Space?

[yppop]

Thank you, Fred. As you have no doubt noticed, I’ve been trying to work it into any responses that I think relevant. You’ve been at this for years, but I only recently started. My vision of it is good, I think. I want to become more familiar with all of the names that you have used to call things. And, I want to see how it fits with St. Thomas’ thinking. You are more than welcome to interject whenever you think it helpful.

Now, where were we?

God bless,
jd

JD
I propose that one can understand better how God operates in reality by assuming that the substance that is the basis for what we experience as matter, energy, and time depends on a substrate of discrete space (s-points). This implies: that, at its deepest level, all of objective reality is spatial and that matter is nothing more than specific configurations of s-points. This may seem nonsensical unless one considers that science has reduced matter: to specific configurations of what is called point-particles, namely, electrons and quarks; or, alternatively, to super-strings that are nothing more than vibrations of space. Yes, science is slowly approaching God and when they find the Higgs particle they will find it to be merely a “ripple” in the substrate of discrete space.

The discrete substrate of reality can be imagined as a static 3-dimensionsal array of s-points that at any instant is configured as the basic particles of matter, which we then experience, at the explicate level, as a tableau of molecules, rocks, oceans, sky, our bodies, etc. that I refer to as the cosmic s-frame. However it is not the s-points that create the experience of materiality; rather, it is their absence. I envision the basic particle of matter at the implicate level to be a volume from which the s-points have been gathered at the center of the volume. I call this collection of s-points that is centralized within a volume of spatial emptiness, the mass point, which is manifested at the explicate level as intrinsic mass. A volume of spatial emptiness devoid of a mass point is a mass less particle. When I refer to spatial emptiness the “spatial” is in regard to the discrete space that defines the dimensions of the universe and what appears to be empty of discrete space is filled with infinite nothingness, the spiritual substance. If one considers an atom that inhabits a volume the contains nothing but dimensionless point particles and yet exhibits a solid materiality (including mass) then what I contend is not without plausibility. In that matter inheres in the absence of discrete space infers that matter (and mass ) are illusionary and that the infinite nothingness that fills up all the emptiness has the greater claim to reality.

Appreciate that what I am describing is a highly speculative view of what constitutes matter and mass at the implicate level. It is a view I take primarily to deal with philosophical questions and not to explain physical questions. I contend that whatever I describe at the implicate level does not interfere with what science describes at the explicate level.

I had to explain my view of the “structure of reality” before I could go on to the “dynamics of reality” to show that energy and time are also illusionary in the same sense. Energy and time in my next post.

Yppop

 

[StudentOfLife]

I propose that one can understand better how God operates in reality by assuming that the substance that is the basis for what we experience as matter, energy, and time depends on a substrate of discrete space (s-points). This implies: that, at its deepest level, all of objective reality is spatial and that matter is nothing more than specific configurations of s-points. This may seem nonsensical unless one considers that science has reduced matter: to specific configurations of what is called point-particles, namely, electrons and quarks; or, alternatively, to super-strings that are nothing more than vibrations of space. Yes, science is slowly approaching God and when they find the Higgs particle they will find it to be merely a “ripple” in the substrate of discrete space.

YPPOP,
I’d like to discuss the implications of what I had bolded. As you say, all of reality at the objective level is spatial. You also stated in one of your earlier posts (alas, sloth is a my most common of the deadly sins and I didn’t bother to actually go back to find your exact words) that the s-frame changes in a sequential nature based on an algorithm (god being the impetus for change from one s-frame to the next).

This idea immediately brings to mind the Einstein’s theory of relativity. In Einstein’s view, our universe is, for lack of a better term, immersed in the backdrop of space-time. Space and time being inextricably linked. From what I am reading of your theory, it seems that you would remove Einstein’s space-time continuum and replace it with just space (time would thus be relegated to more of an emergent quality of the nature of space itself.)

Now, I’m not going to begin to act like I understand the implications of this, but maybe you can? My biggest question is in regards to your view of time. Would you say that space and time are an inextricably linked backdrop for our universe? Or would you say it is just space, with time being only an emergent quality we experience only on the explicate level?

