Space?

[yppop]

Thus far, you are making very good sense. No questions at this point.

jd

JD,

Objective reality: that which is external to all sentient beings, which in science’s explicate view consists primarily of four “physical” elements: space, matter, energy, and time. On the other hand, in an implicate view, objective reality consists solely of configurations of space which are manifested at the explicate level as matter, while the incremental change of such configurations is manifested at the explicate level as energy and time.

My contention that matter is a configuration of space is given credibility by: (1) string theory which contends that fermions (the basis for matter) and bosons (the basis for energy) are nothing more than vibrations of 11-dimensional space, and (2) that matter at its foundation is constructed from “point” particles (electrons and quarks) and is mostly space (a typical atom is 50,000 times the size of the nucleus).

I contend that space is the primary, physical element of the universe from which the other three physical elements are derived. The question then is: how are matter, energy, and time derived from space? My answer to that question involves analyzing space in such a way that duality (the presence of both material and spiritual components existing conterminously) is a plausible result. The duality derives from the presence of both continuous and discrete space each playing a different part if the formation of reality.

The analysis of space is at the heart of my thesis that (with your agreement) I will begin in my next post. This will require a brief discussion of the properties of infinity, a concept that I will argue is uniquely associated with the spiritual.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,

Objective reality: that which is external to all sentient beings, which in science’s explicate view consists primarily of four “physical” elements: space, matter, energy, and time. On the other hand, in an implicate view, objective reality consists solely of configurations of space which are manifested at the explicate level as matter, while the incremental change of such configurations is manifested at the explicate level as energy and time.

Yppop:

Now I have a question or two. Earlier you said that in the implicate level, the universe has the mechanism giving it the ability to actualize (existences). (My understanding). Are you saying that the universe does this of itself, or, that God does this within the context of the universe? Or, is that asking you to get ahead of your explanation?

My contention that matter is a configuration of space is given credibility by: (1) string theory which contends that fermions (the basis for matter) and bosons (the basis for energy) are nothing more than vibrations of 11-dimensional space, and (2) that matter at its foundation is constructed from “point” particles (electrons and quarks) and is mostly space (a typical atom is 50,000 times the size of the nucleus).

These considerations are pretty much the same as mine for that space within the quantum exigencies to become denser matter.

I contend that space is the primary, physical element of the universe from which the other three physical elements are derived.

So, for you physical is not matter and vice-versa? (No disparagement intended, just asking to be clear,)

The question then is: how are matter, energy, and time derived from space? My answer to that question involves analyzing space in such a way that duality (the presence of both material and spiritual components existing conterminously) is a plausible result. The duality derives from the presence of both continuous and discrete space each playing a different part if the formation of reality.

How does discrete space manifest?

The analysis of space is at the heart of my thesis that (with your agreement) I will begin in my next post. This will require a brief discussion of the properties of infinity, a concept that I will argue is uniquely associated with the spiritual.

By all means.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Yppop:
Now I have a question or two. Earlier you said that in the implicate level, the universe has the mechanism giving it the ability to actualize (existences). (My understanding). Are you saying that the universe does this of itself, or, that God does this within the context of the universe? Or, is that asking you to get ahead of your explanation?

JD
Good question. In my view, God designs, creates, and operates at the implicate level. We experience and science describes at the explicate level. The actualization of possibilities, that I will refer to as the path of actualization is the work God using a single comprehensive mechanism (that I will describe later) to create: the universe (cosmogenesis), the planet earth (geogenesis), life (abiogenesis), multicellular life (morphogenesis) and ADAM (psychogenesis).

These considerations are pretty much the same as mine for that space within the quantum exigencies to become denser matter.

In my thesis I will argue that at the implicate level phenomena are deterministic, however God has built contingency into the mechanism that drives objective reality which when observed at the explicate level is probalistic, hence quantum mechanics. God however is a determinist as was Einstein and David Bohm who first viewed reality as an implicate/explicate situation.

So, for you physical is not matter and vice-versa? (No disparagement intended, just asking to be clear,)

I define “physical” to include space, matter, energy, and time, the elements observed at the explicate level. At the implicate level there is only space. God uses both modalities in order to provide duality; discrete space forms the material, continuous space is the spiritual.

How does discrete space manifest?
By all means.

God bless,
jd

This is what I plan to discuss right after a brief discuss infinity as it reltes to space…

Thank you for your interest in what I have to say,
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD
Good question. In my view, God designs, creates, and operates at the implicate level. We experience and science describes at the explicate level. The actualization of possibilities, that I will refer to as the path of actualization is the work God using a single comprehensive mechanism (that I will describe later) to create: the universe (cosmogenesis), the planet earth (geogenesis), life (abiogenesis), multicellular life (morphogenesis) and ADAM (psychogenesis).

