God exists; but how?

[tbcrawford]

Hello yppop
I am terribly sorry I didnt mean to offend you in any way at all.I found this thread & thought it very interesting.I simply wanted to make the point that for me I dont NEED to know the answers I purely believe Gods existence is so entirely unquantifiable to us mere humans that I dont need to worry myself as to the hows/wherefors etc.It is a personal choice you have every right to enquire and I would never wish to stop you or anyone else on that or any other quest.
For me I am satisfied to regard it as a mystery of faith.Congratulations on having a son as a priest.I did not in any way mean to be condescending about advising someone to talk to their priest.I was merely pointing out that if someone has these type of questions a priest is the BEST person to speak with.Many people may feel discouraged/embarrased to speak with their priest I was simply encouraging them down what I have always believed to be the best route.If your son(the priest) does not have an opinion/does not want to be bothered by parishioners asking these types of questions I’m very sorry to have given the idea on this thread.I was always brought up that way (speak to priest first)and dont mean any offence at all.My apologies for any offence unintentionally committed.
God Bless

 

[yppop]

Hello tbc,

I was not the least offended, and apologize if that is what my post implied. I suppose that is what all those little “mood icons” are about, but I don’t bother with them. I prefer conversation to the written word because direct communication is so much better in conveying meaning.

When I said my son “is not the least bit interested in these matters” I was referring to my thesis. He is a canon lawyer working in a tribunal dealing with annulments; so he is involved with “spiritual troubles” on a personnel basis. He is also assigned as a resident in a parish and says Masses there and also does daily Mass for a small group of aging Carmelite nuns. All in all he doesn’t have direct contact with parishioners although he wished he did.

I understand your position as a person of faith; I am surrounded by people that feel as you do. My wife, all of my children, and those of my grandchildren that are of mature age all are people of faith. I was not that fortunate; I developed my faith, through the sacrament of marriage and strengthened it through reason.

Take you for your post.
Yppop

 

[yppop]

To One and All,
Discrete space consists of points (I refer to as s-points) separated by gaps. These gaps are permeated with infinite nothingness, which I call nomos. Nomos is the Greek work often interpreted to mean “law”. It is also used in sociology in another sense. I chose nomos instead of pneuma — the Greek word for breath or wind that is usually associated with the Holy Spirit — because I contend that it is from the activity of the nomos that the laws of physics become known. In my lexicon, nomos is the Holy Spirit. The nomos, which forms a seamless connection with the infinite nothingness, hence shares the same substance as God the Father, is given a distinct identity through connection with the universe. The challenge then remains to define the Holy Spirit’s personhood. Personhood is explained in association with nous, the particle of the infinite nothingness, that each of us corpusculates. Corpusculation means the formation of a corpus (body) which is structured to contain a particle if infinite nothingness, the divine substance. Nous is instrumental in governing “morphic activity” through the same mechanism as the nomos (Holy Spirit) governs the universe. I call the mechanism that nomos utilizes to govern the universe (all of objective reality) the holonomic mechanism. The same form of the holonomic mechanism when utilized by a cell to animate matter (give life to) is called the cytonomic mechanism. The same form of the holonomic mechanism when utilized to govern morphic activity is called morphonomic mechanism. The form of the holonomic mechanism is: initial condition, algorithm, impetus.

Before reviewing the holonomic mechanism, I will review the dynamics of reality at the implicate level.

The universe, at any instant, consists of a static 3-dimensional lattice of s-points called the cosmic s-frame. Matter is nothing more than a specific arrangement of s-points. Remember, matter was created from ‘nothing’ and both Christian doctrine (creatio et nihilo) and Science (the Big Bang) agrees with this. Matter has form, continuous space does not, but discrete space does. Continuous space (infinite nothingness) is the ‘nothing’ from which discrete space emerged. Discrete space is the ‘nothing’ from which matter is formed. Therefore, matter is formed from the substance (or spirit) of God indirectly through that part of infinite nothingness that is discrete space.

The dynamics of reality is motion. The motion we experience and appears continuous to us is continuous in the same way that the motion on a movie screen appears continuous, but it is in fact the result of fixed frames of film incrementing through a projector. The scenes on an individual frame are fixed, are static, nothing changes. The cosmic s-frame is like a 3-dimensional movie film frame in which we are imbedded. The big difference is the movie film increments at 16-24 frames per second and I speculate that the cosmic s-frame increments through God’s projector at the rate of 10exp43 frames per second. No wonder all our motion seems continuous. Parmenides and Zeno saw through that illusion 2 ½ millennia ago.

