God exists; but how?

[jkiernan56]

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

If God is Infinite Nothingness, then you and I would not be having this dialogue … unless this is nothingness too.

 

[Detales]

Please read more carefully. I said “that is exactly what the Allnes of God might appear to be to mortal mind,” that is, the rational, subject/pbject mode of ordianry human perception.

BD

 

[jkiernan56]

Please read more carefully. I said “that is exactly what the Allnes of God might appear to be to mortal mind,” that is, the rational, subject/pbject mode of ordianry human perception.

BD

Would you mind discussing with me your understanding and definition of reality? Do you think reality is according to perception?

 

[Detales]

No, Reality os not according to perception. Living is according to perception. The test of Reality is: Does it change? If yes, it may be actual in manifestation but not Real as is the Divine. For that “matter,” God does not exist. God IS. Matter exists.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No, Reality os not according to perception. Living is according to perception. The test of Reality is: Does it change? If yes, it may be actual in manifestation but not Real as is the Divine. For that “matter,” God does not exist. God IS. Matter exists.

There is reality, and then there are those things which participate in reality, such as you and me. Reality is being. There is no such thing as nothing, thus being is perfectly-existent, and so it is also timeless, and is the ultimate nature. Change is an expressive manifestation of being. Those things which begin, change, and end, do not perfectly exist. Anything which changes and begins does so only because they change and begin “in” that which is being. Thus there is no changing thing that can claim to be existence. One can only participate in existence. This is the correct way to understand things.

 

[jkiernan56]

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

I think you were the one who earlier said that the meaning of words are very important. The meaning of words cannot be just whatever a person wants to them to be to suit their own purpose but rather fail to communicate with others … the purpose of language and words … .is to communicate … so the meaning of words are extremely important in the ability to communicate with others … agree?

I would like to see if you and I are looking at the same reality when you use the terms applied to God … to see if we are really communicating … or if the “light is on upstairs” … if you catch my drift. …

 

[MindOverMatter]

Please read more carefully. I said “that is exactly what the Allnes of God might appear to be to mortal mind,” that is, the rational, subject/pbject mode of ordianry human perception.

BD

Why would God appear to any mind as infinitely nothing, except to that person who is atheist?

 

[HelenaMT]

Why would God appear to any mind as infinitely nothing, except to that person who is atheist?

I really don’t think the OP meant infinite nothingness to mean nothing as you’re all defining it. In fact, he explicitly said it was not. He was trying to get across a concept that is very hard to define-that the divine exists beyond what we perceive with our senses and scientific measurements, that He is in all the places we cannot perceive while we are in the mortal world. Some of those places, in his definiton, are within ourselves, making up the spiritual component that coexists with the mortal, the physical.

Infinite nothingness seemed a good way to describe what cannot be perceived by the senses or by equipment, something not made of a substance and yet very real. If I have misunderstood, maybe Yppop will correct me. Unfortunately, I think all the quibbling over silly terminology may have driven him off. That’s too bad.

BTW, MoM, he is anything but an atheist, as the whole point of this thread should have illustrated.

 

[jkiernan56]

I really don’t think the OP meant infinite nothingness to mean nothing as you’re all defining it. In fact, he explicitly said it was not. He was trying to get across a concept that is very hard to define-that the divine exists beyond what we perceive with our senses and scientific measurements, that He is in all the places we cannot perceive while we are in the mortal world. Some of those places, in his definiton, are within ourselves, making up the spiritual component that coexists with the mortal, the physical.

Infinite nothingness seemed a good way to describe what cannot be perceived by the senses or by equipment, something not made of a substance and yet very real. If I have misunderstood, maybe Yppop will correct me. Unfortunately, I think all the quibbling over silly terminology may have driven him off. That’s too bad.

BTW, MoM, he is anything but an atheist, as the whole point of this thread should have illustrated.

Helena,

Would you please tell us what is the meaning of the word “NOTHINGNESS”? Let’s start there. Words and their meaning are extremely important. Otherwise, they don’t mean anything at all.

