments for discrete in my next post.

Yppop

 

[HelenaMT]

…I contend that the s-gap increases with time resulting in the expansion of the universe. And since the s-gap increases in time we can extrapolate back in time until the s-gap was infinitesimal and all the s-points that construct the universe were squeezed into the singularity. I also contend that the s-gap determines the limit of the speed of light, which was much greater earlier in the history of the universe, thus obviating the need for inflation…

When you talk about the S-gap, are you using that to explain the same problem that scientists seem to be using the “dark energy” concept to deal with? Or am I completely off?

 

[yppop]

When you talk about the S-gap, are you using that to explain the same problem that scientists seem to be using the “dark energy” concept to deal with? Or am I completely off?

Hello Helena,

No, you are right on. What I refer to as an s-gap is related to what cosmologists call dark energy in that they are both related to the expansion of the universe. I believe that reality can be described at two levels: (1) reality at the explicate level is what we observe and science describes, and (2) the reality at the implicate level is what really happens. For example, at the explicate level gravity is the cause of attraction between two bodies of matter, but no one knows what causes gravity. It has described at one time or another as: an action act a distance, a force, a gravitational field, an exchange of gravitons, or the curvature of space?

Dark energy is a concept that resides at the explicate level; it may or may not be a part of reality or it may only be a way to explain what is observed. The two main observations that call for the existence of dark energy are: the acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe as determined by the anomalous red-shift data from type 1a supernovae, and the flatness of space as observed in the WMAP data. Flat space is simply space without curvature; flat space means that if you have a circle on the earth and move it to the Andromeda galaxy it will still be a circle. Einstein’s general theory relates the curvature of space-time to the mass-energy density. When applied to the universe, there is a certain mass-energy density that corresponds to flat space-time. The luminous matter in the universe makes up about 4% of that critical density. Cosmologists found another 22% in the dark matter they used to explain the anomalous behavior of certain galactic rotations and galactic velocities within galactic clusters. So the missing 76% was made up with dark energy, which also does double duty as a possible cause of the accelerating expansion.

There are a number of additional theories that have been proposed to explain the anomalous behavior, of which, the variable speed of light (VSL) theories are an example. There are no proposed mechanisms (that I know of) that explains the variation of the speed of light as the variation in an s-gap would.

I believe that at the implicate level, the mechanism for the expansion of the universe is the growth of the gaps between s-points (points of discrete space); it is not the expansion of the infinite nothingness (the spiritual component of reality) that fills the gaps that is expanding. I cannot for the life of me imagine how the infinite can expand.

Thank you for your very perceptive question and I hope my answer suffices; if not, let me know.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

There are two properties of mathematical infinity that are germane to my thesis:

(1) Infinity can never be reached. No matter how far you travel toward infinity, you will always be as far away from it as when you started. Consequently, the universe that started as an infinitesimal singularity, grew to the size of a golf ball, then size of the moon, the sun, and so forth, was finite then and will always be finite because it can never reach infinity. A finite universe must have a surface boundary. In spite of what Einstein claims: that because of the curvature of space a light ray sent toward the edge of the universe will never reach it; instead it will travel on a curved path until it eventually reaches its starting point. From this he claimed the universe is finite, but unbounded. However, according to the WMAP data, space is flat not curved; so a light ray reaching the edge of the universe would most likely be reflected. If you were able to reach the edge of the universe in a space vehicle, the most likely effect would be that of running into a wall. Where is the boundary? Cosmologists place the edge of the visible universe at a distance of about 13.5 billion light years, claiming a spherical universe with a diameter of 27 billion light years. But this is not the actual boundary, we can only see to what is called the surface of last scattering. We don’t know how big the universe is and we will never be able to see beyond the 13.5 billion light year radius, at least not optically. Therefore the only conclusion based on observation is that there is only one universe and it is finite. The only plausible boundary is spatial, discrete on the universe side, continuous on the infinite nothingness side.

(2) You cannot diminish an infinite set by subtraction. An infinite set is one in which a part can be equal to the whole. There are as many even integers as there are total integers because you can produce an even integer simply by multiplying every integer by two. This concept of infinities within infinities is what allows mathematicians to define continuity. The mathematical rationale for continuity is based on the assumption that every point is represented by a number and for every number there is a point. This assumption is essential to the filling up continuous space with dimensionless points. It is easily seen that if every number corresponds to a point, then, for example, if you take two points, one at .01 and the other at .02, you could easily find another point half way between at .015. Now consider a point represented by the number .00000000001 and another by .00000000002; again there exists another halfway point at .000000000015. You could add as many 0’s as you care to (essentially moving two points closer together) and you can still find another point at half the distance between. Using this mathematical legerdemain, it is possible to find an infinity of numbers in between any two other numbers, along with the concomitant points, no matter how close together you make them. Mathematically, for example, it is possible to squeeze 10exp150 dimensionless points of space into as small a volume you care to make it and still have room for gaps between all the points. What this means for my hypothesis of creation is that God could easily gathered as many s-points that were needed to create the universe into a single infinitesimal volume without diminishing His infiniteness one iota. This is how I propose the singularity was formed.

