Space?

[yppop]

Yppop:
I agree to a large extent. I view the spiritual as that which not only fills areas between s-points, but also, resides within the matter that is formed at your explicate level. That is the only possible conclusion we can draw from an understanding of “infinity.” The Infinite must include all that is within discrete space, i.e., the universe, but also, must include all that is beyond the universe. Infinity is completely and totally inclusive. Saying that is not saying the same thing that is said by pantheists.

I agree with what you write, but let me put the pertinent idea in my words so that we agree on a common meaning. My thesis stipulates that before creation there was only God. Furthermore, my thesis stipulates that before creation there was only infinite nothingness, a substance having the characteristics of continuous space. Therefore, I equate continuous space to the substance of God, in other words, continuous space represents the spiritual component of reality. I like to think of the infinite nothingness as the Mind of God.

From the Mind of God, that is, from the infinite nothingness, a very large number of points were crammed into an infinitely miniscule object called the singularity. I contend that those points were defined by the rational numbers that form discrete space. This implies that however close these s-points were crammed, there remained a gap between them. The s-points that formed the singularity were “immersed” in the infinite nothingness that extended to infinity. The s-points are the substance of matter that formed the universe. The infinite nothingness that permeates the s-points and is conterminous with them is referred to as nomos. Nomos forms a continuous fabric with the infinite nothingness thus denying any implication of pantheism.

As the holonomic mechanism induced an incrementation of reconfigured s-frames, the size of the s-gaps increased from one cosmic s-frame to the next causing the cosmic s-frame (the universe) to expand.

Except that even contiguous particles have boundaries, i.e., they have “separateness.” There cannot be anything material within that separateness. To conclude otherwise is to say that all matter is in contiguous contact. Hence, the idea of a “foam.” But, even in a foam, there must be space for place. A photon, in order to move, to vibrate, must be able to alter its (or, have its position altered) within an unrestricted space, of some sort. It is not difficult to see how continuous space causes, under your scenario, at least, in my opinion

.
Eventually some parts of the cosmic s-frame formed local configurations that are observed at the explicate level (a-t-e-l) as matter. For, example, I imagine a hydrogen atom to be three “point-like objects” that are observed (a-t-e-l) as quarks forming a proton centered in a volume devoid of s-points except for one point-like object that is observed (a-t-e-l) as an electron circling the proton. The volume devoid of s-points is filled with infinite nothingness (nomos) that in fact defines the dimension of the atom. It is this volume that is devoid of s-points that separates one atom or particle from another.

In our reality (the one we experience at the explicate level) the motion that we experience and observe is the result of the incrementation of s-frames at the implicate level. Space is required for there to be motion and in my thesis the space that is required is discrete space. When one walks into a wall, matter is experience because the wall has taken up the space and the space that is taken up is discrete space. therefore those parts of reality that are devoid of s-points acquire materiality. Thus, the hydrogen atom in which only a miniscule part is “matter” made up of a specific configuration of s-points that are observed (a-t-e-l) as quarks and an electrons, the materiality that it exhibits is caused by the absence of s-points within its observed volume.

As one cosmic s-frame (a NOW) increments to the “Next” comic s-frame, it appears that the configuration of s-points that are observed as matter appear to move. There is no motion within an s-frame, merely an apparent motion observed at the explicate level just as there is no motion within each frame of a movie film; the motion viewed on the screen is due to the incrementation of the frames in the projector. Our minds do the work of smoothing out the incremental change in the projector to a smooth flowing motion on the screen. Similarlly the incrementation of s-frames at the implicate level is observed at the explicte level as time and energy.

I will get the rest of your post tommorrow.

Have a good evening
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

I agree with what you write, but let me put the pertinent idea in my words so that we agree on a common meaning. My thesis stipulates that before creation there was only God.

Yppop:

And probably the angels, don’t forget.

Furthermore, my thesis stipulates that before creation there was only infinite nothingness, a substance having the characteristics of continuous space.

So, not truly nothingness.