Pretty much covers it.

In my thesis I will argue that at the implicate level phenomena are deterministic, however God has built contingency into the mechanism that drives objective reality which when observed at the explicate level is probabilistic, hence quantum mechanics. God however is a determinist as was Einstein and David Bohm who first viewed reality as an implicate/explicate situation.

I define “physical” to include space, matter, energy, and time, the elements observed at the explicate level. At the implicate level there is only space. God uses both modalities in order to provide duality; discrete space forms the material, continuous space is the spiritual.

Very interesting. Resolves the duality question doesn’t it. (Rhetorical question.)

This is what I plan to discuss right after a brief discuss infinity as it relates to space.

Thank you for your interest in what I have to say,

Yppop

I’m a maniac and you know what maniacs expect don’t you? Let’s get to it; you’re killing me here.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Pretty much covers it.

Very interesting. Resolves the duality question doesn’t it. (Rhetorical question.)

I’m a maniac and you know what maniacs expect don’t you? Let’s get to it; you’re killing me here.

JD,
I get you message. I will skip over the preliminaries and get right to the heart of the model of dual reality. Here is the foundation of my thesis:

Discrete space can be defined as those points associated with the rational numbers. The rational numbers terminate in an infinity defined by the first transfinite number, aleph (null).

Continuous space can be defined as those points associated with the real numbers. The real numbers terminate in an infinity defined by the second (assuming the continuum hypothesis is true) transfinite number aleph (1).

It is a property of the infinite that a part can be equal to the whole; this allows us to squeeze an infinite number of discrete points into an infinitesimal volume.

God created the universe from nothing, namely a finite and enormous number of points from discrete space squeezed into an infinitesimal volume we will call the singularity.

The background in which the singularity is found is called Infinite Nothingness. I call it Nothingness because it can only be imagined as having the appearance of “nothing” but is, in fact, “something”. It is the source of the universe, it is pure existence. Infinite Nothingness can be modelled as continuous space.

Mathematicians have shown that a infinite number of discrete points can be removed from the real number line without diminishing the number of points on the line. When the singularity is “removed” from the Infinite Nothingness without diminishment it is like removing zero points, thus God creates ex nihilo.

There are ‘gaps’ between the points of discrete space. The gaps are filled with continuous space, hence the incipient universe before the big bang is an infinitesimal volume of discrete points immersed in and permeated with Infinite Nothingness.

The Infinite Nothingness that remains conterminuous with the expanding universe will be called nomos.

Unless you have question or need additional clarification, when you agree I will explain the nature of matter at the implicate level.

Thank you for your interest,
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
I get you message. I will skip over the preliminaries and get right to the heart of the model of dual reality. Here is the foundation of my thesis:

Discrete space can be defined as those points associated with the rational numbers. The rational numbers terminate in an infinity defined by the first transfinite number, aleph (null).

Yppop:

Question: Are you saying that infinity is multitude measured by a number? There seems to be a confusion between infinite number and transfinite number. In other words, if number is multitude measured by a unit, then, in the same way, infinity is also a number measured by a unit, i.e., the aleph? Or, are you keeping transfinity separate from infinity? In my view, that which is transfinite is still finite, albeit very large.

Continuous space can be defined as those points associated with the real numbers. The real numbers terminate in an infinity defined by the second (assuming the continuum hypothesis is true) transfinite number aleph (1).

Question: Does your theory not differentiate between discrete quantity and continuous quantity? Is magnitude equal to lines, planes and solids?

It is a property of the infinite that a part can be equal to the whole; this allows us to squeeze an infinite number of discrete points into an infinitesimal volume.

See my previous question.

God created the universe from nothing, namely a finite and enormous number of points from discrete space squeezed into an infinitesimal volume we will call the singularity.

That could be a problem: the nothing that you hypothesize is not nothing, rather, it is something. Furthermore, infinitesimals are problematic. The concept appears to be contradictory.

The background in which the singularity is found is called Infinite Nothingness. I call it Nothingness because it can only be imagined as having the appearance of “nothing” but is, in fact, “something”. It is the source of the universe, it is pure existence. Infinite Nothingness can be modelled as continuous space.

So, in this theory, God does not actually make something to be where there was real nothing before? Physical properties, at lease space, have always existed?

Mathematicians have shown that an infinite number of discrete points can be removed from the real number line without diminishing the number of points on the line. When the singularity is “removed” from the Infinite Nothingness without diminishment it is like removing zero points, thus God creates ex nihilo.