 

[Detales]

Dera HelenaMT,

Thanks for your post re quibbling. For my part, the reason I asked another of the poster to re-read my agreement with the use of “infinite nothingess” is similar to yours. There is a blatenet mistreading of ideas here that makes it very dicouraging to wish to continue a conversation on these term, even about the terms.

I also don’t want to hijack yppop’s thread here, as I believe that if nothing else he is working out something that is very important to his own understanding in all sincerity, whether anyone wishes to bicker with him or not, or to conduct a reasonalbe conversaton with him about his ideas,

For my part I am ceasing to respond to considerations on this thread that are not part of yppop’s original thread, but might engage the other posters if they wish to start another thread on the divergant topic, if invited.

BD

 

[HelenaMT]

Helena,

Would you please tell us what is the meaning of the word “NOTHINGNESS”? Let’s start there. Words and their meaning are extremely important. Otherwise, they don’t mean anything at all.

It’s also important to agree on terms within the context of a particular argument, or it’s a pointless waste of time. It doesn’t really matter what you or I might mean by “nothingness” normally. He wasn’t trying to engage in Philosophy-speak, but attempting to illustrate a concept unique to his theory. Attempting to constrain his ideas with dictionary definitions or philosophical terminology where he clearly was not intending to denigrate God or define Him out of existence (quite the contrary) only served to drag the thread off topic. But that’s just my opinion. You’re certainly free to ignore it.

 

[greylorn]

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

I know it was not meant to be taken literally. [edited]

 

[yppop]

Hello HMT,
Because it is a pleasure to hold a discussion with you, I feel I owe you answers to your last set of questions:

You asked: *Is God alone responsible for these incremental changes in the S-frame? But they are not “incremental” to God, in your view, just to us as we measure them at the explicate level. *

The first step in understanding my thesis is to understand the basic structure: a lattice of discrete points (the s-frame), from which objective reality is constructed, immersed in the infinite nothingness (nomos), which provides the spiritual component to reality. The second step is to understand the idea of incrementation. The third step is to understand how the incrementation is implemented by to holonomic mechanism, which consists of three parts:

1. An initial condition - by which I mean a specific arrangement of s-points within the s-frame, the singularity being the first.
2. An algorithm – by which I mean a set of instructions that leads to the reconfiguration of a specific s-frame to form the new s-frame to which it increments
3. An impetus – by which I mean the cause for incrementation, namely, the mind of God

God can invoke an initial condition at any instant along the path of actualization (the unfolding of reality). He can create miracles or new species for example by introducing specific arrangements to the s-frame at any instant of time. This is interpreted as a resetting of the initial conditions, which creates a new objective along the path of actualization such as the creation of the earth, abiogenesis, creation of multicellular organisms, new species, or the human mind.

Normally, however, God’s algorithm allows the universe to proceed routinely without direct (name removed by moderator)ut. The algorithmic relationships that allow incrementation to proceed routinely at the implicate level are manifested at the explicate level as the constants of nature and the laws of physics.

God alone is responsible for the incremental changes in the s-frame through the holonomic mechanism. What appears as energy, time, and matter at the explicate level is merely changing information—the will of God—at the implicate level. Later I compare the action of God’s Will with our own action of getting out of bed in the morning. We are—at the implicate level—nothing but s-points, the arrangement of which, is a specialized s-frame we call our body (or corpus) that we increment with our own mind, which consists of that particle of the infinite nothingness I call nous.

You asked: Another question. And is your take on angels or demons (I’m assuming you believe in their existence as a Catholic) that they exist more at the implicate than the explicate level, and so rarely interact with our reality? Do you think our personal “spiritual” experiences are real interactions with implicate reality? Is your take on prophets that their souls somehow slip into the implicate level of reality and take back images and impressions? Since prophets never seem absolutely clear, if they are real at all, this seems to make more sense than if God had communicated to them directly.