Thanks for you answers
SOL

 

[greylorn]

JD
I propose that one can understand better how God operates in reality by assuming that the substance that is the basis for what we experience as matter, energy, and time depends on a substrate of discrete space (s-points). This implies: that, at its deepest level, all of objective reality is spatial and that matter is nothing more than specific configurations of s-points. This may seem nonsensical unless one considers that science has reduced matter: to specific configurations of what is called point-particles, namely, electrons and quarks; or, alternatively, to super-strings that are nothing more than vibrations of space. Yes, science is slowly approaching God and when they find the Higgs particle they will find it to be merely a “ripple” in the substrate of discrete space.

The discrete substrate of reality can be imagined as a static 3-dimensionsal array of s-points that at any instant is configured as the basic particles of matter, which we then experience, at the explicate level, as a tableau of molecules, rocks, oceans, sky, our bodies, etc. that I refer to as the cosmic s-frame. However it is not the s-points that create the experience of materiality; rather, it is their absence. I envision the basic particle of matter at the implicate level to be a volume from which the s-points have been gathered at the center of the volume. I call this collection of s-points that is centralized within a volume of spatial emptiness, the mass point, which is manifested at the explicate level as intrinsic mass. A volume of spatial emptiness devoid of a mass point is a mass less particle. When I refer to spatial emptiness the “spatial” is in regard to the discrete space that defines the dimensions of the universe and what appears to be empty of discrete space is filled with infinite nothingness, the spiritual substance. If one considers an atom that inhabits a volume the contains nothing but dimensionless point particles and yet exhibits a solid materiality (including mass) then what I contend is not without plausibility. In that matter inheres in the absence of discrete space infers that matter (and mass ) are illusionary and that the infinite nothingness that fills up all the emptiness has the greater claim to reality.

Appreciate that what I am describing is a highly speculative view of what constitutes matter and mass at the implicate level. It is a view I take primarily to deal with philosophical questions and not to explain physical questions. I contend that whatever I describe at the implicate level does not interfere with what science describes at the explicate level.

I had to explain my view of the “structure of reality” before I could go on to the “dynamics of reality” to show that energy and time are also illusionary in the same sense. Energy and time in my next post.

Yppop

Old friend,
I keep your ideas in mind (while awaiting a reply to my last set of queries from a few years back). Until good answers to the core relationship between the Creator’s mechanisms for universe construction, and physics understanding thereof, there is work to do.

You may find an article in the February issue of Sci. American, Is Space Digital? of interest. IMO it is poorly written and contains a lot of ignorance about the Michelson-Morley experiment, but you might find the basic concepts interesting. If the experiment it describes is successful, it might provide proof of your ideas (while trashing mine).

I’m posting this here rather than in PM because you clearly have some followers who might also appreciate the article.

Let me know if you find this interesting. Best regards, and be well!

 

[greylorn]

In no way did this post argue that time ticks.

physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkt
google.com/search?q=what+is+sqrt%28+h+*+G+%2F+c^5+%2F%282+pi%29%29

(Half) the uncertainty of Newton’s gravitational constant dominates the relative uncertainty of the Planck time.

The Planck time is one of a set of natural units. They are called natural units because when G, c or Planck’s reduced constant are expressed in them, numerically these values are 1 and can be omitted from the expression without changing the numerical calculation. The Planck mass is huge compared to the mass of an electron or neutrino.

One of the biggest problems with the naive conception of a universe that has a universal time that ticks discretely is that such a universe violates relativity.

We already know that QM and GR do not mix. If time can be limited by a discrete value, then is it not somehow quantized?

Energy is clearly quantized. Time is one of the units incorporated within the concept of Energy. The quantization must be taking place somewhere— so why not in time? Since we know that QM and GR both work, perhaps we should look to the tools by which we try to understand them? This would be a simple matter of evaluating our own perspectives and the tool sets we use to express them.