Time is the manifestation of the incrementation; an instant of time is 10exp-43 seconds. Because of the smoothness of the incrementation of the cosmic s-frame, time also seems continuous. Energy is also an abstraction that arises from our perception of changing configurations of the s-frame. Changes in the parts of the cosmic s-frame configured as matter at the implicate level is manifested as ponderable energy at the explicate level. Changes in the parts of the cosmic s-frame not configured as matter are manifested as radiant energy.

Reconfiguration of the s-frame and the impetus for incrementation is accomplished by the holonomic mechanism. When applied to the s-points that make up cell, the mechanism is called the cytonomic mechanism. When applied to a multicellular organism, the mechanism is called the morphonomic mechanism. In all three cases the mechanism consists of an initial condition, an algorithm, and the impetus. What I am implying is that the mechanism that gets us out of bed in the morning has the same format as the mechanism that causes the earth to revolve around the sun. Nomos is the source of the holonomic mechanism; bios is the source of the cytonomic mechanism; and nous is the source of the morphonomic mechanism. This is what I mean by comprehensiveness. If we can define “personhood” using the output of the morphonomic mechanism (morphic activity), then we can argue the personhood of the Holy Spirit using the output of the holonomic mechanism (objective reality).

In my next post I will review each element of the holonomic mechanism then show how the dual split dilemma can be explained as an example of the comprehensiveness of the model of dual reality.

Thank you for your interest and your patience.
Yppop

 

[greylorn]

To one and all,

In my next post (if enough views are recorded to indicate interest) I will discuss the nature of the soul and in subsequent post discuss human behavior.

Yppop

YP,
I’ve been following your work here with curiosity, but confess that I’m not following your meanings with any real clarity. You neglected to reply to a question of mine early in this thread (probably private) which, if answered, would have helped to provide the kind of mental image I need in order to visualize and mentally work with the space concept you write about. Lacking that foundation for understanding your subsequent ideas, they all disappeared into mental quicksand. But that’s because I’ve only learned how to evaluate ideas from the bottom up.

Nonetheless, I am curious about your understanding of soul, and propose that since you’ve started this thread, you should finish it even if no one is interested. So do get back to work, please. .

 

[yppop]

I’ve been following your work here with curiosity, but confess that I’m not following your meanings with any real clarity. You neglected to reply to a question of mine early in this thread (probably private) which, if answered, would have helped to provide the kind of mental image I need in order to visualize and mentally work with the space concept you write about. Lacking that foundation for understanding your subsequent ideas, they all disappeared into mental quicksand. But that’s because I’ve only learned how to evaluate ideas from the bottom up.

Greylorn,
Nice to hear from you again. Please repeat the question I failed to answer. Sorry!

Nonetheless, I am curious about your understanding of soul, and propose that since you’ve started this thread, you should finish it even if no one is interested. So do get back to work, please.

A few words about the soul. I think the following is a list of properties that you feel are required in order to define the soul. Correct me if I’m wrong.

1. It must be capable of thought.
2. The soul must have some form of memory.
3. It must be able to perceive and interpret sensory information in the forms presented by the brain.
4. It must be conscious, or at least potentially conscious.
5. Soul must be able to control the voluntary actions of the human body, which implies control of the brain’s cortex.
6. Although not material, the soul must be physical.
7. The soul’s properties of thought and sentience must persist (or be potentially capable of persisting) independently of the human brain
8. A soul must actually exist.
9. It must have properties which permit its detection

I agree with every item on the list except #9. I think the soul exists even it is undetectable.

The problem that has interested thinkers for centuries is the brain/soul connection. I take a different approach to that problem than I believe you do. In order to explain the interaction of the brain with the soul, I created nous. This allows me to explain how the non-material can affect the material (yes, both are ‘physical’ in the sense that we both define it). Nous controls the s-points that form the neurons in the brain in the same way as the nomos controls the s-points that form objective reality—with the same basic mechanism. In this way nous controls all morphic activity, both action and thought. Thought is controlled through the agency of the mind. The mind is the particular connection of the nous with the s-points that form the neurons responsible for the language instinct. The nous in addition to supplying the impetus for thought and willful action, is also a memory in which perceptions, meanings, sensations, and emotions are stored. How this organization relates to behavior is the topic of another post. I address the problem of morphic activity with an expanded sequence: language instinct of the brain/mind/nous/soul. To me the soul is the algorithm that resides in the nous. The soul therefore is pure information that communes with the nomos (Holy Spirit) through a portal of Garce and can be programmed as the human mind develops. In this way it acquires a distinct “form”, which is manifested as one’s personality. It is eternal and passes on to the next life.

Morphic activity, is, of course, a lot more complex and I will explain my view of human behavior in subsequent posts. What I am currently doing is laying the foundation by describing the basic mechanism. In short, the soul is the set of instructions that the nous conveys to the s-points making up the neurons in the brain. The impetus that increments the cellular s-points, also contained in the nous, is the same as the impetus that the nomos uses to increment the cosmic s-frame; the impetus is experienced by us as our free will. The initial condition is the organization of all the neurons in the brain. It is subject to ongoing modification so in a maturing person the will can overcome the instinctive initial condition.