From the Mind of God, that is, from the infinite nothingness, a very large number of points were crammed into an infinitely miniscule object called the singularity. I contend that those points were defined by the rational numbers that form discrete space. This implies that however close these s-points were crammed, there remained a gap between them.

OK. However, it appears, from this, that the s-points themselves exclude the “substance” of God. Is this correct?

The s-points that formed the singularity were “immersed” in the infinite nothingness that extended to infinity. The s-points are the substance of matter that formed the universe. The infinite nothingness that permeates the s-points and is conterminous with them is referred to as nomos. Nomos forms a continuous fabric with the infinite nothingness thus denying any implication of pantheism.

As the holonomic mechanism induced an incrementation of reconfigured s-frames, the size of the s-gaps increased from one cosmic s-frame to the next causing the cosmic s-frame (the universe) to expand.

Eventually some parts of the cosmic s-frame formed local configurations that are observed at the explicate level (a-t-e-l) as matter. For, example, I imagine a hydrogen atom to be three “point-like objects” that are observed (a-t-e-l) as quarks forming a proton centered in a volume devoid of s-points except for one point-like object that is observed (a-t-e-l) as an electron circling the proton. The volume devoid of s-points is filled with infinite nothingness (nomos) that in fact defines the dimension of the atom. It is this volume that is devoid of s-points that separates one atom or particle from another.

In our reality (the one we experience at the explicate level) the motion that we experience and observe is the result of the incrementation of s-frames at the implicate level. Space is required for there to be motion and in my thesis the space that is required is discrete space. When one walks into a wall, matter is experience because the wall has taken up the space and the space that is taken up is discrete space. therefore those parts of reality that are devoid of s-points acquire materiality. Thus, the hydrogen atom in which only a miniscule part is “matter” made up of a specific configuration of s-points that are observed (a-t-e-l) as quarks and an electrons, the materiality that it exhibits is caused by the absence of s-points within its observed volume.

As one cosmic s-frame (a NOW) increments to the “Next” comic s-frame, it appears that the configuration of s-points that are observed as matter appear to move. There is no motion within an s-frame, merely an apparent motion observed at the explicate level just as there is no motion within each frame of a movie film; the motion viewed on the screen is due to the incrementation of the frames in the projector. Our minds do the work of smoothing out the incremental change in the projector to a smooth flowing motion on the screen. Similarly the incrementation of s-frames at the implicate level is observed at the explicate level as time and energy.

I will get the rest of your post tomorrow.

Likewise, I may come back to the above, but, not yet.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Yppop:
And it derives from the logicality that reality cannot impinge upon other reality in such a way that neither move, or, if they do, they must move in simultaneity. If that were the case then all of space and matter would be limited to a very finite potentiality of movement. But, from observation, we can see that that is not so.

Your comment reminds me of the ancient Greek argument: Democritus and the Greek atomists argued that if space was not empty; then it had to be full; and, if full how could matter move through it? Therefore, the atomists concluded that space was empty; that it is a void. Aristotle’s countered the atomists and argued that to conclude that a void exists is to make the contradictory claim that there exists something, which does not exist. So how is the universe interspersed with non-existent voids? Such a structure would be broken into separate realms, an idea that Aristotle couldn’t accept. He claimed space had to be filled with something. As with so many other arguments Aristotle won out and the argument died until the 19th century when the “empty” spaces was filled with the ether in order to explain the wave motion of light. Not many years later Einstein emptied the space of ether and left it “empty” again until QM filled up with the “false vacuum” or “quantum foam”.

I find that the duality of space, the intermingling of discrete and continuous space solves many of the problems, not only those concerning space but also other problems such as: How does the spiritual effect the material?" If discrete space is the “substance” from which matter is constructed then matter does not move through space, but what we observe as motion of matter is the incremental local reconfigurations of s-points, just as the motion on a screen is the incremental projection of frames of a movie film.