This is interesting. Is this because you regard the point as actually a dimensionless point?

There are ‘gaps’ between the points of discrete space. The gaps are filled with continuous space, hence the incipient universe before the big bang is an infinitesimal volume of discrete points immersed in and permeated with Infinite Nothingness.

Discrete space precedes creation, then. And insofar as God permeates the gaps between the points, He is Infinite Nothingness? (This is a little unsettling as I have not subscribed to some of these definitions, and don’t know if I would as yet.)

The Infinite Nothingness that remains conterminuous with the expanding universe will be called nomos.

Unless you have question or need additional clarification, when you agree I will explain the nature of matter at the implicate level.

Good; don’t go there yet. I need these clarifications.

Thank you for your interest,
Yppop

Not a problem. I’m just sorry I did not get into this back some time ago, when you were first publishing it.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Yppop:

Question: Are you saying that infinity is multitude measured by a number? There seems to be a confusion between infinite number and transfinite number. In other words, if number is multitude measured by a unit, then, in the same way, infinity is also a number measured by a unit, i.e., the aleph? Or, are you keeping transfinity separate from infinity? In my view, that which is transfinite is still finite, albeit very large.

Yes, infinity is a “multitude” measured by a number, except in set theory we refer to the “cardinality” of a set rather than the multitude. Numbers that measure infinites are called transfinite numbers. The symbol for the first letter of the Jewish alphabet, aleph is used for transfinite numbers in place of numerals that are used for the finite numbers. Transfinite numbers are different than the finite numbers because; they have different properties and obey different rules.For example,
aleph(0) + n = aleph(0)
aleph(0) x n = aleph(0)
aleph(0) x aleph(0) = aleph(0)^2 = aleph(0)

Question: Does your theory not differentiate between discrete quantity and continuous quantity? Is magnitude equal to lines, planes and solids?

Yes, my thesis is based on the ability to make a distinction between the two modalities of space. The Cantor-Dedekind axiom of continuity states that every point on the real number line corresponds to a point in space and every point in space corresponds to a number on the real number line. This axiom allows us to study the nature of space by manipulating numbers. Hence we can define the discrete and continuous space mathematically. Cantor also showed that the number of points on a continuous line correspond exactly to the number of points in 2, 3, or n dimensions

That could be a problem: the nothing that you hypothesize is not nothing, rather, it is something. Furthermore, infinitesimals are problematic. The concept appears to be contradictory

.
Of course, “nothing” is “something” ; at the very least, the “something” is empty dimensionality or pure existence, which is the most basic property of space. A void, an absolute nothing, is non-existent. The only description of absolute nothing (the void) would be the view from inside a single point. However my description of the singularity is as close as I can come to imagining “nothing” .
An infinitesimal is a dimension of space that gets progessively smaller, but remains finite.

So, in this theory, God does not actually make something to be where there was real nothing before? Physical properties, at lease space, have always existed?

Yes the Infinite Nothingness, which can be described as continuous space has existed for ever; It is the Mind of God. It is not physical; The space that is physical is the discrete space that becomes the Universe and I will refer to as universal space when the context requires it.

This is interesting. Is this because you regard the point as actually a dimensionless point?

Yes

Discrete space precedes creation, then. And insofar as God permeates the gaps between the points, He is Infinite Nothingness? (This is a little unsettling as I have not subscribed to some of these definitions, and don’t know if I would as yet.)

I do have trouble with others when I define the Mind of God as “Infinite Nothingness” especially the nothingness word. After considering “absolute being”, “pure existence”, and even “ein sof”, I settle on Infinite Nothingness because nothingness evokes a closer relationship with continuous space than does the alternatives. I cite: The Vatican’s International Theological Commission – Rome 2000-2002, COMMISSION and STEWARDSHIP;
Human Persons Created in the Image of God
Chapter 3 - #66
*"… The doctrines of the *imago Dei *and the *creatio ex nihilo teach us that the existing universe is the setting for a radically personal drama, in which the triune Creator calls out of nothingness those to whom He then calls out in love…"

If the Vatican can use the nothingness to describe the source of the universe, I feel comfortable with it. Nevertheless I can be convinced to change.

Don’t worry too much about this stuff; it is merely background. The important points that I have made so far are

1. God uses both modalities of space-discreteness and continuity-in creating reality
2. God creates at the implicate level, science observes at the explicate level

Yppop .

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, infinity is a “multitude” measured by a number, except in set theory we refer to the “cardinality” of a set rather than the multitude. Numbers that measure infinites are called transfinite numbers.