I am afraid I am getting way ahead of myself, so I am going to take a long week end to celebrate Father’s day.

GL next week I will get back to you. I want to examine how each of those first 8 properties in your list relate to my thesis.

Happy Father’s Day
Yppop

 

[yppop]

The soul therefore is pure information that communes with the nomos (Holy Spirit) through a **portal of Garce **and can be programmed as the human mind develops.

I thought I better point out the typo “portal of garce” before Greylorn reads it and thinks I came over to his side. No I am not into science fiction anymore, that phase of my life happened almost 60 years ago.

I meant “portal of grace”, which (forgive me) is another phrase I invented to signify something I will mention in future posts when I get to the subject of God’s grace. Unless I dispose of it by then. This is a work in progress, as you may have surmised.

Now I’m off for the weekend.
Yppop

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,

A few words about the soul. I think the following is a list of properties that you feel are required in order to define the soul. Correct me if I’m wrong.

1. It must be capable of thought.
2. The soul must have some form of memory.
3. It must be able to perceive and interpret sensory information in the forms presented by the brain.
4. It must be conscious, or at least potentially conscious.
5. Soul must be able to control the voluntary actions of the human body, which implies control of the brain’s cortex.
6. Although not material, the soul must be physical.
7. The soul’s properties of thought and sentience must persist (or be potentially capable of persisting) independently of the human brain
8. A soul must actually exist.
9. It must have properties which permit its detection

I agree with every item on the list except #9. I think the soul exists even it is undetectable.

Yppop

YP,
I’m excerpting and addressing just one topic from your post #85 at the moment, and will reply in more detail in a few days. I do want to understand your ideas. Perhaps between us we can figure things out.

You have detailed my required properties of soul perfectly. Thank you.

I propose that if you agree with items 1 - 8, you are logically required to agree with #9.

Items 3 and 5 make it clear that soul must have an interactive connection with the human brain. Brain affects soul, and soul in turn has the ability to control parts of the brain. The brain, therefore, is a biological soul-detection machine.

This implies that the soul might be directly detected and even interfaced with an electronic device capable of mimicking neurological activity (c.f. “The Soul of Anna Klane”) In any case, the soul would be inferentially detectable via suitable studies of brain activity.

Astronomers use inferential detection to find black holes, which cannot be seen since they emit no electromagnetic radiation. However, matter falling into a black hole emits detectable radiation, and the motion of stars orbiting a black hole provides evidence of a massive but invisible object.

Note that astronomers would not have been able to detect black holes without the mathematical analyses which predicted their existence and properties. Had they found the evidence accidentally, they’d have been unable to interpret it without the mathematical predictions.

Determining the theoretical properties of soul must be done before the concept of post-death consciousness, eternal life, reincarnation or any similar religious beliefs can be taken seriously.

 

[greylorn]

I thought I better point out the typo “portal of garce” before Greylorn reads it and thinks I came over to his side. No I am not into science fiction anymore, that phase of my life happened almost 60 years ago.

I meant “portal of grace”, which (forgive me) is another phrase I invented to signify something I will mention in future posts when I get to the subject of God’s grace. Unless I dispose of it by then. This is a work in progress, as you may have surmised.

Now I’m off for the weekend.
Yppop

Drat! For a moment I thought you’d received just enough Garce to see the light.

 

[greylorn]

(Post #85)
Greylorn,
Nice to hear from you again. Please repeat the question I failed to answer. Sorry!

Happy Father’s Day
Yppop

YP,
I could not find the post which you failed to answer, which leads me to believe that I composed it but failed to post it. Please accept my apologies. How could you possibly have replied to an invisible post?

I’ll reconstruct the query. Consider this excerpt from your post #83…

Discrete space consists of points (I refer to as s-points) separated by gaps. These gaps are permeated with infinite nothingness, which I call nomos…

…I contend that it is from the activity of the nomos that the laws of physics become known.

I want a better picture of the “discrete space” you describe, particularly a geometrical picture. In an earlier (private) post you agreed that the distance between points might be the Planck length, which is a constant. I attempted to construct a space composed of equidistant points and failed. That may be simply a shortfall in my math skills, but here are the problems I came up against:

It is possible to construct a 2-dimensional space defined by equidistant points. Examples, the 60-atom carbon molecules known as buckyballs and Buckminister Fuller’s infamous geodesic domes. These 2-dimensional structures enclose a 3-dimensional space, but the structure enclosing the space does not extend within the space…

Your concept requires a 3-dimensional space defined by equidistant points. One might visualize a geodesic dome with an outer shell which is also a geodesic dome, which in turn has an outer geodesic dome shell, etc. etc. The problem is that it is not possible to construct a series of layered geodesic domes such that all points within and between shells are equidistant. It makes no difference what the precise distance is.