This thesis implies the type of “infinity” that is continuously expanding ad infinitum. In what manner is it expanding? I can see, to some extent, that it is possible that reality is on the march towards parity with God, in a magnitude sense. Especially because He is maximally fecund.
God bless, and let’s continue,
jd

In my last post, I explained how the expansion of space occurs as the result of the expansion of the s-gaps. S-gaps are defined as the distance between adjacent s-points; there is a finite number of them. The universe uses only a small part of the availble discrete points. According to the big bang theory space is expanding but not the galaxies or any other matter in the universe. However, in my thesis in which matter is nothing more than specific, localized configurations of space, matter also expands. But the expansion of an s-gap is so miniscule that we would not notice the increase in the “absolute size” of particles of matter.

It is not easy to grasp the idea of discrete space that is configured in such a way at the implicate level that we experience it as matter at the explicate level and I admire anyone that makes an attempt.

Thank you and Jano and Wassup for the attempt.
Yppop

 

[cho_pilo]

How do we know it ticks? Well, have a look here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/a/3/ca367c1c058c93eeb2e63ec221b4e9e4.png - from Wikipedia

Planck time is defined based on reduced Planck constant, gravitational constant and speed of light in a vacuum. If quantum theory stands then it seems we can not have smaller time then Planck’s time.

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.

 

[greylorn]

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.

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.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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.

Cho,
you lost me. Do you know how units of measure work?
You shoot general statements that it’s hard to respond to.
What relativity you are talking about? Do you know why there are special and general relativity theories?
Jano

 

[cho_pilo]

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.)

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 : tex^2 = c^2(dt)^2 - (d\vec{x})^2[/tex].

 

[cho_pilo]

Why there are such a things as Planck time and Planck length?
Isn’t it obvious that our spacetime ticks at the rate of Planck time?
If it ticks then it must be discrete, don’t you agree?

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

How do we know it ticks? Well, have a look here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/a/3/ca367c1c058c93eeb2e63ec221b4e9e4.png - from Wikipedia

Planck time is defined based on reduced Planck constant, gravitational constant and speed of light in a vacuum. If quantum theory stands then it seems we can not have smaller time then Planck’s time.

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.)

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.

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.

 

[cho_pilo]

Cho,
you lost me. Do you know how units of measure work?

Units of measure in common use are man-made conventions for communication and trade.
The meter is standard world-wide so that French companies can bid on building factories in China with parts from South Africa.
At one time, people had standard measures locked up in a vault, and they would carefully replicate them and transport the replicas so that everyone would know what was “one foot” or “nine stone”. But the modern second and meter are based on physical phenomena which can be reproduced time and time again.
Natural units are an extension of this, based largely on [tex]\hbar{/tex] which is used in quantum physics which relates momentum and wavelength, energy and time; c which relates time and space, mass, momentum and energy; and G which relates mass to trajectories in time and space.

So in any set of units, we can write:

(img to be uploaded)

In SI units, all these quantities will have specific numerical values. In British Imperial units they will have different numerical values. But in natural units, [tex]\hbar[/tex], c and G all have the value 1.

Thus, when the convention of using natural units are used, the following are just as useful:

(img to be uploaded)

So natural units help us study physics by concentrating our limited faculties on the math that relates the assumptions of the physical model to detailed predictions that come from it. There is a Planck unit of mass, but it does not quantize masses. (It’s about 70 quadrillion times larger than the top quark, the heaviest known fundamental particle or about 1/70th the mass of a mosquito or about the mass of a grain of sand.) The Planck units of time and space are inconveniently small, but that does not imply time and space are divided into chunks of that size. The Planck energy is about human scale, being about the amount of energy your body radiates every 32 weeks. The Planck momentum is on the order of 10 times your momentum while walking. Still other Planck units are very large.

If we want to convert a quantity from meters into feet, we must multiply by a conversion factor that is equal to one and cancel the units.

(img to be uploaded)

What about units do you think I don’t understand?

You shoot general statements that it’s hard to respond to.
What relativity you are talking about? Do you know why there are special and general relativity theories?
Jano

Yes, and I already explained that common to both special and general relativity is the concept that invariant interval between events is more important than any one observers clock. So a locally ticking universe would break the space-time symmetry of special relativity’s Lorentz invariance and general relativity’s local Lorentz invariance.