The symbol for the first letter of the Jewish alphabet, aleph is used for transfinite numbers in place of numerals that are used for the finite numbers. Transfinite numbers are different than the finite numbers because; they have different properties and obey different rules.For example,
aleph(0) + n = aleph(0)
aleph(0) x n = aleph(0)
aleph(0) x aleph(0) = aleph(0)^2 = aleph(0)

Yppop:

The definition I have for “transfinite,” is that it is an incredibly large finite number. But, infinity is impossible to define - by any number. Except if we conceive it in the sense of potentiality. :doh2: But, that’s exactly how you are using it! So there is no conflict. Superb!

Yes, my thesis is based on the ability to make a distinction between the two modalities of space. The Cantor-Dedekind axiom of continuity states that every point on the real number line corresponds to a point in space and every point in space corresponds to a number on the real number line. This axiom allows us to study the nature of space by manipulating numbers. Hence we can define the discrete and continuous space mathematically. Cantor also showed that the number of points on a continuous line correspond exactly to the number of points in 2, 3, or n dimensions.

Fascinating.

Of course, “nothing” is “something” ; at the very least, the “something” is empty dimensionality or pure existence, which is the most basic property of space. A void, an absolute nothing, is non-existent. The only description of absolute nothing (the void) would be the view from inside a single point. However my description of the singularity is as close as I can come to imagining “nothing” .

This is blowing my mind, to use an old 70’s expression. And it appears to avoid the conflict that nothing does not equal nothing, yet nothing does equal nothing. IOW, the nothingness of existence vs the nothingness of incomplete nothingness.

An infinitesimal is a dimension of space that gets progessively smaller, but remains finite.

And, that is exactly why it looks to be a contradiction.

Yes the Infinite Nothingness, which can be described as continuous space has existed for ever; It is the Mind of God. It is not physical; The space that is physical is the discrete space that becomes the Universe and I will refer to as universal space when the context requires it.

I do have trouble with others when I define the Mind of God as “Infinite Nothingness” especially the nothingness word. After considering “absolute being”, “pure existence”, and even “ein sof”, I settle on Infinite Nothingness because nothingness evokes a closer relationship with continuous space than do the alternatives.

That is excellent.

I cite: The Vatican’s International Theological Commission – Rome 2000-2002, COMMISSION and STEWARDSHIP;
Human Persons Created in the Image of God
Chapter 3 - #66
*"… The doctrines of the *imago Dei **and the *creatio ex nihilo *teach us that the existing universe is the setting for a radically personal drama, in which the triune Creator calls out of nothingness those to whom He then calls out in love…"

If the Vatican can use the nothingness to describe the source of the universe, I feel comfortable with it. Nevertheless I can be convinced to change.

This is very new to me. I have to think about for a while. But, don’t change anything yet. Let’s keep going; anything I might come up with to the contrary, may not be as contrary as it seems.

Don’t worry too much about this stuff; it is merely background. The important points that I have made so far are

1. God uses both modalities of space-discreteness and continuity-in creating reality
2. God creates at the implicate level, science observes at the explicate level

Makes sense. I suspected a reason for the “space” inside.

God bless.,
jd

 

[yppop]

JD,

A few comments about the infinitesimal:

Finite numbers are those that represent points on a line and include all numbers between minus infinity and plus infinity. An interval is the distance between 2 points. Finite intervals are those that are greater than zero and less than infinity (aleph-0). An infinitesimal is an interval that gets vanishingly small without ever getting to zero at which point it would have (by definition) ceased to be an interval. The interval that mathematician’s refer to as the infinitesimal is important to my thesis because it represents the gap between points of discrete space. I hope this clears up the idea if an infinitesimal for you. Things may become clearer as we go along.

Back to the thesis:

Imagine the basic foundation of the implicate view of the universe as a 3D-matrix of “discrete points” separated by gaps and immersed in a background of continuous space (infinite nothingness)? I assume that you are able to imagine such a structure? (If not let me know).

As a short cut I will refer to the points of discrete space as s-points and the gaps as s-gaps. At the beginning of creation when the universe was squeezed into the singularity, the s-gaps were infinitesimsally small. About 14-billion years ago the s-gaps began to expand and the universe grew larger as the s-gaps grew until today the observable universe is at least 90-billion light years across.

Since the universe grew from a infinitesimal singularity to, at one time, the size of a pumpkin, we can argue that the universe is necessarily finite because nothing that is finite can grow to be infinite. Because it is finite, the universe must have a border and the border must be spatial. Since the universe is given dimensionality with discrete space, the realm that exists beyond the universe must be continuous space (infinite nothingness).