I believe in angels and demons, but as of now I haven’t given them much thought. I do believe they have spiritual presence, which means they exist externally in the nomos or internally in the bios and nous. I may change my mind when I give this more thought. If I was forced to at this juncture I would opt for the idea that the demons reside in the bios (in the cells) while the angels reside in the nous (in the mind) setting up the very familiar conflict between temptations and conscience/free will. Perhaps you might have some ideas along this line?

You asked: Since the part of us that is linked with the “infinite nothingness” is part of the implicate reality outside of measurable space and time, is that part somehow unhinged from explicate space even in life?

This is an interesting question that I would answer this way: The particle of infinite nothingness/nomos that we encapsulate in our cells as bios and in our body as nous (concentrated most likely in the brain) is in direct contact with the nomos (Holy Spirit) through our soul. Nous is the formless spiritual component which forms our soul. Since each of us possesses a unique soul, it must have form. One aspect of the soul’s form is the information that acts as the algorithm part of our own holonomic mechanism (I refer to it as the morphonomic mechanism when operating within a human s-frame). At explicate level we recognize the form of the soul as our personal behavior. The second aspect of the soul’s form is a portal that opens to the nomos and acts as a conduit of grace. (I am getting way ahead of myself). The nous; (1) develops the algorithm that controls our actions and thoughts, and (2) enlarges or shrinks the portal of grace, through free will, and forms our soul. And you can envision how such phenomenon impacted on the experiences of saints and prophets. So to answer your question: no, the s-points that are the substance of objective reality, including those that are part of a human body, are not “unhinged” (or decoherent from) the spiritual component in which it is immersed.
Rather the spiritual component takes an active part in all phenomena.

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

Even if creation did not start with the Big Bang I would still believe that God exists, but one would require a different argument for HOW God exists.

Thank you for your civil discourse. Too bad there are so many cacouacs in this forum!

Yppop

 

[yppop]

Hello,
I noticed that since my last post there were about 90 visits to this thread. Although not many repndents have expressed an understanding of this thesis, there still seems to be an interest in it. Therefore I will post a summary of what I call the Model of Dual Reality, the presumptive means for how God interacts with reality.

THESUS

1. The big bang theory defines how the universe began. It contends that 13.5 billion years ago an infinitesimal volume of unknown substance or origin, sometimes referred to as the singularity, expanded rapidly and organized space, matter, energy, and time as our universe.
2. Since at one time, as it expanded, the universe was the size of a tennis ball and since it was finite then, it must still be finite. Nothing can expand to infinity.
3. If the universe is finite, it must have a border.
4. Since according to the big bang theory it is space that is expanding; and since it is expanding into a realm that existed before the big bang and still exists beyond, the border must be spatial.
5. Since there are only two ways to imagine the nature of space, either continuous or discrete, one side of the border must be discrete and the other continuous space-like.
6. I will construct a model of dual reality based on the premise that the before/beyond consists of continuous space-like substance I call infinite nothingness and the “physical” space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete.
7. Discrete space consists of points separated by gaps. I refer to this structure as s-points separated by s-gaps. Discrete space is the ground of reality, the stuff from which God created the universe creatio ex nihilo. From it emerges matter, time and energy all bound together as a single interwoven fabric in which every element is interconnected to every other element.
8. The universe, at the ground of reality, is nothing more than a vast, but finite lattice of s-points. At any instant of time, the universe is a static lattice of s-points called the cosmic s-frame.
9. The cosmic s-frame is permeated with the infinite nothingness filling the s-gaps. The infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the discrete space of the universe is called nomos.
10. The basic particle of matter, called 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.
11. Distortions in the discrete space appear as matter in a background of undistorted space. Frozen in time this arrangement of s-points forms a static cosmic s-frame, a tableau of reality. Energy and time are manifestations of changes in the tableau. 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.
12. Given an impetus, the “present” static cosmic s-frame increments and 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; a periodic change in discrete space is manifested as radiant energy. The concepts manifested as space, time, mass, and energy at the explicate level are all discrete at the implicate level.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.