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

Cho,
It appears that you don’t know also how image be inserted into your post and can be located where you want it displayed.

Could anyone please teach us how do to add an image to a post? (image that is not uploaded as an attachment and is located on another website)

 

[Jaaanosik]

Cho,
GR and QM relation is work in progress.
The “quantum of action” was discovered and according to science this granularity is just there. It’s hard not to accept it.
If we do then the logical step is determining the Planck’s length and time.

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.

Well, Planck time is the time that it would take a photon travelling at light speed to cross a distance of Planck’s length. Since this would represent crossing the shortest possible distance at the fastest possible speed, this gives us the smallest meaningful unit of time.

As of now it seems a photon can not travel faster than light in a vacuum.
It means that Planck’s length and time are the smallest meaningful limits and it’s very hard to imagine and come up with theories below them.
Therefore, I’ll repeat, it seems to me that under normal circumstances the lowest meaningful time slice is the Planck time.

Please, show me how you describe the universe below Planck’s constants.

 

[JDaniel]

I agree with what you write, but let me put the pertinent idea in my words so that we agree on a common meaning. My thesis stipulates that before creation there was only God. Furthermore, my thesis stipulates that before creation there was only infinite nothingness, a substance having the characteristics of continuous space. Therefore, I equate continuous space to the substance of God, in other words, continuous space represents the spiritual component of reality. I like to think of the infinite nothingness as the Mind of God.

Yppop:

OK. St. Thomas says that material being consists of a unity of (primary) matter and form. Primary matter, he further describes as some sort of primordial, amorphous, undifferentiated stuff, that hungers, in a sense, for Form, and neither of which are at an explicate level until they become a composite. At that moment, Prime matter becomes secondary matter, we might say, and begins to differentiate. Now, it seems to me that s-points (s-frames, etc.) are all the same. (At least, that’s how I view it in my imagination.) Do you regard them as identical? How do you explain differentiation within a genus, and a species? How would you explain the near universal lack of “twins?”

From the Mind of God, that is, from the infinite nothingness, a very large number of points were crammed into an infinitely miniscule object called the singularity. I contend that those points were defined by the rational numbers that form discrete space. This implies that however close these s-points were crammed, there remained a gap between them.

This would seem to imply that s-points do not share identity, IOW, they are very similar but not self-same identical.

The s-points that formed the singularity were “immersed” in the infinite nothingness that extended to infinity. The s-points are the substance of matter that formed the universe. The infinite nothingness that permeates the s-points and is conterminous with them is referred to as nomos. Nomos forms a continuous fabric with the infinite nothingness thus denying any implication of pantheism.

Do you have a definition of the word, “co-terminous?” Or, do you mean to say, “conterminous?”

As the holonomic mechanism induced an incrementation of reconfigured s-frames, the size of the s-gaps increased from one cosmic s-frame to the next causing the cosmic s-frame (the universe) to expand.

Makes sense.

Eventually some parts of the cosmic s-frame formed local configurations that are observed at the explicate level (a-t-e-l) as matter. For, example, I imagine a hydrogen atom to be three “point-like objects” that are observed (a-t-e-l) as quarks forming a proton centered in a volume devoid of s-points except for one point-like object that is observed (a-t-e-l) as an electron circling the proton. The volume devoid of s-points is filled with infinite nothingness (nomos) that in fact defines the dimension of the atom. It is this volume that is devoid of s-points that separates one atom or particle from another.

This paragraph seems to imply an underlying evolution of some sort, not a Creation event, does it not? Elsewhere, you speak of “Creation,” but, here you speak of “eventuality,” as though a chance (what others call, “random”) event. This has me somewhat confused.

In our reality (the one we experience at the explicate level) the motion that we experience and observe is the result of the incrementation of s-frames at the implicate level. Space is required for there to be motion and in my thesis the space that is required is discrete space.