If we were to fire a rocket that could reach the boundary of the universe I contend that the experience would be that of running into an immovable wall, infinite materiality. This concept of materiality has an analog in the materiality that atoms exhibit even though they are mostly “empty space”, they exhibit materiality. However, in the case of the atom, what “empty space” means is that the interior of the atom is empty of “discrete” space. Discrete space is required for motion to occur; if it is not present materiality is experienced

I know, I know! At this juncture you may feel that I have lost some of my faculties, but if you stick with it for awhile I will explain the nature of motion, which is manifested as energy and time at the explicate level. Motion or “change” results, at the implicate level, from the incremental reconfiguration of the s-points that compose the universe. The impetus for the change inhers in the infinite nothingness (the Mind of God) that permeates discrete space. The mechanism that I will describe is the same mechanism that animates matter and allows you to get dressed in the morning. We are nothing more than a specific configuration of s-points that we recognize at an explicate level as our bodies, and which is permeated by the infinite nothingness that forms our soul. But I am getting way ahead of my thesis. Perhaps to hold your interest.

I really do appreciate the time and effort you have given me in finding the meaning of what I am trying to say.

Thank you,
Yppop.

 

[JDaniel]

JD,

A few comments about the infinitesimal:

Finite numbers are those that represent points on a line and include all numbers between minus infinity and plus infinity. An interval is the distance between 2 points. Finite intervals are those that are greater than zero and less than infinity (aleph-0). An infinitesimal is an interval that gets vanishingly small without ever getting to zero at which point it would have (by definition) ceased to be an interval. The interval that mathematician’s refer to as the infinitesimal is important to my thesis because it represents the gap between points of discrete space. I hope this clears up the idea if an infinitesimal for you. Things may become clearer as we go along.

Yppop:

That didn’t clear it up completely, but that is not your fault. I can imagine a “potential” infinity expanding continuously ad infinitum. I cannot imagine any kind of potential going in reverse. There seems to be a point, say the Planck length, that a thing cannot get smaller than, or, if it could, would seem to aggregate into the universal nothingness. Theoretically, one can mathematically postulate that it could occur, but I don’t see how it could actually occur. But, I am still quite interested and willing to wait.

Back to the thesis:

Imagine the basic foundation of the implicate view of the universe as a 3D-matrix of “discrete points” separated by gaps and immersed in a background of continuous space (infinite nothingness)? I assume that you are able to imagine such a structure? (If not let me know).

Well, I’ve only had one cup of coffee, but, my imagination has been stirred.

As a short cut I will refer to the points of discrete space as s-points and the gaps as s-gaps. At the beginning of creation when the universe was squeezed into the singularity, the s-gaps were infinitesimally small. About 14-billion years ago the s-gaps began to expand and the universe grew larger as the s-gaps grew until today the observable universe is at least 90-billion light years across.

OK.

Since the universe grew from a infinitesimal singularity to, at one time, the size of a pumpkin, we can argue that the universe is necessarily finite because nothing that is finite can grow to be infinite.

An infinity that is considered as a potential infinity can, in fact, grow ad infinitum. The only true, actual infinity, so far, is God, which is considered infinite space in this conception.

Because it is finite, the universe must have a border and the border must be spatial.

True. At any given time, a potential infinity is finite.

Since the universe is given dimensionality with discrete space, the realm that exists beyond the universe must be continuous space (infinite nothingness).

Makes sense.

If we were to fire a rocket that could reach the boundary of the universe I contend that the experience would be that of running into an immovable wall, infinite materiality. This concept of materiality has an analog in the materiality that atoms exhibit even though they are mostly “empty space”, they exhibit materiality. However, in the case of the atom, what “empty space” means is that the interior of the atom is empty of “discrete” space. Discrete space is required for motion to occur; if it is not present materiality is experienced.

But motion is occurring within atoms, limited though it is.

I know, I know! At this juncture you may feel that I have lost some of my faculties, but if you stick with it for awhile I will explain the nature of motion, which is manifested as energy and time at the explicate level. Motion or “change” results, at the implicate level, from the incremental reconfiguration of the s-points that compose the universe. The impetus for the change inheres in the infinite nothingness (the Mind of God) that permeates discrete space. The mechanism that I will describe is the same mechanism that animates matter and allows you to get dressed in the morning. We are nothing more than a specific configuration of s-points that we recognize at an explicate level as our bodies, and which is permeated by the infinite nothingness that forms our soul. But I am getting way ahead of my thesis. Perhaps to hold your interest.

I’m not going anywhere - I hope!