 The incipient universe, like the ultimate minimalist painting of a black dot on a black background, consisted of an enormous number of s-points crammed into an infinitesimal volume. Still, there was room in this singularity to provide gaps between the s-points and to arrange the s-points in a crystalline lattice structure. The black dot became the “physical” universe, also known as objective reality. The black background, the infinite nothingness, subsumed and permeated the lattice of the black dot and became the spiritual component of objective reality. This is the basic structure, the ground of reality that allows me to describe how I think God may exist within our world. I call the infinite nothingness that exists within the boundaries of the finite universe, “*nomos*”, a Greek word for law. Later in my thesis, I argue that the *nomos* is the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

Next, I will describe how matter, time, and energy emerge from the singularity.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

To one and all,

In my previous post I described what I believe the incipient universe consisted of, namely, the singularity, a black dot, immersed in an infinite sea of nothingness Infinite nothingness is the only thing we can imagine the transcendent God the Father to be. He is immutable and without form. Contained in that miniscule black dot is the potential for everything that ever was or ever will be. What an amazing thought. The great question is: how did time, energy, and matter in all its forms emerge from formless nothingness?

Modern science has no answer. Science merely describes the relationships of what is observed without offering an explanation of how things happen “physically”. That is what I mean when I say that science describes reality at the explicate level. The standard model of the big bang paints an interesting picture of a singularity consisting of a single force and a single substance becoming through a process called symmetry breaking (which is nothing more than a lot of mathematical manipulation of existing formulae) to become the four fundamental forces while at the same time an indescribable plasma eventually becomes the particles that form matter. Science is not without mechanisms however; the standard model of particle physics lists a group of particles: (bosons) from which the four fundamental forces are mediated, and (fermions) from which matter is constructed. The Higgs particle is believed to be the means for creating mass, but there is no explanation for how the basic particles (quarks and leptons) are first created from the singularity.

I contend that at the implicate level, i.e., at the ground of reality, the only way to create form from a formless foundation is from finiteness. The finiteness I chose is that associated with lattice configuration of s-points that constitutes the singularity. God created the singularity as a lattice of s-points with a specific organization and at God’s choosing the lattice, which I prefer to call the cosmic s-frame, is reconfigured and incremented sequentially. The universe is set on a path of actualization.

This incremental reconfiguration represents change at the ground of reality that is manifested as time at the explicate level. Because of the rapidity of the incrementation, the time that we experience appears to be continuous; that is an illusion; time at the ground of reality is discrete. What is true for our experience of time is also true for our experience of motion.

This incrementation of a static configurations is something we all experience when we watch a movie and observe what we think is motion on the screen. The typical movie projector projects frames (static configurations) at the rate of 24 frames per second. The minimum rate that the human brain can convert discrete images into smooth motion is about 16 frames per second. At the ground of reality, I am guessing that, based on the duration of the Planck era, God is operating His projector at the rate of 10exp43 frames per second. Omniscient? You bet!

Radiant energy (light, for example) is the manifestation of the vibratory displacement of s-points within the s-frame. The speed of propagation and the frequency of the resulting wave depend on the width of the s-gap. Consequently, in the early stages of creation the s-gap is infinitely smaller than it is 13.5 billion years later. Since the quantum energy of a wave is directly proportional to the frequency, the energy manifested at the beginning was enormous. In addition, sequential incrementation of the reconfigured s-frame, in which each s-point is displaced minutely from its previous position, is manifested as matter in motion, which is then described at the explicate level as kinetic energy.

I am proposing that all of objective reality is based on the static configuration of discrete space, which when incremented sequentially appears as time and energy. The static configuration of s-points must also give rise to matter. I have no scientific reason for assuming a specific configuration that is manifested as the basic particle, but I suspect that the spatial design of the basic particle of matter is repeated in the spatial design of atoms. An atom consists of a centrally located nucleus surrounded by a varying number of dimensionless electrons. A typical atom is 10,000 times the size of the central nucleus. You could imagine this as the dot at the end of this sentence sitting on the fifty yard line surrounded by a sphere by empty space with a diameter the size of the 100 yard field. In other words, the atom, and hence the matter it constructs, is mostly empty.

And in my view of the ground of reality, what it is empty of is discrete space. I imagine that the atomic structure is mirrored in the basic particle of matter: s-points are gathered together at the center of the volume surrounded by nomos (infinite nothingness) devoid of discrete space. How such particles are organized to form the matter we experience at the explicate level is not for me to determine; my interest is solely in describing a possible structure of a basic particle of matter that allows the presence of both physical and spiritual aspects.

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

Hi GL

Nice to hear from you again. No one has expressed much understanding of what little I have written so far. The concept of discrete space immersed in continuous space doesn’t seem to resonate with many people. I tend to think of such a structure as the stars in the night time sky, with the stars representing the discrete points and the black background the infinite nothingness, with the proviso that the discrete points are much closer than the visible stars kind of like the milky way on a very clear night (something I have only seen a couple of times since I was a kid and one of those times was in Arizona)

.