But, elsewhere, you describe “motion” being “illusory.”

When one walks into a wall, matter is experienced because the wall has taken up the space and the space that is taken up is discrete space. Therefore those parts of reality that are devoid of s-points acquire materiality. Thus, the hydrogen atom in which only a miniscule part is “matter” made up of a specific configuration of s-points that are observed (a-t-e-l) as quarks and electrons, the materiality that it exhibits is caused by the absence of s-points within its observed volume.

This is very interesting! So, perhaps it matters not whether s-points have identicality? But, then, it would appear that a local absence of s-points would leave behind a nothingness that possessed identicality (with all other local absences of s-points). True, or not?

As one cosmic s-frame (a NOW) increments to the “Next” comic s-frame, it appears that the configuration of s-points that are observed as matter appear to move. There is no motion within an s-frame, merely an apparent motion observed at the explicate level just as there is no motion within each frame of a movie film; the motion viewed on the screen is due to the incrementation of the frames in the projector. Our minds do the work of smoothing out the incremental change in the projector to a smooth flowing motion on the screen. Similarlly the incrementation of s-frames at the implicate level is observed at the explicate level as time and energy.

I think I misunderstood you here: you are not saying that motion is illusory. Instead, you are saying that motion appears only at the explicate level. I understand the need for space, but I don’t understand a need for “time” in the sense that it is a thing, like space, or energy, that has stand-alone existence. Or, does it have a special existence in your framework?

I will get the rest of your post tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay in responding. During the time you were waiting, my job ramped up. I haven’t had the time to provide a response until now.

God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

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.

To the best of my knowledge, your comments are correct. I made some really poor out-of-context statements, forgetting which thread I was on and that I’m not writing a book here, and cannot expect all readers to have read everything I’ve posted on the subject. I apologize for the sloppy writing, and thank you for the corrections.

My positions, all of them adjustable in the context of better information:

1. Time, in the sense we think of it— as a continuum which transports events— does not exist. It is an artificial construct which we use to measure relative changes in the positions of chunks of matter.
2. Events can be interpreted as timekeepers, or clocks. Mankind’s first clocks were the regular movement of the sun and moon. We refined these clocks, creating mechanisms that go tick-tock with cuckoos appearing to announce the passage of hours. Now our best clock is the cesium atom. Nonetheless, however exotic it may be, a clock is a mechanism that generates measurable cyclic events which we can interpret as ticks.

Clocks tick. Time does not.

1. This can be demonstrated by taking a cesium clock and moving it higher or lower. Its tick rate changes. Does this mean that time flows slower a foot above your head, or slower for you than for a dwarf? Really?
2. I don’t think so. I think that such relativistic time dilation means nothing other than, “The rate of any clock’s ticks is a function of the local gravitational field strength.”

Yes this has interesting implications. And clearly you are correct that there is no central clock. All clocks in the universe are asynchronous.

 

[yppop]

Yppop:

OK. St. Thomas says that material being consists of a unity of (primary) matter and form. Primary matter, he further describes as some sort of primordial, amorphous, undifferentiated stuff, that hungers, in a sense, for Form, and neither of which are at an explicate level until they become a composite. At that moment, Prime matter becomes secondary matter, we might say, and begins to differentiate.

There is correspondence between what you report as St. Thomas’ view on the subject of our discussion with what I am describing as the basis of reality with minor differences. The primordial. undifferentiated stuff that becomes (hungers for) Form is the stuff I call “Infinite Nothingness”. His “primary matter” is in my view of reality “continuous space”. Continuous space (as described by the real numbers) is infinitely infinite and contains “discrete space” (as described by the rational numbers). (the real numbers include the rational numbers). God assigns a finite number of discrete points (s-points) to be the “substance” that becomes the source of Form, the form that we experience as matter

Now, it seems to me that s-points (s-frames, etc.) are all the same. (At least, that’s how I view it in my imagination.) Do you regard them as identical?