I am going of vacation for the next 9 days. When I get back, if there is sufficient interest, I will continue with the thesis. I apply the model to the problems of abiogenesis, evolution, the Cambriam explosion, he natrue of the mind and the soul.

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

GL, my friend

A promise not kept!

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

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

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

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

So in the words of an ancient sage:

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

Sang it many times.
Yppop

YP,
Now that you’ve returned from whatever goofing around you’ve been doing, I have some old overalls which, since they were shabbily cleaned the first time, get thrown back in your chowder.

Let’s solve your formula, [speed of light] = [s-gap] / [Planck era] for the s-gap.

Restating terms in case anyone else wants to follow: c = G/P

Or G (s-gap) = cP

Plugging in real values for c (3 x 10exp8 cm/sec) and P (any number from zero to 10exp-43 sec) we get that the value of G (s-gap) is somewhere between 0 and 3 x 10exp-35 cm. That makes it quite a bit shorter than the radius of an electron, which is around 10exp-15 cm.

Inverting the maximum value of G we get a minimum of 3.3 x 10exp34 s-gaps per centimeter.

Using the estimated radius of an electron as ~10exp-15 cm, this means that an electron is approximately 6.7 x 10exp19 s-gaps in diameter.

There are some things about these calculations which make little sense to me.

1. Since the Planck era is not a constant (unlike the Planck length, which is a constant) you are defining G as a variable. You are not offering any formulas which show this variable as a function of other physical parameters.
2. You offer no reason why your s-gap (G) should be a function of c and P, or of anything else, for that matter. Every physicist you and I have studied shows a derivation of his results, however esoteric. Where is yours?
3. 6.67 x 10exp19 s-gaps per electron diameter seems an unnecessarily high level of resolution. Why would it be so high?
4. I don’t like your defining the s-gap as a variable, and doing so without derivation. This is not sound science. At the metaphysical level (this conversation) it looks to me like a way to impress gullible folks who’ve never used a slide rule and don’t own a Rubber Bible.
5. I asked before and got no answer. When I complained about getting no answer, you said you’ve answered. I’m tired of the run-around… Here’s my question, reiterated. Feel free to repeat the answer you claimed to have provided:

Imagine s-points on an orthogonal three-dimensional Cartesian grid. (Or create any other grid structure that amuses you, but please define it.)

You claim that things can move between s-points. Can they move orthogonally from point to point (like the king or rook on a chess board) or diagonally (like the bishop)?
The s-gap would seem to be a function of the move direction.

I appreciate your supporting your own theory and repaying the dreadful amount of time I’ve put in trying to understand it, by answering these questions and addressing my curiosities clearly and honestly.

Working with engineers for years I have learned to respect the rare integrity of a straight-up, “I don’t know,” as an answer.

Incidentally, though I may have mentioned it, I’ve implemented your criticisms and those of others and improved my website. Thank you! Of course you are welcome to review and especially to criticize my latest work.

Best regards.

 

[greylorn]

Hello,
I noticed that since my last post there were about 90 visits to this thread. Although not many repndents have expressed an understanding of this thesis, there still seems to be an interest in it. Therefore I will post a summary of what I call the Model of Dual Reality, the presumptive means for how God interacts with reality.

Reply 1 of 3 to Post 152.

Interest precedes understanding. Understanding precedes acceptance. I’m still looking for interest regarding my theories, so don’t expect me to sympathize. Quit whining and keep putting your ideas out. What people think about them is none of your business. (Some wise person is alleged to have said that.)

I’m going to comment on each element of your thesis, because I think it is worth my time to contribute to the development of your ideas. Chances are that you will find my comments disagreeable. If so, send me a nasty private or public note before or after dealing with my complaints or blowing them off, as you choose.

