Is life and/or consciousness a fractal pattern?

[tafan2]

Whose metaphysics says this?

 

[tafan2]

So metaphysics, and specifically Aquinas’ Fourth Way suggests that God, at least on some level, can be modeled mathematically.

I have never once come across a philosopher who holds to this. I am admittedly an amateur, and often find myself reading a philosophical paper I have to struggle with understanding. But I don’t think I would have missed this. It may be your suggestion, but not Aquinasa

 

[Rubee]

Let me get this right. You think we exist with God on some sort of measurable or quantifiable scale? Can you defined “Maximum” here? Because God is being itself. There is an infinite distance between him and any creature, including the not only the highest Seraph, but all the seraphs, and angelic creatures, human, all spiritual and physical creatures, that we know or don’t; combined. So creation altogether, is infinitely removed from God, in whom all attributes are exactly the same thing: him.

Are you saying that there’s a mathematical language to express this infinite distance between creation and God? Perhaps. I can roll with that. It would be “analogy written in math”. We can only speak of God analogically, not precisely as such.

What I can’t roll with is your suggestion that essentially positive “statements” can be made about what God is: I don’t care if your language is Math or ordinary language; it cannot be true. But that’s what you seem to imply.

God is not just the “most” of what we are but something so “other” that some fathers speak of him as “not-existing”, not to say he doesn’t exist but to say how radically and incomprehensively “other” his manner of existing is. I can roll with us being in a proper scale with angels and the rest of creation; but how can we be on some scale with God?

 

[Rubee]

I am asking, in other words, how do u account for infinity plus one being infinity?

Since God is infinitely above and beyond “the highest” creature on your scale, and he is infinitely above and beyond the “lowest” creature on your scale, how do you suppose he himself occupies a place on the same scale? So that you could say some creature, say St. Michael, is less infinitely not-God than, say, me?

God is not just “maximum”; he is unconditioned. Without limit. To put him on a scale as one item among many (of creatures) is, IMO, to pretend he has a “maximum”; like you can say, “on a scale of 1 to 100”. Where God is 100 and some creature is 1: that seems false and impossible on its face.

You can say Existence and nothingness; I suppose you can say that Mathematically. Maybe 1 and 0; I have no idea, but I’m willing to grant it. But we, the conditioned, do not exist on a scale with the unconditioned.

 

[on_the_hill]

When mathematical geniuses discuss how math in its many forms can describe the universe to the point that it becomes the unifying principle behind existence, I always think of the great axiom, “When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

 

[Rubee]

I don’t mind that you object to my position, but you have to understand that it’s not necessarily my position. It’s simply what’s implied from Aquinas’ Fourth Way. There’s a gradation to be found in things. Of which God is the maximum. If I have a nature that’s relative in some manner to God’s, then God must also have a nature that’s relative in some manner to mine. And this relationship can be represented mathematically.

You’ve understandably mistaken my position as being representative of what I believe, it’s not. It’s simply what can be deduced from the beliefs of others. In this case, of metaphysicists such as Thomas Aquinas. If there is indeed a gradation to be found in things, then that gradation can be represented mathematically.

There may be another way to understand this: Perhaps you yourself simply have not understood Aquinas.

Why would Aquinas exclude everything we/he understood to be true of God from his understanding of these gradations? This kind of compartmentalization seems more likely to be coming from you rather than him, with due respect.

For St. Thomas might have spoken of gradation, and referred to God as maximum (which of course is true, he is being itself) but this is not decontextualized; and he did not say we could scale God as one item with creatures on a scale of all things that exist. This latter part might just be your assumption and no more; perhaps you’re drawing wrong conclusions/implications from what St. Thomas said. That’s a possibility too, and very likely, IMO…

As I said earlier, God’s maximum isn’t just “most”, but literally, per St. Thomas Aquinas, unconditioned. There is an infinite distance between him and all of his creatures: Inifinite. Precisely because he is alone the unconditioned. You putting him on a scale with creatures as if there is a way to measure/quantify this infinite distance seems wrong, again with due respect.

 

[Rubee]

If you would like to discuss the possibility of God’s infinite nature, might I suggest the following thread.

Personally, I’ve tried to avoid it.

You cannot claim you can put God on some scale with non-God as if he is just another comparable item among the many; and then attempt to exclude the fact (not the possibility! The absolute truth) of his infinity from the discussion.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I’m not sure I understand the dilemma.

What you say in the OP just seems to be a re-hashing of what I’ve already assumed: That God, the Ultimate Cause, is Mind. All else that proceeds, proceeds so as thoughts from this one single act of “mentation.”