S-points are all identical and separately individual, in the same way as electrons. S-points when arranged in specific configurations at the implicate level are experienced and observed as the particles of matter at the explicate level. The s-points that are not part of the specific configurations that “form” particles of matter provide the background that we experience as the universal space that defines the dimension of the universe and provides the “substance” from which particles are formed. Since the configuration of s-points that form particles blend with s-points that are universal space, objective reality consists of a single, complex, integrated configuration that I call the cosmic s-frame. Matter = “configured” space.

How do you explain differentiation within a genus, and a species? How would you explain the near universal lack of “twins?”

My objective is to develop a thesis that describes how God creates reality without deviating from the science’s description, hence the implicate/explicate view. The challenge posed by the life sciences is to describe how the holonomic mechanism relates to the theory of evolution. In general I contend that God sets reality on the path of actualization and for the most part allows it to run its course on the basis of the holonomic mechanism. However, God has built contingency into the mechanism using the holographic effect: every piece of a hologram contains the complete image (information) but with successively reduced fidelity as the pieces get smaller.
My thesis proposes that reality proceeds along a path of actualization (the ongoing incremental sequence of s-frames) within which God intervenes by altering a configuration within a specific s-frame an event I describe as an initial condition associated with the holonomic mechanism. The subsequent sequence of s-frames starting with God’s intervention proceeds according to a algorithm associated with a specific prototype, in this case, of a specific genus. God’s intervention is described in the theory of evolution as a mutation. The holographic effect, reconfiguration process at the implicate level resulting in the speciation described by the theory of evolution at the explicate level.

Do you have a definition of the word, “co-terminous?” Or, do you mean to say, “conterminous?”

They are different spelling for the same word.

This

paragraph seems to imply an underlying evolution of some sort, not a Creation event, does it not? Elsewhere, you speak of “Creation,” but, here you speak of “eventuality,” as though a chance (what others call, “random”) event. This has me somewhat confused.

Yes “eventually” was poorly chosen; I too have trouble divorcing my thoughts from the explicate level, where we casually accept things to happen without delving into the underlying cause. I should have written: "at a certain point in the path of actuality, God introduced an initial condition (configuration) which when operated on by the cosmic algorithm caused the subsequent local configurations that we observe as material particles to form.

I left questions associated with "illusory motion and time until later.

Thank you for the time and incisive questions. God bless you also.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

There is correspondence between what you report as St. Thomas’ view on the subject of our discussion with what I am describing as the basis of reality with minor differences. The primordial. undifferentiated stuff that becomes (hungers for) Form is the stuff I call “Infinite Nothingness”. His “primary matter” is in my view of reality “continuous space”. Continuous space (as described by the real numbers) is infinitely infinite and contains “discrete space” (as described by the rational numbers). (the real numbers include the rational numbers). God assigns a finite number of discrete points (s-points) to be the “substance” that becomes the source of Form, the form that we experience as matter.

Yppop:

Well, that would help make clear a perennial problem that thinkers have had with Aquinas’s view of primary matter and form. I take it that your use of the word, ‘substance,’ above is salutary, i.e., used in place of some other word that might be more explanatory but may not exist?

In your view of discrete space contained in continuous space, how do you see this without subversion to pantheism?

S-points are all identical and separately individual, in the same way as electrons. S-points when arranged in specific configurations at the implicate level are experienced and observed as the particles of matter at the explicate level. The s-points that are not part of the specific configurations that “form” particles of matter provide the background that we experience as the universal space that defines the dimension of the universe and provides the “substance” from which particles are formed. Since the configuration of s-points that form particles blend with s-points that are universal space, objective reality consists of a single, complex, integrated configuration that I call the cosmic s-frame. Matter = “configured” space.

I have two questions: (1) Is what we consider “mass” imaginary then, since s-points are dimensionless? (2) If “imaginary,” and if “dimensionless,” how does weight crush?