I’ve found that good ideas improve with criticism, and weak ideas die, You have some potentially interesting ideas in this herd, so consider me the lion dining on the infected stragglers.

THESIS

1. The big bang theory defines how the universe began. It contends that 13.5 billion years ago an infinitesimal volume of unknown substance or origin, sometimes referred to as the singularity, expanded rapidly and organized space, matter, energy, and time as our universe.

You know that there are serious issues re: BB theory, even within the cosmological community. It is the best idea thought of so far, and that’s about all it has going for it. I’ll take it more seriously when its proponents explain why the micropea went poof.

Oh, and when they can find a way to make it work without adjusting the speed of light, which in other physics contexts, is a constant.

1. Since at one time, as it expanded, the universe was the size of a tennis ball and since it was finite then, it must still be finite. Nothing can expand to infinity.

I’d agree with this, but you might look at rewording the last sentence. Remember that “nothing” is what Catholics believe the universe was created from.

If Big Bang theory is true (which is IMO doubtful) then the universe is finite.

1. If the universe is finite, it must have a border.

My advanced math skills are about equal to my ability to leap tall buildings with a single bound, but I know that there is a mathematical state applied to dimensional systems which is referred to as finite but unbounded.

The universe may well be in such a state. If so, no “border.”

1. Since according to the big bang theory it is space that is expanding; and since it is expanding into a realm that existed before the big bang and still exists beyond, the border must be spatial.

That comment is unwarranted and meaningless. To give it meaning, you need to define the “realm” into which “space” is expanding.

How do you know that the mystery “realm” existed before the big bang? Or that it still exists?

Consider the unanswered but genuinely important question: What made the micropea, singularity, or whatever entity contained the mass-energy and laws of the universe blow up? It had presumably been minding its own business for quite a while.

What if an interaction with the “realm” caused the blast? The expansion of the micropea might have fed upon the “realm,” which might no longer exist.

Now you have two problems. You’ve not demonstrated that there is a border, and have not defined the edge of the universe. You may speculate about how the edge is defined, but to declare it with certainty? You might want to rethink that notion.

1. Since there are only two ways to imagine the nature of space, either continuous or discrete, one side of the border must be discrete and the other continuous space-like.

There are more than two ways to imagine the nature of space. While I think that string theory sucks, it demonstrates that theoretical physicists, if supported through your tax dollars, can divine spaces with anywhere from 10 to 27 dimensions, whatever that means.

There is a difference between imagining and buying into. I can imagine your digitized (discrete) space but will not take the concept seriously until you satisfactorily address the orthogonality question I’ve posed without answer twice before the previous post.

I got from your previous posts that you feel underappreciated. It is the lot of anyone who would propose new ideas, so get used to it. Drink some Incredible Hulk potion for the mind before addressing the complaints of the Philistines. But do address them before moving on to further speculations.

 

[greylorn]

Reply 2 of 3 to Post 152.

yppop:

1. I will construct a model of dual reality based on the premise that the before/beyond consists of continuous space-like substance I call infinite nothingness and the “physical” space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete.

This clarifies one problem I have with understanding your ideas. Describing a “substance” as “infinite nothingness” is confusing. Unless you are seeking confusion on the part of readers, you might have chosen better words. In effect, you are declaring that something is nothing.

This may appeal to those who have been programmed to believe that God created the universe from nothing, but since that concept has already bred many atheists, what is the point of expecting meaning from its converse?

Having perused my website, you may have recognized that my ideas employ a concept similar to yours in some respects. I do not refer to it as “nothing.” One must be careful using ordinary terms to express non-ordinary concepts, because ordinary terms carry their own meaning along with them, no matter how you might define them.

That knowledge is the trick behind neurolinguistic programming, an evil art mastered by the most successful politicians, attorneys, and admen.

1. Discrete space consists of points separated by gaps. I refer to this structure as s-points separated by s-gaps. Discrete space is the ground of reality, the stuff from which God created the universe creatio ex nihilo. From it emerges matter, time and energy all bound together as a single interwoven fabric in which every element is interconnected to every other element.