I really do appreciate the time and effort you have given me in finding the meaning of what I am trying to say.

jd

 

[yppop]

Hi JD

When we talk about potential and actual infinity we are referring to reality; when we talk about finite and transfinite numbers we are referring to the abstract (mathematics). Continuous space means that it is infinitely divisible (potentially going in reverse), which implies going to zero. Discrete space is characterized by a minimum length, which I assume to be a Planck length. Inside the Planck length is continuous space (infinite nothingness). Nothing in objective reality is smaller. Only God is actually infinite; infinite nothingness is not only infinite in extent, but also in His continuity is infinite at each point throughout His infinite extent.

I think you have grasped the essentials and though you may have some hesitation about my brief description of matter as the absence of s-points I am going to plunge right into the mechanism that operates at the implicate level and appears at the explicate level as energy and time. I call it the* holonomic mechanism*. Also to save typing I refer to the infinite nothingness that is coterminous with the universe as* nomos*.

At each instant of time, the configuration of s-points that composes the entire universe can be imagined as a static frame of a 3-D movie film that I will call the cosmic s-frame. When the s-frame increments to a new configuration, we notice the change as: motion of matter (ponderable energy),motion of space (radiant energy), and time. The holonomic mechanism imparts the dynamics to the s-points (discrete space). There are plenty of analogs for which we can observe continuous motion derived from discrete (digital) mechanisms. Motion pictures are the most common, but even better is a flat screen TV or computer monitor. If you have a flat screen imagine the pixels as s-points and the white background as the continuous space (nomos). The simulated matter is created from configurations of the dark and colored pixels, incrementation of the black and colored pixels appears as motion. A similar process occurs in the cosmic s-frame when the holonomic mechanism causes incrementation of reconfigured s-frames.

The holonomic mechanism consists of three parts: Initial configuration, information, and impetus to change. So at the implicate level , reality is based on discrete space, algorithm models, and information, rather than continuous space, mathematical models, and energy at the explicate level. nest time I will describe the nature of initial configurations and the information associated with the holonomic mechanism.

To get a concept of cellular autmata that is the principle underlying the holonomic machanism, you might want to google John Conway’s Game of Life or it can be is found at web site www.bitstorm.org/gameof life/

Thank you for your interest.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

When we talk about potential and actual infinity we are referring to reality; when we talk about finite and transfinite numbers we are referring to the abstract (mathematics). Continuous space means that it is infinitely divisible (potentially going in reverse), which implies going to zero. Discrete space is characterized by a minimum length, which I assume to be a Planck length. Inside the Planck length is continuous space (infinite nothingness). Nothing in objective reality is smaller. Only God is actually infinite; infinite nothingness is not only infinite in extent, but also in His continuity is infinite at each point throughout His infinite extent.

That solves the Hilbertian problem with actual infinities, it would appear. For the time being, let’s postulate it as you have done.

I think you have grasped the essentials and though you may have some hesitation about my brief description of matter as the absence of s-points

Because solids would take up the place that s-points would ordinarily take up?

I am going to plunge right into the mechanism that operates at the implicate level and appears at the explicate level as energy and time. I call it the holonomic mechanism. Also to save typing I refer to the infinite nothingness that is coterminous with the universe as nomos.

At each instant of time, the configuration of s-points that composes the entire universe can be imagined as a static frame of a 3-D movie film that I will call the cosmic s-frame. When the s-frame increments to a new configuration, we notice the change as: motion of matter (ponderable energy), motion of space (radiant energy), and time. The holonomic mechanism imparts the dynamics to the s-points (discrete space). There are plenty of analogs for which we can observe continuous motion derived from discrete (digital) mechanisms. Motion pictures are the most common, but even better is a flat screen TV or computer monitor. If you have a flat screen imagine the pixels as s-points and the white background as the continuous space (nomos). The simulated matter is created from configurations of the dark and colored pixels, incrementation of the black and colored pixels appears as motion. A similar process occurs in the cosmic s-frame when the holonomic mechanism causes incrementation of reconfigured s-frames.

Fascinating. Ponderable energy, would you define this - to whatever extent you can, at this time?

The holonomic mechanism consists of three parts: Initial configuration, information, and impetus to change. So at the implicate level, reality is based on discrete space, algorithm models, and information, rather than continuous space, mathematical models, and energy at the explicate level. Next time I will describe the nature of initial configurations and the information associated with the holonomic mechanism.

Am I seeing a switch between implicate level space and explicate level space in the above paragraph? That is a bit confusing to me.

To get a concept of cellular autmata that is the principle underlying the holonomic mechanism, you might want to google John Conway’s Game of Life or it can be is found at web site www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

Is it safe to install?

Thank you for your interest.

I am impatiently waiting every day!