You must deal with this question if the “discreet space” you propose is to make any sense.

Moreover, I believe than in a earlier private post you referred to the s-points as being orthogonal. Imagine a Rubik’s cube such that the corners of each mini-cube within the structure represent your orthogonal s-points. Then, the distance between points is constant only if it is measured along the outer edges of each mini-cube. What about the diagonal distances within each mini-cube?

And, are you proposing to constrain physical activity to motion (or quantum leaps) between orthogonal points only?

I trust that you enjoyed F. Day. My offspring never call me, perhaps because they don’t need me for anything any more, are too busy, or simply dislike me, or (whine) all of the above. I don’t call them on Daughter’s Day either.

 

[yppop]

Hello GL
In post #87 you wrote “I propose that if you agree with items 1 - 8, you are logically required to agree with #9” in response to my post #85 where I wrote, “I agree with every item on the list except #9”. #9 was: “It must have properties which permit its detection”. Here we have a problem of semantics.

In regards to the question of the ability to detect the soul (post#87), I concede your point. I was wrong when I rearranged your list. In the post where you list the properties, my #8 “The soul must exist” is your #1 and my # 9 “It must have properties which permit its detection” is your #2. I read my #9 as a stand-alone statement in which “must” implies that if the soul isn’t detectable, it doesn’t exist. However when combined with your #1 “A soul must actually exist”, then my #9 implies that if the soul exists, then it must be detectable. So I agree with all of your defining properties of the soul. The argument for the detection of the soul is extremely important in the battle with the materialists of this world. Equally important in that battle is the need to stress the distinction between the words “physical” and “material”. All that is material is physical; but not all that is physical is material.

In regards to your post #89 and the question of discrete space. Since I attribute the expansion of the universe to the expansion of the distance between s-points, I don’t believe that the s-gap is constant over time. As far as the structure of discrete space regarding the size of the s-gap, in my post #11, I wrote, “The size of the gap I envision currently existing between s-points is the Planck length = 10 exp-34 meters, which based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, which is about 10 exp-43 seconds.” It should read, “…which, based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, is about 10 exp-43 seconds.” My thought is that since the speed of light defines the maximum speed of information transfer, then the speed of light determines the MINIMUM length of the s-gap.

You also asked: “*And, are you proposing to constrain physical activity to motion (or quantum leaps) between orthogonal points only?” *
No, the lattice of s-points is only approximately homogenous and crystalline. Since the arrangement of s-points reflects the distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe, the s-gap could hardly be uniform or constant. In the structure of reality that I am describing, the important factor is not how the s-points are arranged, but rather the displacement of individual s-points from one s-frame to the next. Just as the image on motion picture film is slightly different (displaced) from one frame to the next and motion is created by the amount of displacement and the incrementation rate, so too is the creation of motion in objective reality. More important is: the idea that the ground of objective reality is discrete space, which being immersed in infinite nothingness gives a dual nature to reality however the s-points are arranged.

I enjoyed the “Garce” exchange. Survival in this world is a very difficult without a sense of humor!

Thanks for your comments.
Yppop

 

[HelenaMT]

… Since I attribute the expansion of the universe to the expansion of the distance between s-points, I don’t believe that the s-gap is constant over time. As far as the structure of discrete space regarding the size of the s-gap, in my post #11, I wrote, “The size of the gap I envision currently existing between s-points is the Planck length = 10 exp-34 meters, which based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, which is about 10 exp-43 seconds.” It should read, “…which, based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, is about 10 exp-43 seconds.” My thought is that since the speed of light defines the maximum speed of information transfer, then the speed of light determines the MINIMUM length of the s-gap.

You also asked: “*And, are you proposing to constrain physical activity to motion (or quantum leaps) between orthogonal points only?” *
No, the lattice of s-points is only approximately homogenous and crystalline. Since the arrangement of s-points reflects the distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe, the s-gap could hardly be uniform or constant. In the structure of reality that I am describing, the important factor is not how the s-points are arranged, but rather the displacement of individual s-points from one s-frame to the next. Just as the image on motion picture film is slightly different (displaced) from one frame to the next and motion is created by the amount of displacement and the incrementation rate, so too is the creation of motion in objective reality. More important is: the idea that the ground of objective reality is discrete space, which being immersed in infinite nothingness gives a dual nature to reality however the s-points are arranged.

Yppop

Thanks goodness Greylorn led you to answer a question I didn’t know how to ask about. Thanks for this clarification, I’m a little closer to picturing what you are trying to describe. Does this way of seeing reality add any clarity to any current problems scientists are working on? Or is it just an alternate way of describing what is currently understood?