In simpler terms, this only amounts to saying that you cannot perform effective repairs on a Japanese car with tools cut to SAE English standards.

As I explain in my book, there are reasons to believe that differential calculus does not apply at subatomic scales. and the constraints of intelligent creation must apply at all scales and levels. .

 

[greylorn]

No, it is not obvious that spacetime ticks, and therefore it is not obvious that time is discrete.

No, that is not what it implies. Quantum theory says that it is inappropriate to talk about spacetime as a smooth manifold at very small length and time scales where the quantum nature of gravity is important to every particle interaction. Thus even if experiment gives no reason to doubt the standard model of particle physics (which is built on special relativity and quantum physics) we know to describe the universe near or below the scale of the Planck length, or Planck time, we will at least need to combine general relativity and quantum physics. (Or like in string theory, be able to derive quantum gravity from other principles.)

Perhaps we should treat spacetime as a smooth manifold which becomes granular (lumpy) at subatomic levels?

If spacetime can indeed be treated as a manifold (I don’t think that it can because of dimensional inconsistency, but am not smart enough to prove otherwise), and since it is clearly flexible, it must be embedded within another space which allows it to bend and stretch. (Like a 2-dimensional manifold, such as a sheet of paper, cannot bend if stapled to a 2-D bulletin board, but can freely bend and flex if released into 3-dimensional space.)

greylorn:

That is correct. However this would not be the case if the tick rates were a function of local variables, with time being discrete but asynchronous.

If time ticks, then the universe prefers a certain definition of simultaneous above all others. You seem to think that relativity is preserved if this definition is local, but that only scratches the surface of agreement with quasi-static general relativity. But special relativistic effects indicate that simultaneity is not a local function of position only, but also of state of motion.

Basic Lorentzian time dilation rules out a local master clock, since moving clocks tick slower according to both observers that we consider stationary and those that we consider moving.

If there was some sort of local master clock, ticking away the progress of time, then space and time would be different things entirely and we wouldn’t see a universe that respects the relativistic interval : (ds)^2 = c^2(dt)^2 - (d\vec{x})^2.

What you write seems correct enough, but it also seems to have missed my point. My notion was specific: asynchronous time. Your arguments apply to synchronous time, which requires a master clock and which as you state, won’t work.

My best model so far (which is incomplete and therefore inadequate) assumes that local time is localized to fundamental particles (which are really just standing waves). Construction of a single atom requires that the clocks of its individual components are synchronized.

So within an atom, time is both local and synchronized. Radioactive atoms split when they can no longer maintain internal synchronicity.

When atoms themselves are coupled into a network, such as a crystal lattice, the forces involved require another level of time synchronicity.

An asynchronous computer would have to work this way. Small, locally synchronized computational and memory-access networks which are internally synchronized, and which have some way of integrating themselves into a wider network.

The principle is analogous to a group of twenty communists living in the mansion they stole from filthy capitalists. The mansion has been divided by commissars into various sections, small groups of rooms which share a single bathroom. The communists in this example live in one of these sections and must find a way to divvy up biffy time.

It would not do to divide the time into equal sections throughout the day, because a fat old commie living on his diet of a quarter barrel of beans per day would naturally need more time than a small, fit communist who ate but a tenth of that quantity. Thus, asynchronous biffy time would be invented. Each user takes the time needed to do his or her thing, then opens the door (and any window) to signal that the facility is ready for the next user. Thus the toilet facility would operate on asynchronous time.

One can extrapolate to another level of asynchronous time by assuming the inevitable limited water supply, requiring each facility in various places within the mansion to operate intermittently. Such a time might operate according to a master clock operating at the mansion level. Etc.

 

[greylorn]

What does this mean, exactly? Does it have any bearing on the begining of the Universe or theology?

The physical universe is the only source of information we have that is certain to have been written by the Creator of the Universe.

Yes, it is important, but only to those who care to know the true purposes of their existence, instead of stuff that various religionists have made up about those purposes.