My objective is to develop a thesis that describes how God creates reality without deviating from the science’s description, hence the implicate/explicate view. The challenge posed by the life sciences is to describe how the holonomic mechanism relates to the theory of evolution. In general I contend that God sets reality on the path of actualization and for the most part allows it to run its course on the basis of the holonomic mechanism. However, God has built contingency into the mechanism using the holographic effect: every piece of a hologram contains the complete image (information) but with successively reduced fidelity as the pieces get smaller.
My thesis proposes that reality proceeds along a path of actualization (the ongoing incremental sequence of s-frames) within which God intervenes by altering a configuration within a specific s-frame an event I describe as an initial condition associated with the holonomic mechanism. The subsequent sequence of s-frames starting with God’s intervention proceeds according to an algorithm associated with a specific prototype, in this case, of a specific genus. God’s intervention is described in the theory of evolution as a mutation. The holographic effect, reconfiguration process at the implicate level resulting in the speciation described by the theory of evolution at the explicate level.

I have no questions on this.

I left questions associated with "illusory motion and time until later.

Illusory time and motion?

God bless,
jd

 

[Faith1960]

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

huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/subatomic-particle-discovery-cern_n_1461244.html?ref=science&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl16%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D156579

 

[yppop]

Yppop:

Well, that would help make clear a perennial problem that thinkers have had with Aquinas’s view of primary matter and form. I take it that your use of the word, ‘substance,’ above is salutary, i.e., used in place of some other word that might be more explanatory but may not exist?

I use the word “substance” in its usual meaning, namely to refer to the “stuff from which things are formed”. In the model of dual reality that I am proposing, we can identify two basic modalities of “substance”. The primary substance is the “infinite nothingness” that is infinite in extent and infinitely divisible; can be thought of as continuous space as described by the real numbers, and is the spiritual component of reality. It is the substance that is referred to when we think of the consubstantiation of the Trinity. The secondary substance, which is finite and divisible, is discrete space as described by the rational numbers, and from which material reality is formed. Mathematically, the rational numbers are part of the real numbers.

In your view of discrete space contained in continuous space, how do you see this without subversion to pantheism?

Pantheism is the belief that God is nothing more than the universe (or nature). In the dual model of reality; that part of the infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the universe is called nomos. It is true that the rational numbers are infinite (aleph null), but God needed only a finite number of them to create objective reality, the material part of the universe. The infinite nothingness, (the Mind of God) is infinitely larger than the universe and infinitely transcends our universe. The structure of total reality that I am proposing could be described as “panentheism”, pantheism.

I have two questions: (1) Is what we consider “mass” imaginary then, since s-points are dimensionless? (2) If “imaginary,” and if “dimensionless,” how does weight crush?

(1) I would prefer to describe mass, energy, force, etc. with the word “illusionary” in the sense that they are not what they seem to be even although in an explicate sense they are real. “Imaginary” implies an existence only in the mind. Mass is an abstraction created by Newton to explain the observation of falling bodies. As Newton explained, the earth attracts the apple because of an action-at-a-distance. And action-at-a distance (the cause of the apple’s motion) is induced by a property of matter called “mass”. And what is mass? Mass is nothing more than the property of matter that caused an-action-at-a distance. This is a circular argument: it works only because the phenomenon of attractive matter is so coherent and comprehensive that it can be described mathematically. Science does not and cannot answer the question: Why is the phenomenon of material attraction so coherent and comprehensive? The answer lies outside the objective of science, hence the need for “metascience” the rational explanation of why science works. At this point I realize I am digressing and not answering your excellent question; instead I am dwelling on an explicate view of “mass”. I need more space (and time) to explain the nature of mass at the implicate level. To answer your questions, I first need to explain the implicate view of time and motion. I will get back to you on that.

Nice to hear from you again, I need you to keep me in line with Aquinas, my knowledge in that regard is seriously lacking.

Yppop

 

[StudentOfLife]

Yppop,

I am trying to simplify your view of the implicate and explicate levels to understand it better. Could you use as a metaphor for your view of space, a connect the dots (with the numbers telling you where to draw the lines)? The paper on the which the dots are drawn would be the “infinite nothingness” and the dots would be your “s points”? The key to connect the dots is not only the dots themselves but the spaces between the dots are what makes the entire picture.