 

[yppop]

Hello HMT
Nice to hear from you again!

Thank you for your excellent question because it allows me to digress in order to explain some of my motivation and method of working. Please bear with me before I answer your questions directly.

I was led to develop the Model of Dual Reality in my quest for the meaning of life. The quest began with the question: Does God exist? The answer to that is obvious: if there is meaning in life; there must be hope; the only hope is in the promise of salvation; and the only promise of salvation is with God. So, in my way of thinking, one can only find the meaning of life if God exists. In addition to that argument through reason, I also happen to believe in God through faith.

Next question: God exists, but how? The HOW question was prompted through my reading of Teilhard de Chardin (all of his books) who offered the idea that the universe consists not only of the physical “without”—matter, space, time, and energy—but also the spiritual ”within”. Teilhard doesn’t describe the within. My attempt to answer the HOW question is directed at explaining a reality composed of a without and a within; my attempt has taken many turns and the ideas that I absorb come from many sources. I cannot tell which are original, if any. Later in my thesis I address the question of ideas and identify two sources: radial insight and tangential insight.

My introduction to Teilhard happened 45 years ago. The seminal idea—discrete space—occurred about 20 years ago; although I had prepared my mind through reading and the work I was doing, the idea that the ground of reality was discrete space was an eureka moment, which I refer to as radial insight.

However, I am an avid reader and have read many science, math, and philosophy books (over a 100 in my life time). In addition I worked as a semiconductor engineer for 35 years and since my degrees are in physics my assignments generally were in the solid state aspect of the job rather than the circuitry of the devices. Solid state physics is primarily a “discrete” science. The word “digital” is used interchangeably with discrete (the whole world is going digital). So my mind was used to thinking in discrete terms. Reading science also made me realize that the scientific view of matter (and energy) was one of increasing granulation (or discreteness). And even at the forefront of scientific thinking, physicists have reduced matter to space (string theory) and space to a partial discreteness (quantum loop theory). In fact there is a whole new discipline, just outside the established science, called Discrete Physics.

The idea of the lattice of s-points forming a cosmic s-frame and incrementing one frame to the next to cause what we experience as motion, time, and energy was the result of my work and reading; I refer to that process as tangential insight. After deciding on the discreteness of space I was undecided how to apply dynamics to the structure, either: the incrementation of all the s-points simultaneously or streaming one s-point at a time as happens in digital TV or computers. A book by Julian Barbour called “The End of Time” influenced my decision to choose the whole s-frame incrementing simultaneously—definitely tangential insight.

Now for your questions:

*1. Does this way of seeing reality add any clarity to any current problems scientists are working on? *
Yes, my thesis can offer an explanation of some of the observations often referred to as quantum weirdness; for example: non-locality, entanglement, the double slit dilemma, and the complimentary principle. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to explain (this is my busy season with family, vacations, and yard work), but if anyone wants a specific explanation about any one of them, let me know and I will try to find the time.

*2. Or is it just an alternate way of describing what is currently understood? *
Not an alternate, but I think a deeper way. Another important point to get a hold of if you are to get a complete understanding of what I am presenting, is the idea of implicate and explicate views of reality. It is my contention that science restricts itself to a surface view of reality. Take, for example, these tenets from Logical Positivism, the philosophical principle of science:

Science:
**1.rejects the idea that reality has some purpose;
2.rejects any attempt to explain natural phenomena by attributing to it an essence or a secret cause of things;
3.rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses;
4.advocates the study of constant relationship among things without delving into the underlying causes.

You can see that my thesis is antithetical to the all four specifics of the philosophy of science. However, I contend that my explanations are not in contradiction with science and I use science wherever possible. **

Again, thank you for your post.
Yppop

 

[Detales]

Yppop, considering the etymological derivation of the word “radical” I’m lookin forward to your explication of “radical insight”

I’m sorry that you didn’t post, or may be I didn’t see, a list of the four specifics of the philosophy of science. Can’t say exctly what you ae refering to.

As for:

“Science:
1.rejects the idea that reality has some purpose;
2.rejects any attempt to explain natural phenomena by attributing to it an essence or a secret cause of things;
3.rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses;
4.advocates the study of constant relationship among things without delving into the underlying causes.”

1. The purpose of Reality is “To BE.” The purpose of science is not to project a purpose for the Universe, it is to discover knowledge about it and its working. Any conjecture arising from that are for the purpose of asking more detalied and specific questions pertinent to observable phenomena. Is “purpose” within the quale of “observable?”
2. Attribution is an external act, similar to superimposition, a delightfully prevalant human activeity leading to distortion and ignorance. The anthropormorphization of God is a case in point.
3. It is the job of science to reject non-sensual expalnations, as those are beyond its quale, being rightfully in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, not physics in the math of it all.
4. As far as science is concerned, the relationships are the underlying causes.