This declaration appears to be at odds with your adoption of Big Bang theory at the outset. You get to chose one concept for the beginnings of things. Just one.

Does the Latin phrase, “creatio ex nihilo” convey more profundity or obfuscation than the simple and clear equivalent English phrase, “creation from nothing?” Does it somehow enhance the significance of a dubious concept?

In your first statement, the universe was created from the same silly “singularity” as the Big Bang. Here, God made it out of nothing. \

Choose one theory.

(By the way, did God also create “discrete space” from nothing?)

1. The universe, at the ground of reality, is nothing more than a vast, but finite lattice of s-points. At any instant of time, the universe is a static lattice of s-points called the cosmic s-frame.

You seem to be defining the universe as a state machine. That is also my opinion. We have different frames of reference for the state, however.

1. The cosmic s-frame is permeated with the infinite nothingness filling the s-gaps. The infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the discrete space of the universe is called nomos.

Can we revisit this after you find a different term than “infinite nothingness?”

1. The basic particle of matter, called 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.

I’m no stranger to hand-waving arguments. I’d just as soon be a stranger to these.

How can a lattice of anything be homogeneous? Something cannot be divided into discrete components and still be homogeneous, by definition. The components may be evenly distributed according to some coordinate system, but only to a particular coordinate system. If they are evenly distributed on a Cartesian grid, they will not be evenly distributed on a radial grid, Etc.

Without definitions and the ever-dreaded, but scientifically rigorous equation, all you are doing here is throwing around a lot of technical terms from arcane theoretical physics speculations which were of dubious value before you began spouting them. That may impress those reading this site who think that quark is what a duck says. You and I both know better than to employ obfuscating terms in pursuit of real understanding, or of meaning.

1. Distortions in the discrete space appear as matter in a background of undistorted space. Frozen in time this arrangement of s-points forms a static cosmic s-frame, a tableau of reality. Energy and time are manifestations of changes in the tableau. 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.

Cool. The universe is a state machine.

How can I not appreciate something which I’ve devised myself, albeit in different form?

But you have some problems. You are proposing that space, distorted, is matter. Mathematically, a distortion of space is still space. Matter is not space. Nor is energy.

 

[greylorn]

Reply 3 of 3 to Post 152.

1. Given an impetus, the “present” static cosmic s-frame increments and 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; a periodic change in discrete space is manifested as radiant energy. The concepts manifested as space, time, mass, and energy at the explicate level are all discrete at the implicate level.

Once again you are introducing bizarre terms and violating the rules of dimensional analysis. “Ponderable” energy? You and I both need to find someone knowledgeable in both Greek and Latin, to help us create new words for new concepts.

I’d like to see an equation relating changes to space as radiant energy.

The cosmic s-frame seems to me to be an enormous structure encompassing the entire universe. What is this “impetus” which causes it to change?

Is this impetus, or the s-frame itself, subject to relativistic effects?

1. 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.

How is the initial information encoded? Who or what provides it? At what velocity is it transmitted from s-point to s-point throughout a universe containing approximately 10exp300 s-points?

Again, what is the “impetus,” or force which tells the system to change? Does it act at all points simultaneously? If so, how do you define simultaneous in a universe subject to relativistic space-time effects?

In other words, elucidate your “holonomic mechanism.”

1. 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.

You have declared the mind of God to be an algorithm, which is a precisely defined set of rules for doing something. That is the lowest level to which I have ever seen the God-concept reduced. It is consistent, however, with the concept of an all-knowing God who, since He knows what He will do an infinitely long time before He actually does it, and also knows the precise outcome of His impending actions, is essentially a self-programmed robot. You are right after all, in the context of your belief in God.

Not so in the context of my understanding.

1. 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.

I’d sure like to see you reduce these vague generalities to specifics.

1. 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.