 

[yppop]

YPPOP,
I’d like to discuss the implications of what I had bolded. As you say, all of reality at the objective level is spatial. You also stated in one of your earlier posts (alas, sloth is a my most common of the deadly sins and I didn’t bother to actually go back to find your exact words) that the s-frame changes in a sequential nature based on an algorithm (god being the impetus for change from one s-frame to the next).

This idea immediately brings to mind the Einstein’s theory of relativity. In Einstein’s view, our universe is, for lack of a better term, immersed in the backdrop of space-time. Space and time being inextricably linked. From what I am reading of your theory, it seems that you would remove Einstein’s space-time continuum and replace it with just space (time would thus be relegated to more of an emergent quality of the nature of space itself.)

Now, I’m not going to begin to act like I understand the implications of this, but maybe you can? My biggest question is in regards to your view of time. Would you say that space and time are an inextricably linked backdrop for our universe? Or would you say it is just space, with time being only an emergent quality we experience only on the explicate level?

Thanks for you answers
SOL

SOL
Thank you for the excellent questions. I hadn’t thought about the implication a model based on discrete space would have for the space-time continuum. In my view, space is the primary “physical element” from which the other three (matter, energy, and time) physical elements emerge. Discrete space is the “substance” from which matter is formed and the incrementation of discrete space is the reason for what we observe as energy and time at the explicate level. Hence, I contend that at the implicate level, space is the “backdrop” for our universe but at the explicate level, space and time are observed as you put it: “an inextricably linked backdrop for our universe”.

However your excellent question deserves a better explanation than that hand-waving pronouncement I just delivered. Consider the following:

Einstein developed the idea of a space-time continuum by assuming the speed of light (c) was constant. He arrived at the constancy of (c) after consideration of Maxwell’s equations that imply that (c) is constant. (c) does not appear directly in any of Maxwell’s equations; it is derived from two other constants: the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. In other words, the concept of space-time is derived from the constancy of the speed of light, which is derived from two properties of space.

The constancy of (c) can be explained at the implicate level by postulating that for all s-points that make up free space (in which no matter is present), the maximum difference between the position of an s-point in two successive s-frames is the Planck length, which is determined from three constants: the speed of light, the Planck constant (h), and the gravitational constant (G). The constraint of maximum displacement that is built into the cosmic algorithm causes the constancy of the speed of light that is observed at the explicate level. I contend that it is the cosmic algorithm that determines that the speed of light is constant, which then led Einstein to merge space and time in order to fufill the demands of invariance and causality.

Appreciate that what I am doing is philosophy, not science. I like to think of it as metascience, the explanation of what science observes. By proposing that reality can be viewed at two levels: the explicate and the implicate I hope to avoid the need to explain the implicate view in a scientific manner. My objective is to describe a “plausible” (rather that predictive) model that explains how God might be directly be involved in objective reality and in doing so make explanations of subjective, rational, and transcendental reality more explicable. Such an approach purports to provide an argument that theists can counter the materialists’ use of science.
Thanks for your interest.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

Old friend,
I keep your ideas in mind (while awaiting a reply to my last set of queries from a few years back). Until good answers to the core relationship between the Creator’s mechanisms for universe construction, and physics understanding thereof, there is work to do.

You may find an article in the February issue of Sci. American, Is Space Digital? of interest. IMO it is poorly written and contains a lot of ignorance about the Michelson-Morley experiment, but you might find the basic concepts interesting. If the experiment it describes is successful, it might provide proof of your ideas (while trashing mine).

I’m posting this here rather than in PM because you clearly have some followers who might also appreciate the article.

Let me know if you find this interesting. Best regards, and be well!

Old Buddy
Thanks for the reference; I have to wait until my next trip to the library to read Sc. Amer. I don’t buy that rag anymore, not since the liberal establishment took it over and it became more political than scientific.

Anyway, as I recall that in our last exchange of posts several months ago on a thread that has slipped my mind, I ended with a promise to send you some of my favorite posts.

Here are a couple.