So, Yppop, it seems from here tht you are blaming science for not being metaphysiscs. It can’t be. Although religion and science are both means of dealing with the unknown, along with, to some degree, philosophy, both of thoese have different areas proper to them as fields of inquiry. Granted there are areas where thy may get confused, but basically it is easy to distinguish the proper areas of the two. Science deals with the measurabel relationships of things in the subject/object sense world. Religon deals with the dimension called Soul, whose realm is the quale of Identity. Now, it is true that religion has generally disintegrated under the influence of reason into the subject/object realm. It is, I think, the result of this disintegration into s/o thiking that has even allowed the considerton that science and religion ahve anything to do with one another. That is even granting that Identity is nevertheless at the root of the ability to percieve and deal with scientific questions. But again, religion has to do with Being, and science has to do with describing our sensual engagement of Creation. And again. I agree that that sensual engagement can evoke religous sentiment or even perception, but that is yet not the realm of the scientific sort of inquiry, but of Self Knowledge. I will not cease to repeat that Gnothi Seouton is not a frivoulous dictum but a key and a door to the sollution of your artificial delima.

S points, etc, may very well be. I don’t know. But if you can think about them, they are in the subject/object realm and are with science, not with religion or metaphysics. The resolution of religion and science is on a different axis entirely.

 

[yppop]

Hello Detales
You wrote: *Yppop, considering the etymological derivation of the word “radical” I’m lookin forward to your explication of “radical insight”. *

I searched the entire thread and nowhere does “radical” appear until you used it. I’ve been trying to figure out your motive for incorrectly pointing it out. Surely it had to been a tongue-in-cheek attempt at gentle kidding? Or was it a serious attempt to point out a perceived error? I hope it wasn’t an error in reading, because you don’t want to add misreading to your already healthy dose of misspelling.

You wrote: I’m sorry that you didn’t post, or may be I didn’t see, a list of the four specifics of the philosophy of science. Can’t say exctly what you ae refering to.
Sorry about switching terminology: the specifics I am referring to are the 4 tenets listed just above the sentence in which I use the word specifics.

The rest of your comments seem to come across as a mild rebuke in the form of a sermon, but they also seem to argue the main point of my answer to HelenaMT’s question: Or is it just an alternate way of describing what is currently understood?
My thesis does not infringe on the sphere of science—the explicate view of reality—which is described by the four tenets (specifics) of Logical Positivism. Science is happy with their charter and I am happy that they stick with it and I don’t “blame” science for anything. I happen to love science, but I love God more. I believe God exists and operates on a different plane than the one we experience and science describes. God operates at the ground of reality, the implicate view. My aim is to describe HOW God might operate and in doing so explain a deeper and more fundamental nature of reality, which is manifested as the observable relationships that science describes. I make no claim that my thesis fits the self-imposed definition of science; therefore it is not science. Since my thesis is based on “physical” factors such as discrete space, it is also neither metaphysics nor philosophy. I would be happy to call it metascience. There, a sermon right back at you!

Detales, my friend, I have finally begun reading K.G.Mills’ Cornucopia of Substance and find his method of speaking (writing) in aphorisms does not resonate with my engineering mind; but I will continue until I can begin to infer his meaning so that your manner of describing things will be more meaningful to me. For example, these from your post: The purpose of Reality is “To BE.”; “the subject/object sense” “the quale of Identity” “Gnothi Seouton is not a frivoulous dictum but a key and a door to the sollution of your artificial delima.” Regarding the last item in the preceding sequence; I think I know myself, but is the “…your artificial dilemma" meant in the general sense or does it apply specifically to me. If the latter, I would be interested in knowing what you think my artificial dilemma is?

Thanks for you post!
Yppop

 

[Detales]

Ooops! My bad: blurred on “radial” as in “radial and tangential insight.” Sorry, back to reading your post.

 

[greylorn]

Post #90

Hello GL
In post #87 you wrote “I propose that if you agree with items 1 - 8, you are logically required to agree with #9” in response to my post #85 where I wrote, “I agree with every item on the list except #9”. #9 was: “It must have properties which permit its detection”. Here we have a problem of semantics.

In regards to the question of the ability to detect the soul (post#87), I concede your point. I was wrong when I rearranged your list. In the post where you list the properties, my #8 “The soul must exist” is your #1 and my # 9 “It must have properties which permit its detection” is your #2. I read my #9 as a stand-alone statement in which “must” implies that if the soul isn’t detectable, it doesn’t exist. However when combined with your #1 “A soul must actually exist”, then my #9 implies that if the soul exists, then it must be detectable. So I agree with all of your defining properties of the soul. The argument for the detection of the soul is extremely important in the battle with the materialists of this world. Equally important in that battle is the need to stress the distinction between the words “physical” and “material”. All that is material is physical; but not all that is physical is material.