Lots of confusion here. What is the “spiritual component” residing within my neurons? How might a “spriritual” component, which is by definition non-physical, interact with physical neurons?

You have declared s-points to be some kind of homogeneous lattice in space through which physical components interact. That’s the best I can tell from your descriptions.

Now you are claiming that the soul changes s-points. From your earlier definition, s-points themselves do not change.

You remind me of an astronomer who once suckered me into playing a game of Cowboy Pool. I asked for the rules, and he promised to explain them as the game progressed, which he did by inventing a new rule for every shot. Each rule favored his shot and made mine nearly impossible.

I’m not going to play that game with you. Make up whatever rules you want from the outset, and stick to them.

I am going of vacation for the next 9 days. When I get back, if there is sufficient interest, I will continue with the thesis. I apply the model to the problems of abiogenesis, evolution, the Cambriam explosion, he natrue of the mind and the soul.

Yppop

Concepts must be built one upon another, and so far you’ve erected a foundation barely suitable for a one man tent, for one night. I invite you to solidify your foundation before presuming to explain the universe.

 

[yppop]

To one and all,
It is over two months since I contributed to this thread. It might appear that I was unable to answer Greylorn’s lengthy diatribe. There is some truth to that because it took much mental, psychological, and even physical effort to deal with his stubborn refusal to expend an effort to extract the meaning of what I was presenting. Turned out that what was sapping my energy was not Greylorn, but rather something called a pericardial effusion (excess fluid around the heart). After a relatively simple operation three weeks ago, I am now on a road to recovery and have regained my physical and mental energy.

During my two month hiatus, I monitored threads that appealed to my interest and found the discussions as thought provoking as ever. Many of the questions that are so passionately discussed are pertinent to the thesis I have been presenting. For example, the thread “Everything that can be thought is” segued to a discussion about “the illusion of motion". This is a question that I address in my thesis. My view conforms to that presented by Parmenides and Zeno of Elia, his chief advocate. My thesis presents a possible explanation of how motion is nothing more than an illusion.

I presented my thesis, which explains how God might exist within our reality, for discussion hoping that someone would understand what I wrote and engaged me in a meaningful discussion. There has been some, but not much of that and it is very disconcerting to see that since my last post, over 390 visits were made to this thread without a single comment or question. For this I accept the blame recognizing that what I have presented has been too abstruse. So here’s the deal: if there is any interest in a thesis that answers (without contradicting scientific knowledge) many of the questions addressed in the philosophy section of this forum, I will continue with my thesis in a more understandable way. If not, so be it.

At my age, any deviation from one’s normally good health is a sobering experience that takes one thoughts in a more realistic direction. At the age of 76 there is far more living in the past than in the future. Still there is always Teilhard de Chardin to lean on:

Quote: “…You are the irresistible and vivifying force, O Lord, and because yours is the energy, because, of the two of us, you are infinitely the stronger, it is on you that falls the part of consuming me in the union that should weld us together. Vouchsafe, therefore, something more precious still than the grace for which all the faithful pray. It is not enough that I should die while communicating. Teach me to treat my death as an act of communion.” – The Divine Mileau pg90

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

To one and all,
It is over two months since I contributed to this thread. It might appear that I was unable to answer Greylorn’s lengthy diatribe. There is some truth to that because it took much mental, psychological, and even physical effort to deal with his stubborn refusal to expend an effort to extract the meaning of what I was presenting. Turned out that what was sapping my energy was not Greylorn, but rather something called a pericardial effusion (excess fluid around the heart). After a relatively simple operation three weeks ago, I am now on a road to recovery and have regained my physical and mental energy.

During my two month hiatus, I monitored threads that appealed to my interest and found the discussions as thought provoking as ever. Many of the questions that are so passionately discussed are pertinent to the thesis I have been presenting. For example, the thread “Everything that can be thought is” segued to a discussion about “the illusion of motion". This is a question that I address in my thesis. My view conforms to that presented by Parmenides and Zeno of Elia, his chief advocate. My thesis presents a possible explanation of how motion is nothing more than an illusion.