Whats more, within a large enough connect the dots one can almost picture a relativistic universe emerging. With dots scattered across the page, the picture you wind up drawing will depend on your relative perspective.

Thoughts?

SOL

 

[yppop]

Yppop,

I am trying to simplify your view of the implicate and explicate levels to understand it better. Could you use as a metaphor for your view of space, a connect the dots (with the numbers telling you where to draw the lines)? The paper on the which the dots are drawn would be the “infinite nothingness” and the dots would be your “s points”? The key to connect the dots is not only the dots themselves but the spaces between the dots are what makes the entire picture.

Whats more, within a large enough connect the dots one can almost picture a relativistic universe emerging. With dots scattered across the page, the picture you wind up drawing will depend on your relative perspective.

Thoughts?

SOL

SOL,
Thank you for the presenting a very perceptive metaphor for the structure of the implicate level. The explicate view of reality is the one we live and experience and science describes. It is my contention that objective reality when observed at the deepest level is little more than configurations of discrete points of space (s-points) immersed in a three dimensional substance, infinite nothingness, that can be described as continuous space. The configurations of s-points create the forms of matter, but it is those parts of the configuration that are devoid of the s-points that creates experience of “materiality”. You insinuated as much when you stated, " but the spaces between the dots are what makes the entire picture." I am reading a book called “Incomplete Nature” in which the author, Terrence W. Deacon, is proposing a similar idea. Here is a quote: “It is time to recognize that there is room for meaning, purpose, and value in the fabric of physical explanations, because these phenomena effectively occupy the absences that differentiate the world that is physically present.” My next post will try to explain how a configuration of s-points at the implicate level result in what we experience as mass, energy, and time at the explicate level.
Thank you for your response.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

I use the word “substance” in its usual meaning, namely to refer to the “stuff from which things are formed”. In the model of dual reality that I am proposing, we can identify two basic modalities of “substance”. The primary substance is the “infinite nothingness” that is infinite in extent and infinitely divisible; can be thought of as continuous space as described by the real numbers, and is the spiritual component of reality. It is the substance that is referred to when we think of the consubstantiation of the Trinity. The secondary substance, which is finite and divisible, is discrete space as described by the rational numbers, and from which material reality is formed. Mathematically, the rational numbers are part of the real numbers.

Pantheism is the belief that God is nothing more than the universe (or nature). In the dual model of reality; that part of the infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the universe is called nomos. It is true that the rational numbers are infinite (aleph null), but God needed only a finite number of them to create objective reality, the material part of the universe. The infinite nothingness, (the Mind of God) is infinitely larger than the universe and infinitely transcends our universe. The structure of total reality that I am proposing could be described as “panentheism”, pantheism.

(1) I would prefer to describe mass, energy, force, etc. with the word “illusionary” in the sense that they are not what they seem to be even although in an explicate sense they are real. “Imaginary” implies an existence only in the mind. Mass is an abstraction created by Newton to explain the observation of falling bodies. As Newton explained, the earth attracts the apple because of an action-at-a-distance. And action-at-a distance (the cause of the apple’s motion) is induced by a property of matter called “mass”. And what is mass? Mass is nothing more than the property of matter that caused an-action-at-a distance. This is a circular argument: it works only because the phenomenon of attractive matter is so coherent and comprehensive that it can be described mathematically. Science does not and cannot answer the question: Why is the phenomenon of material attraction so coherent and comprehensive? The answer lies outside the objective of science, hence the need for “metascience” the rational explanation of why science works. At this point I realize I am digressing and not answering your excellent question; instead I am dwelling on an explicate view of “mass”. I need more space (and time) to explain the nature of mass at the implicate level. To answer your questions, I first need to explain the implicate view of time and motion. I will get back to you on that.

Nice to hear from you again, I need you to keep me in line with Aquinas, my knowledge in that regard is seriously lacking.

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