You may have heard these two Churchill ripostes:

G. B. Shaw: “*Would you like two tickets to my play, you can take a friend. If you have one”. *
Churchill: *“Sorry, I can’t make opening night, but I would accept two for the second night. If there is one”. *

Lady Astor: “If you were my husband I’d poison your tea”.
Churchill: “If you were my wife I’d drink it”.

Here is my favorite. Not so much for Elie Freron’s interjection of the perfect word into the battle of words in which he was engaged with Voltaire and the rest of the philosophes, but rather for Will Durant’s interpretation. Feron (whom is never found in the history books used in our educational system because he was on the wrong side of the intellectual battle with the philosophes, the darlings of our elitist academes, mainly because they were anti-church:

“Almost as damaging to the philosophes as Freron’s thirty volumes was one word—the last in the title of Jacob Nicolas Moreau’s satire, *Nouveau Memoire pour server a l’histoire des cacouacs *(1757). The cacouacs said Moreau, were a species of barely human animals who carried a pouch of poison under their toungues; when they spoke, this venom mingled with their words and polluted all the surrounding air. The clever author (Freron) quoted passages from Diderot, d’Alembert, Voltaire, and Rousseau; he argued that these men were veritable poisoners of the breath of life, and he charged them with doing evil “ precisely for the pleasure of doing evil.” He called them atheists, anarchists, immoralists, egoists; but it was the term cacouac that painted them most keenly; it suggested the cacophony of quacking ducks, the bedlam of insane prattlers, sometimes (as the word intended) the odor of latrines. Voltaire struggled to reply, but who can refute a smell?” Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, The Age of Voltaire, pg. Vol. IX. 761

I am sure you can put the word “cacouac” to better use than I can. I’ve used it twice in this forum and no one asked what it meant. Does that tell you something?

Watch out for the armadillos!
Yppop

 

[greylorn]

Old Buddy
Thanks for the reference; I have to wait until my next trip to the library to read Sc. Amer. I don’t buy that rag anymore, not since the liberal establishment took it over and it became more political than scientific.

Anyway, as I recall that in our last exchange of posts several months ago on a thread that has slipped my mind, I ended with a promise to send you some of my favorite posts.

Here are a couple.

You may have heard these two Churchill ripostes:

G. B. Shaw: “*Would you like two tickets to my play, you can take a friend. If you have one”. *
Churchill: *“Sorry, I can’t make opening night, but I would accept two for the second night. If there is one”. *

Lady Astor: “If you were my husband I’d poison your tea”.
Churchill: “If you were my wife I’d drink it”.

Here is my favorite. Not so much for Elie Freron’s interjection of the perfect word into the battle of words in which he was engaged with Voltaire and the rest of the philosophes, but rather for Will Durant’s interpretation. Feron (whom is never found in the history books used in our educational system because he was on the wrong side of the intellectual battle with the philosophes, the darlings of our elitist academes, mainly because they were anti-church:

“Almost as damaging to the philosophes as Freron’s thirty volumes was one word—the last in the title of Jacob Nicolas Moreau’s satire, *Nouveau Memoire pour server a l’histoire des cacouacs *(1757). The cacouacs said Moreau, were a species of barely human animals who carried a pouch of poison under their toungues; when they spoke, this venom mingled with their words and polluted all the surrounding air. The clever author (Freron) quoted passages from Diderot, d’Alembert, Voltaire, and Rousseau; he argued that these men were veritable poisoners of the breath of life, and he charged them with doing evil “ precisely for the pleasure of doing evil.” He called them atheists, anarchists, immoralists, egoists; but it was the term cacouac that painted them most keenly; it suggested the cacophony of quacking ducks, the bedlam of insane prattlers, sometimes (as the word intended) the odor of latrines. Voltaire struggled to reply, but who can refute a smell?” Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, The Age of Voltaire, pg. Vol. IX. 761

I am sure you can put the word “cacouac” to better use than I can. I’ve used it twice in this forum and no one asked what it meant. Does that tell you something?

Watch out for the armadillos!
Yppop

YP,
Thanks for an entertaining email. I share your feeling about Sci.Am. politics, and have let my own subscription lapse for the same reason. I’d done the same with a once-excellent little report called Science News.