God bless,
jd
Yppop

 

[yppop]

solids

would take up the place that s-points would ordinarily take up?At the implicate level, there are no “solids” only configurations of space; what gives the sense of materiality is the “empty” parts of the configurations. Think of it this way: an atom of matter appears to be “solid” (atoms can be made to bounce of one another). Now consider the structure of an atom: a nucleus surrounded, relatively speaking, by a vast volume of emptiness. The typical atom is 50,000 times bigger than its nucleus. Only the point-like electrons fill that “emptiness”. In my model, what the atom is empty of, in most of its volume, is s-points, which are concentrated in the nucleus. The emptiness is filled with nomos (infinite nothingness). I know a picture would help, but this is the best I can do. Don’t worry too much if you can’t grasp the idea of materiality being the absence of discrete space, it may become clearer as we go along, but in any case an image of the configuration (and I can only guess at the specifics of such a configuration) are not essential to the explanation of life, mind, and soul that comes later. The main idea to grasp is that s-points are immersed in nomos (again, the infinite nothingness that permeates the universe) and they are organized in configurations that appear as matter at the explicate level (the world we experience and science describes). Sorry for repeating things with these parenthetical explanations, but I know that if I were reading this stuff I would constantly be looking for the meaning of these neologisms (new words). Whoops!

Fascinating. Ponderable energy, would you define this - to whatever extent you can, at this time?

Ponderable energy refers to energy associated with matter in motion; it would include not only kinetic energy, heat (motion of atoms); sound (motion of air molecules); electrical (motion of charged particles). Radiant energy refers to energy associated with motion of 'space", primarily electromagnetic energy (light, gamma gays, etc.). Ponderable is an old-fashioned word favored mostly by classical physicists. I use it because it conveniently lumps several different energy forms together allowing us to view energy in general terms as ponderable, radiant, and potential.

Am I seeing a switch between implicate level space and explicate level space in the above paragraph? That is a bit confusing to me.

I use two levels of reality (implicate and explicate) to explain the idea that God creates and science merely describes reality. A cosmic s-frame is a specific configuration of all the s-points in the universe, parts of the configuration are observed as the particles of matters, the rest is discrete space. If frozen in place the s-frame would be like the tableaus in a museum depicting some scene of nature. There would be no time and amazingly no energy, not at least until God caused the s-frame to increment through a sequence of reconfigured s-frames. It is the incrementation that causes the energy and time. The incrementation of the s-points takes place at the implicate level, what we observe as energy and time at the explicate level are merely effects. The laws of physics do not cause anything, gravity does not cause the attraction we observe between bodies of matter; gravity is nothing more than an observation of what is happening at the implicate level (the ground of reality). What is happening at the implicate level is nothing more than the change in relative positions of s-points. We and all around us are nothing more than configurations of discrete space in the mind of God.

Is it safe to install?

I don’t know, I just google it up whenever I need to.

Holonomic mechanism: From the Greek “holo-” meaning whole and the Greek “-nomos” meaning law. Let us refer to a static s-frame as an “Now” and the subsequent s-frame is called the “Next”. To change Now into the Next, three things are required: (1) information describing the next position of each s-point relative to its present position; (2) an impetus to move each s-point to its new position; (3) a set of initial conditions that determine an end point or goal in the path of actualization; in other words, where to go and the impetus to get there. The three requirements for incrementation—information, impetus, and initial condition—together define the holonomic mechanism. The first requirement determines the nature of the change; the second is the cause of the change; and the third determines the long range objectives on the path of actualization.

Information is transferred algorithmically to each s-point from the mind of God to the nomos surrounding it. However, just as every piece of a holographic plate contains the entire image contained on the complete plate, but with diminished clarity, the transfer of information from the mind of God to the nomos surrounding each s-point is diminished in clarity thus building contingency into reality. Contingency is directly dependent on complexity (to be explained later).
I will continue tommorrow. It’s leaf raking time here in PA and now I am my way to my granddaughter’s (#7) Confirmation and out to dinner.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

At the implicate level, there are no “solids” only configurations of space; what gives the sense of materiality is the “empty” parts of the configurations. Think of it this way: an atom of matter appears to be “solid” (atoms can be made to bounce of one another). Now consider the structure of an atom: a nucleus surrounded, relatively speaking, by a vast volume of emptiness. The typical atom is 50,000 times bigger than its nucleus. Only the point-like electrons fill that “emptiness”. In my model, what the atom is empty of, in most of its volume, is s-points, which are concentrated in the nucleus. The emptiness is filled with nomos (infinite nothingness). I know a picture would help, but this is the best I can do. Don’t worry too much if you can’t grasp the idea of materiality being the absence of discrete space, it may become clearer as we go along, but in any case an image of the configuration (and I can only guess at the specifics of such a configuration) are not essential to the explanation of life, mind, and soul that comes later. The main idea to grasp is that s-points are immersed in nomos (again, the infinite nothingness that permeates the universe) and they are organized in configurations that appear as matter at the explicate level (the world we experience and science describes). Sorry for repeating things with these parenthetical explanations, but I know that if I were reading this stuff I would constantly be looking for the meaning of these neologisms (new words). Whoops!