Agreement is good, and so rare. Thanks. There is no way to win the battle with atheism unless the soul is proven to exist. This requires a clear understanding of its;physical properties, which it must possess if it communicates with the human brain. From these we might proceed to reproducible detection.

Your point about the distinction between material and physical is one which I’ve been trying to make since Physics 301.

In regards to your post #89 and the question of discrete space. Since I attribute the expansion of the universe to the expansion of the distance between s-points, I don’t believe that the s-gap is constant over time. As far as the structure of discrete space regarding the size of the s-gap, in my post #11, I wrote, “The size of the gap I envision currently existing between s-points is the Planck length = 10 exp-34 meters, which based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, which is about 10 exp-43 seconds.” It should read, “…which, based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, is about 10 exp-43 seconds.” My thought is that since the speed of light defines the maximum speed of information transfer, then the speed of light determines the MINIMUM length of the s-gap.

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

Then, rereading and trying to figure out which sentence ends in what, you seem to be measuring your “s-gap” first in terms of a linear spatial dimension, later in terms of time. That doesn’t work.

I’d like to see these statements in mathematical form. That is the only way to make your meaning clear.

For example, a formal description of the relationship between c, a constant, and the s-gap, apparently a variable, is essential. Other terms are needed here, since the variable length of the s-gap cannot be a function of the speed of light, which is a constant. At least one other variable parameter is required. Give me equations.

You also asked: “*And, are you proposing to constrain physical activity to motion (or quantum leaps) between orthogonal points only?” *

No, the lattice of s-points is only approximately homogenous and crystalline. Since the arrangement of s-points reflects the distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe, the s-gap could hardly be uniform or constant.

Then it cannot be defined in terms of the Planck length, which is a constant.

In the structure of reality that I am describing, the important factor is not how the s-points are arranged, but rather the displacement of individual s-points from one s-frame to the next.

Is that not an arrangement?

Just as the image on motion picture film is slightly different (displaced) from one frame to the next and motion is created by the amount of displacement and the incrementation rate, so too is the creation of motion in objective reality.

More important is: the idea that the ground of objective reality is discrete space, which being immersed in infinite nothingness gives a dual nature to reality however the s-points are arranged.

I confess to being unable to comprehend the meaning of your last sentence. I am a slow learner, and must develop an understanding of complex ideas from the ground up. My previous questions must be answered in a way I can understand before I will have any chance of comprehending ideas which seem to depend upon them.

I believe that you have a conceptual understanding in your own mind which is clear to you. It is difficult to convey complex ideas on such a subject without a mathematical description. Putting your ideas in those terms is essential. Trying to explain them in English has not been helpful to me and is unlikely to effectively convey your understanding to anyone else, I believe.

From private communications I know that I am not alone here. Perhaps if I understood the mathematical basis for your ideas, I could help clarify them for others. I’ve had some practice doing that for my own theories.

I enjoyed the “Garce” exchange. Survival in this world is a very difficult without a sense of humor!

And those unfortunate buggers who have yet to find their sense of humor can benefit from seeking more garce in their lives. Worthy lessons for all.

 

[Detales]

I guess you noticed that I am a world champion misspeller. I expect all the honors and adulations that go with that.

OK, thanks for the clarification about the four specifics. My following four statements are just that, IMHO’s, sermons and rebukes perhaps being more in the province of how they were taken. I guess that also deals with current views, as I rather doubt that many scientists would publish a paper titled “Purpose of Universe found! To BE!” though some physicists seem to be leaning that way, eh? Too bad there isn’t a psychic plug-in for this site that automatically turns IMHO’s a specific color. Do you think that much on these fora would be highlighted? In any case, I’m not completely agreeing that science and logical positivism, as you put it, are one. If you have treated this already and I’ve passed it by, please remind me, if you please.

As for the claim that God operates at the ground of reality, I would state that as God IS the ground of reality, as anything deemed to be an “operation” in any sense takes place in the quale of manifestation, which is yet not separate from God. In that we might have at least two of the three Persons of the Trinity.

The “how” of that is Being refracted through Mind. So a study of HOW God operates at that level necessarily has to be a study carried out by plumbing the Nature of Consciousness, something not susceptible to our reasonable subject/object mode of evaluation. And especially not through English, a notoriously dualistic language, as you know from Bohm, which is incapable in its normal usage of carrying any portion of such an inquiry with accuracy. Better to go with math or Music. Or Muth. Or maybe Masic. You get the idea. Anyway, it kind of goes with the need for a “metascience.” Bon chance. I admire your perseverance.