I’ve long admired Churchill, and G.B. Shaw has yet to produce anything that I found interesting. As for the French, yuck. They do know how to cook and make good wine, but are otherwise a bunch of fools too enamored of the sound of their language to bother using it to make sense.

I developed a little theory about language which says that it is a powerful determiner of thought quality. Thoughts themselves are originally formed w/o language, but language filters their expression, as well as the clarity of their receipt. By this theory, English-speaking countries are technologically successful because of language power and flexibility. The same is true, even more so, for German and Russian speaking countries, because they are more difficult to learn.

I predict that Spanish speaking cultures will remain inferior, because their language limits them. I understand that it incorporates an entire verb tense to incorporate the concept of “should.” It is a language designed for expectations, whereas English does better with results. French, the first foreign language I learned, does better with science and technology, but I don’t know why. Working with French scientists, I noticed that they spoke fluent English,

The French language produces, IMO, powerful and emotional novels, good mathematicians, superb food and wine, but mostly annoying music and the dumbest of all possible philosophies— because they are written like novels, hopeful and emotional.

I may not have read your posts that included the word cacouac. Had I done so, there is a good chance that I would have looked up the word. Then I’d have gotten the same negative result as when I looked it up a few minutes ago. Interesting, but I think that the word is only useful in the context of French language and culture. It does not have the feel of a good Anglo-Saxon word. The French word merde comes to mind by way of an example. It is only vulgar to a Frenchman. By way of a test I once told someone bigger and faster than me to his face that he was full of merde, He didn’t bat an eye. When I explained its meaning, he simply laughed, and was not even insulted.

Thank you for the suggestion nonetheless. Although I probably won’t use cacouac, you’ll be pleased to know that my book freely uses the word from which it may be derived. It appears in “Greylorn’s Law,” and I lump the entire glut of TV science documentary hosts under the title, Dr. Caca. Few know its root meaning well enough to be offended by the Anglo-Saxon equivalent, but the word is short enough so that no one has pronunciation problems.

Luckily for me, there are no armadillos in the Arizona mountains, and may not be any in the entire state. I’ve heard that they are not quite as vicious as western lore treats them, but if harvested from highways in a timely manner (two to four days, depending upon traffic and weather) become a delicious ingredient of Texas Turtle Stew.

Be well and keep thinking, Friend!

 

[yppop]

Thank you, Fred. As you have no doubt noticed, I’ve been trying to work it into any responses that I think relevant. You’ve been at this for years, but I only recently started. My vision of it is good, I think. I want to become more familiar with all of the names that you have used to call things. And, I want to see how it fits with St. Thomas’ thinking. You are more than welcome to interject whenever you think it helpful.

Now, where were we?

God bless,
jd

I read your post #8 on the “What is the substance of God?” thread and was pleased with how well you have absorbed what apparently is a very difficult concept, namely, the basic structure of reality. It is not easy separating the explicate from the implicate; we are, after all, immersed in the explicate. However, I think you have a good grasp of the implicate view of the static elements of reality, matter and space.

As I promised in post #200, I would next explain energy and time and their source at the implicate level.

Energy and time are the dynamic elements; they arise from the incrementation of the cosmic s-frame. Without the incrementation they would not exist, but then again neither would we. When configuration of s-points that define the cosmic s-frame (NOW) that we experience as space and matter increments to a new configuration (NEXT) we experience “motion” of both space and matter just as we “see” motion on a movie screen as the film increments through the projector. If the film was simply pulled through the film gate with a constant light source we would simply see a blurred image dragged across the screen. The retention rate of the human mind is 10-15 seconds so by incrementing the film at a frame rate of 24 frames per second we see the continuity of motion on the screen. In real life the rapid incrementation of the cosmic s-frame appears to us as continuous motion, as though matter is moving through space, when at the implicate level nothing is moving within the s-frame.