You might like living in a space like mine. In midsummer I can walk the woods at night by the light from the Milky Way because that’s all the light there is.

Yes there is a distance (s-gap) between the s-points ( those points associated with the discrete space that is involved in the creation of the universe) and at the present time I would surmise that it is a Planck length. I contend that the s-gap increases with time resulting in the expansion of the universe. And since the s-gap increases in time we can extrapolate back in time until the s-gap was infinitesimal and all the s-points that construct the universe were squeezed into the singularity. I also contend that the s-gap determines the limit of the speed of light, which was much greater earlier in the history of the universe, thus obviating the need for inflation.

How does the s-gap determine the speed of light?

There are only three orthogonal dimensions; God has no need of more.

The main reason I describe reality consisting of two kinds of space is that it is the only way I can imagine the world having a dual nature in which the physical and spiritual are commingled. My intent is to describe HOW God exists and am neither interested nor capable of working out the details. However, there are 14 possible ways for crystalline structures to fill up three-dimensional space, a couple of which are orthogonal; they are called Bravais lattices. I am certain that one or more of the lattices structures will be applicable to my thesis.

Personally, I’m more focused on the question of why God exists. I vaguely recall those lattices from solid state physics, but that area of physics never did catch my interest, so I’m a long way from even guessing about the applicability of crystalline structures to the digitization of space. If you think that you can help me out here, go for it.

I believe at the ground of reality (the implicate level), objects do not move through space. What appears as energy in objective reality (explicate level) is nothing more than the sequential reconfiguration of all the s-points in the universe (at the implicate level).

While my picture of the structure of the universe shares some common ground with yours (e.g. I agree that objects don’t move through space), my version of the mechanism is different from yours. At least I think so, I don’t understand your mechanism well enough to say. Perhaps you could clarify by answering a few questions.

Like, what is the function of the s-points? Do subatomic particles occupy them (like marbles in a Chinese checkers game board)?

Do the s-points lie along lines of orthogonality? (Unanswered question.)

Are all s-points equidistant from adjacent s-points?

I’d like a better picture of what happens when an electron (for example) moves through space in a straight line for a small distance.

Likewise for an electromagnetic wave. I’m looking for a picture (or mathematical expression) of what actually happens on a small scale.

Energy didn’t exist prior to Newton, only matter and motion. When Newton invented the concepts of “force” and “mass” he introduced abstraction as a tool of science (an important tool without which science could not have advanced). Leibniz introduced the concept of vis-viva as the product of the mass times the velocity squared, which eventually was referred to as “energy” by Thomas Young.

I’m hoping you mean that the “concept of energy” did not exist prior to the formulation of Newton’s laws of mechanics, but energy has been around for quite a while awaiting a suitable formulation. Or are you declaring the Three Laws of Thermodynamics to be invalid?

Thank you for the pertinent questions. I plan to discuss infinity and the arguments for discrete in my next post.

Yppop

I glanced through those posts and was unable to obtain much by way of grasp. But that is the way I think. I prefer to build my conceptual understandings upon fundamentals, when I can find them. In the case of your theories, I’m still struggling with the questions I addressed in this post. It would be silly of me to explore further until they get answered.
Thanks!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m not entirely sure where your argument is for God’s uncaused existence.

And how can physics have anything whatever to say about God ?​

 

[HelenaMT]

I am proposing that all of objective reality is based on the static configuration of discrete space, which when incremented sequentially appears as time and energy. The static configuration of s-points must also give rise to matter. I have no scientific reason for assuming a specific configuration that is manifested as the basic particle, but I suspect that the spatial design of the basic particle of matter is repeated in the spatial design of atoms. An atom consists of a centrally located nucleus surrounded by a varying number of dimensionless electrons. A typical atom is 10,000 times the size of the central nucleus. You could imagine this as the dot at the end of this sentence sitting on the fifty yard line surrounded by a sphere by empty space with a diameter the size of the 100 yard field. In other words, the atom, and hence the matter it constructs, is mostly empty.

And in my view of the ground of reality, what it is empty of is discrete space. I imagine that the atomic structure is mirrored in the basic particle of matter: s-points are gathered together at the center of the volume surrounded by nomos (infinite nothingness) devoid of discrete space. How such particles are organized to form the matter we experience at the explicate level is not for me to determine; my interest is solely in describing a possible structure of a basic particle of matter that allows the presence of both physical and spiritual aspects.

Yppop

So, in your theory, this “empty space” is the space where the spiritual (God, angels, souls) can interact with the corporeal? And the Higgs particle, the so- called God particle, would likewise contain this sort of mostly-empty structure? So everything that exists holds part of it’s existence in the “infinite nothingness”?

I am really having trouble understanding much of what you are talking about and am just trying to pick apart what I can until it makes more sense to me. I’m interested in any concepts that try to explain how God can act on physical matter,and how our souls can affect our behavior, if they are both non-physical. Your way seems to say that God is actually part of us in that His essence is in every particle. If that is your point, doesn’t that make God physical in some sense as well, in that He is interacting with matter so intimately on every level? (if that is what you were getting at)