I presented my thesis, which explains how God might exist within our reality, for discussion hoping that someone would understand what I wrote and engaged me in a meaningful discussion. There has been some, but not much of that and it is very disconcerting to see that since my last post, over 390 visits were made to this thread without a single comment or question. For this I accept the blame recognizing that what I have presented has been too abstruse. So here’s the deal: if there is any interest in a thesis that answers (without contradicting scientific knowledge) many of the questions addressed in the philosophy section of this forum, I will continue with my thesis in a more understandable way. If not, so be it.

At my age, any deviation from one’s normally good health is a sobering experience that takes one thoughts in a more realistic direction. At the age of 76 there is far more living in the past than in the future. Still there is always Teilhard de Chardin to lean on:

Quote: “…You are the irresistible and vivifying force, O Lord, and because yours is the energy, because, of the two of us, you are infinitely the stronger, it is on you that falls the part of consuming me in the union that should weld us together. Vouchsafe, therefore, something more precious still than the grace for which all the faithful pray. It is not enough that I should die while communicating. Teach me to treat my death as an act of communion.” – The Divine Mileau pg90

Yppop

YP
While I am delighted that you survive to re-engage, I am dismayed that you even obliquely blamed me for part of your discomfort. But I understand. It would be absurd for me to pretend that my rules of mental engagement include posterior emollience. Like it or not, check out the responses you’ve received to your ideas, and review them objectively. Age hasn’t made either of us stupid— if anything, it should have allowed reason enough time to supersede emotions. Feelings will always be there, but surely you can deal with them and disallow their clouding of the mind.

If you do review responses to your ideas, you’ll find a few obsequious camp followers who’ve lauded your ideas but would be unable to get 10% on a pop-quiz. You’ll find a few who have questioned your ideas (well, one other than myself that I recall) and asked for clarification. Neither that poster, nor I, have been satisfied.

I asked you for clarification of a few simple points early on, and you ignored them. I reiterated that request, on my time, and you blew me off once again. At one point I recall that you admitted that I might have a point for you to look into, but that’s the last I heard of it.

You might actually find that however annoying my questions might be, they are honest attempts to understand your meaning. On a pop quiz about your ideas I’d get a zero. You’ve chosen to develop ideas, which is a rare and admirable thing. But you make the mistake I once did, in believing that because you understand what you are thinking, your descriptions of those thoughts will convey your understanding to other readers. They do not. With all due respect, your descriptions of your ideas are reminiscent of those in my first five rejected manuscripts. Which means, they don’t do the job.

Remember back when I invited you to express your ideas? Did you think that because I did so, I was certain to agree with you? Is that why you are so ornery?

If you want anyone, especially anyone with a physics background, to engage your ideas, it is incumbent upon you to express them clearly, openly, and cogently. It is not your job to determine when you have successfully done so. That’s our job, your readers’ job. So quit complaining about me, quit whining about being old. I’m old too and not interested in your story because my own are better.

I clearly wasted my time engaging your ideas. You’re much happier labeling my questions “diatribe” than addressing them. My opinion is that you are not capable of addressing them without admitting that your theory is badly flawed. Your style reminds me of our glorious and exalted president.

I’ve been developing my own theory for fifty years, and it too is flawed. But 49 years ago I decided to answer those who questioned my genius. This allowed me to improve (IMO) the theories, a process which I will continue until I die. I’m not smart enough to have figured out the nature and purposes of God on first try, or fiftieth. Maybe it’ll happen on the next try.

If it’s any consolation, my book is nearly finished but I can’t find a publisher or agent who’ll believe how wonderful it is. So for both of us, let’s just get it done. I promise to ignore you until you address my questions.

Finally, I thank you very much for the contributions you’ve given me by pointing out flaws in my own material. If you send me your address, you’ll get a first edition of my book. Or your heirs will.

Best regards,