But God, the Ultimate Cause, is not the same as His creation, since all creatures are participants in existence, while God is existence itself. All essences are participants in God, but not that they MAKE UP God — rather, they resemble his nature in various limited ways, as light is divided into an array of colors.

As for mathematical descriptions, I don’t understand the issue. In fact, that mathematics descriptions exist at all seem to presuppose the existence of a Ultimate Reality that is Truth itself and so grounds all things, including laws and immaterial realities like math.

 

[Rubee]

@RealisticCatholic , I am just wondering if math/logic can describe all realities; including life; freedom and Divinity. In other words, do you not see the difference between saying God creates through an act of his arbitrary will/freedom and saying he is creator by nature? Claiming that Mathematics can describe/model all of reality without exception, seems to me to be speaking of this latter God. Spinoza’s God, perhaps, might be that; but I don’t see how a free act, like the act of creation, can be modelled on laws and principles that would then be describable in Mathematics. Not to mention an unconditioned reality.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

And does this answer to this question, either way, disturb you?

Or is it just out of curiosity?

I’m not really sure I see a consequence for God’s existence, for example. Except that God is not conditioned: God is not in Math; Math is in God, etc.

 

[Rubee]

God is not in Math; Math is in God, etc.

YES! This is my thought exactly!

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But this does not promote pantheism.

If God is not in math, but everything else might be, then there you already have a clue that there is a real distinction between God and all other things.

 

[Rubee]

But this does not promote pantheism.

If God is not in math, but everything else might be, then there you already have a clue that there is a real distinction between God and all other things.

I feel you are agreeing with me while thinking you are disagreeing. What you say is precisely my understanding. Claims have been made, even on this thread, that everything can be described by Mathematics, including God himself. It’s this I’m rejecting, for the very reasons you site.

 

[Rubee]

But as an example, even if the universe is infinite, the universe and I still have certain commonalities. It’s more a matter of scale than of nature in this case. And we can each be described relative to those commonalities.

Aquinas’ Fourth Way implies that God and I have commonalities as well. In fact, every attribute that I possess can be described relative to God. So while it’s true that as with an infinite universe, I lack God’s scale, Aquinas’ Fourth Way implies that my attributes are relative to God’s.

It is true we are all made “in God’s image” and from this can know, in a very limited sense, a little something about God. But I’m still confused about you saying it’s only a matter of scale and not nature: Because God’s attributes are his very own nature which is exactly one and distinct from ours by being unconditioned; so I would say there really is more than just scale between us and God… God is not just “more” of us. That’s why St. Thomas says we can comprehend THAT he is; not WHAT he is.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Let’s not throw around those Omni words unless we define their meaning , if we are speaking in terms of Being itself

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We can know more what God is not. Rather then what God is.
We know God is being itself.

Math is simply a way of describing the maintenance of patterns. That’s why it can be expressed so beautifully as fractals.

So we can describe the functions of life, it’s systems, it’s physical systems.

But again religion and science do not exist to explain each other.

 

[Rubee]

I don’t mean to imply that it’s ONLY a matter of scale. I can’t possibly know that. Just as with myself and the universe, it’s not just a matter of scale. I’m a conscious, self-aware entity, can the universe say the same?

But the universe and I do share commonalities, and according to Aquinas, God and I share commonalities as well, and these commonalities can…if true…tell me something about God. It doesn’t necessarily tell me everything, but it does tell me something. If it didn’t then Aquinas never could have produced his Five Ways.

I’m sorry, I really do not mean to be difficult and you’re such a good discussant (which I appreciate). Let me try to explain what I mean a little better.

Let’s give an example of these likenesses with God you call “commonalities”. For example: being, goodness, or beauty.

I still say there is a difference in nature, and not just scale with regards to them where we and God are concerned. Why? Because God is an absolute simplicity.

We are good. He is not. Rather, he is goodness. We are not goodness. Similarly, our existence is radically different from his: Ours is contingent. His is not. I.e. We exist; but he is existence. We are not existence. Nor beauty. Etc.

Moreover, in God, beauty and goodness are the same thing as existence/being, i.e. God.

So, given that, it is still inaccurate, IMO, to claim that our “likeness” to God refers to things that are of the same nature but different only in scale. It literally is not the same kind/nature either. That’s what I mean.

 

[STT]

Mathematics cannot be created no matter how do you define omniscience.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Mathematics cannot be created no matter how do you define omniscience

This statement of yours is so random. And I would disagree with you on the most fundamental level. Maths was created, as with everything, by the Creator, by God.

You brought up the world omniscience. Care to define what YOU meant.?

 

[STT]

I don’t know what is left in Omniscience if you subtract mathematics from it? Did 1+1=2 is a part of omniscience or God created it?

Omniscience to me is to know anything knowable.