I admire you for attempting Cornucopia. You are seeing, as far as such a work is capable of taking you, into the mind of a master musician classed by some critics into the category of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. It is why, if I remember correctly, I strongly recommended one or both of Franklin Merell-Wollff’s works. You may recall that I specifically recommended M-W on the basis of his being a fellow engineer. He was an electrical engineer whose practice was in California where he also operated a small gold mine. I guess one might say he was mining for gold twice at once. But I greatly appreciate that your effort has as a component a desire to understand my manner of description. You are a rare man indeed, Sir! Kudos again!

As to the “artificial dilemma,” I have hinted at it above. We habitually delve into a Unitary presentation with our derived subject/object reasoning base and expect meaningful results. Tha along with the 100-odd usual cognative errors, and the peceptual lacuna described in work relating to awareness and stage magic. The application of our even scholasitcally trained thinking only leads to confusion, misinterpretation, religion, and -isms with no Unified Field grounding. As I have been trying to promote onehre, that grounding is availabel and accesibel to those willing to make the, albeit great, effort.

Perhaps you are familiar with Korzybski’s “structural differential?” It is ultimately incomplete, but is a fine beginning visual of how we see and interpret what might be called Allness. The artificial dilemma lies in the insistence of using s/o awareness in a field where it can’t apply, by rule of the smaller being incapable of grasping the greater. Ken Wilbur addresses this in a way slightly different than M-Wollff, as do David R. Hawkins (excellent re: map of Consciousness,) The Emin Philosophy, and even L. Ron Hubbard (!) who has a “Tone scale” that approaches this area of consideration. Perhaps that area of consideration might help with your metascience.

 

[greylorn]

I guess you noticed that I am a world champion misspeller. I expect all the honors and adulations that go with that.

Great. You want an award for being incapable of noting when the excellent CAF spell checker underlines a word, or too arrogant to look up the word in a dictionary. There will be a turkey shoot in my neck of the woods this fall. You could come and be the target.

As for the claim that God operates at the ground of reality, I would state that as God IS the ground of reality, as anything deemed to be an “operation” in any sense takes place in the quale of manifestation, which is yet not separate from God. In that we might have at least two of the three Persons of the Trinity.

Pretentious words, meaning nothing. Your statement, “God IS the ground of reality,etc, etc.” will endear you to believers. To me it comes across as intellectual pretense.

To clear it up, define God.

The “how” of that is Being refracted through Mind. So a study of HOW God operates at that level necessarily has to be a study carried out by plumbing the Nature of Consciousness, something not susceptible to our reasonable subject/object mode of evaluation. And especially not through English, a notoriously dualistic language, as you know from Bohm, which is incapable in its normal usage of carrying any portion of such an inquiry with accuracy. Better to go with math or Music. Or Muth. Or maybe Masic. You get the idea. Anyway, it kind of goes with the need for a “metascience.” Bon chance. I admire your perseverance.

I’m writing another book, and have a section which needs an example of some pretentious intellectual tripe. May I have your permission to quote the above paragraph?

I admire you for attempting Cornucopia. You are seeing, as far as such a work is capable of taking you, into the mind of a master musician classed by some critics into the category of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. It is why, if I remember correctly, I strongly recommended one or both of Franklin Merell-Wollff’s works. You may recall that I specifically recommended M-W on the basis of his being a fellow engineer. He was an electrical engineer whose practice was in California where he also operated a small gold mine. I guess one might say he was mining for gold twice at once. But I greatly appreciate that your effort has as a component a desire to understand my manner of description. You are a rare man indeed, Sir! Kudos again!

As to the “artificial dilemma,” I have hinted at it above. We habitually delve into a Unitary presentation with our derived subject/object reasoning base and expect meaningful results. Tha along with the 100-odd usual cognative errors, and the peceptual lacuna described in work relating to awareness and stage magic. The application of our even scholasitcally trained thinking only leads to confusion, misinterpretation, religion, and -isms with no Unified Field grounding. As I have been trying to promote onehre, that grounding is availabel and accesibel to those willing to make the, albeit great, effort.

Perhaps you are familiar with Korzybski’s “structural differential?” It is ultimately incomplete, but is a fine beginning visual of how we see and interpret what might be called Allness. The artificial dilemma lies in the insistence of using s/o awareness in a field where it can’t apply, by rule of the smaller being incapable of grasping the greater. Ken Wilbur addresses this in a way slightly different than M-Wollff, as do David R. Hawkins (excellent re: map of Consciousness,) The Emin Philosophy, and even L. Ron Hubbard (!) who has a “Tone scale” that approaches this area of consideration. Perhaps that area of consideration might help with your metascience.

There are some names you neglected to drop. Could you please include them for my reading list?

 

[Detales]

Wow, Gray, your signature really fits! Kudos.

 

[yppop]

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