The sequential change in position of s-points that we experience as matter is what we observe as ponderable energy. The sequential change in position of s-points that we experience as “empty space” is what we observe as radiant energy. The cosmic s-frame increments every 10^43 times per second. I don’t have too much difficulty in imagining “energy” as the incrementation of configurations of s-points, even though the “frame rate” is fantastically higher than the frame rate of the movie projector, I just mentally slow down the incrementation. “Time” presents greater conceptual difficulty than energy. Time is harder to get amental hold of because thre are two forms of time:

(1) Ontological time - measures the duration between incrementations that is measured by God’s time . We do not observe it. Ontological time existed before the big bang; it is eternal.

(2) Cosmological time - is the time we experience at the explicate level; it is measured by “clocks” that run at the explicate level.

The conceptual problem exists because, unlike energy that didn’t exist before the big bang, time did. The time that the cosmologists claim began with the big bang, is cosmological time and hence is finite. God is eternal, therefore, exists before the big bang, and exists in another form of time, that I call ontological time. Ontological time is infinite.

The purpose of my thesis is not to explain the underlying source of the explicate view of space, matter, energy and time; it is primarily to demonstrate that the dual structure of reality - that allows for both material and spiritual components - does not conflict with the scientific view. The purpose is to show how such a dual structure of reality leads to the explanation of life, mind, and soul.

I will be out of town for a week, so take your time in digesting this post and I will answer any questions when I return.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

I read your post #8 on the “What is the substance of God?” thread and was pleased with how well you have absorbed what apparently is a very difficult concept, namely, the basic structure of reality. It is not easy separating the explicate from the implicate; we are, after all, immersed in the explicate. However, I think you have a good grasp of the implicate view of the static elements of reality, matter and space.

As I promised in post #200, I would next explain energy and time and their source at the implicate level.

Energy and time are the dynamic elements; they arise from the incrementation of the cosmic s-frame. Without the incrementation they would not exist, but then again neither would we. When configuration of s-points that define the cosmic s-frame (NOW) that we experience as space and matter increments to a new configuration (NEXT) we experience “motion” of both space and matter just as we “see” motion on a movie screen as the film increments through the projector. If the film was simply pulled through the film gate with a constant light source we would simply see a blurred image dragged across the screen. The retention rate of the human mind is 10-15 seconds so by incrementing the film at a frame rate of 24 frames per second we see the continuity of motion on the screen. In real life the rapid incrementation of the cosmic s-frame appears to us as continuous motion, as though matter is moving through space, when at the implicate level nothing is moving within the s-frame.

The sequential change in position of s-points that we experience as matter is what we observe as ponderable energy. The sequential change in position of s-points that we experience as “empty space” is what we observe as radiant energy. The cosmic s-frame increments every 10^43 times per second. I don’t have too much difficulty in imagining “energy” as the incrementation of configurations of s-points, even though the “frame rate” is fantastically higher than the frame rate of the movie projector, I just mentally slow down the incrementation. “Time” presents greater conceptual difficulty than energy. Time is harder to get amental hold of because thre are two forms of time:

(1) Ontological time - measures the duration between incrementations that is measured by God’s time . We do not observe it. Ontological time existed before the big bang; it is eternal.

(2) Cosmological time - is the time we experience at the explicate level; it is measured by “clocks” that run at the explicate level.

The conceptual problem exists because, unlike energy that didn’t exist before the big bang, time did. The time that the cosmologists claim began with the big bang, is cosmological time and hence is finite. God is eternal, therefore, exists before the big bang, and exists in another form of time, that I call ontological time. Ontological time is infinite.

The purpose of my thesis is not to explain the underlying source of the explicate view of space, matter, energy and time; it is primarily to demonstrate that the dual structure of reality - that allows for both material and spiritual components - does not conflict with the scientific view. The purpose is to show how such a dual structure of reality leads to the explanation of life, mind, and soul.

I will be out of town for a week, so take your time in digesting this post and I will answer any questions when I return.

Yppop

Thanks, Yppop.

Have a great week. Talk to you when you get back - even though you won’t “really” be gone!

God bless,
jd