Ponderable energy refers to energy associated with matter in motion; it would include not only kinetic energy, heat (motion of atoms); sound (motion of air molecules); electrical (motion of charged particles). Radiant energy refers to energy associated with motion of 'space", primarily electromagnetic energy (light, gamma gays, etc.). Ponderable is an old-fashioned word favored mostly by classical physicists. I use it because it conveniently lumps several different energy forms together allowing us to view energy in general terms as ponderable, radiant, and potential.

I use two levels of reality (implicate and explicate) to explain the idea that God creates and science merely describes reality. A cosmic s-frame is a specific configuration of all the s-points in the universe, parts of the configuration are observed as the particles of matters, the rest is discrete space. If frozen in place the s-frame would be like the tableaus in a museum depicting some scene of nature. There would be no time and amazingly no energy, not at least until God caused the s-frame to increment through a sequence of reconfigured s-frames. It is the incrementation that causes the energy and time. The incrementation of the s-points takes place at the implicate level, what we observe as energy and time at the explicate level are merely effects. The laws of physics do not cause anything, gravity does not cause the attraction we observe between bodies of matter; gravity is nothing more than an observation of what is happening at the implicate level (the ground of reality). What is happening at the implicate level is nothing more than the change in relative positions of s-points. We and all around us are nothing more than configurations of discrete space in the mind of God.

I don’t know, I just google it up whenever I need to.

Holonomic mechanism: From the Greek “holo-” meaning whole and the Greek “-nomos” meaning law. Let us refer to a static s-frame as an “Now” and the subsequent s-frame is called the “Next”. To change Now into the Next, three things are required: (1) information describing the next position of each s-point relative to its present position; (2) an impetus to move each s-point to its new position; (3) a set of initial conditions that determine an end point or goal in the path of actualization; in other words, where to go and the impetus to get there. The three requirements for incrementation—information, impetus, and initial condition—together define the holonomic mechanism. The first requirement determines the nature of the change; the second is the cause of the change; and the third determines the long range objectives on the path of actualization.

Information is transferred algorithmically to each s-point from the mind of God to the nomos surrounding it. However, just as every piece of a holographic plate contains the entire image contained on the complete plate, but with diminished clarity, the transfer of information from the mind of God to the nomos surrounding each s-point is diminished in clarity thus building contingency into reality. Contingency is directly dependent on complexity (to be explained later).
I will continue tomorrow. It’s leaf raking time here in PA and now I am my way to my granddaughter’s (#7) Confirmation and out to dinner.

Yppop

Well, congratulations to your granddaughter and enjoy the ceremony. I believe I have understood all of the above as you have made very clear. I am unable to read anything else until we are finished, maybe. I’m ready for tomorrow.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Hi JD,

Still hanging in?

A bit more about of how information is handled for the holonomic mechanism.

The Now s-frame is a 3D configuration of s-points frozen in time. At every instant God uses the holonomic mechanism to increment the Now s-frame to the Next s-frame and reality happens. The information that determines the configuration of each Next s-frame is produced algorithmically as a series of instructions in such a way that the sub-routines are observed as the laws of physics.

Every s-point in the 3D-s-frame can be represented by a number on the real number line. The holonomic mechanism is basically a computation process, hence binary numbers are used to compute the positional number for each s-point in the Next s-frame. The (name removed by moderator)ut string of 0’s and 1from the Now s-frame when processed through the algorithm creates an output string of 0’s and1’s that positions each s-point in the Next s-frame. The Next s-frame becomes the Now s-frame and the process is repeated. The algorithm generates stable and coherent outputs that allow science to describe them in a series of mathematical formulations. For example the configuration of s-points that represent electrons would always undergo the same reconfiguration .The patterns that we observe at the explicate level are the result of the alteration of coherent configurations at the implicate level.

This mechanism form is not much different than what happens in a flat screen TV or computer monitor. The motion on the screen is due to the activation of the pixels whose state depends on a string of 1’s and 0’s (name removed by moderator)ut into a computer. The result can be amazing life-like simulations in 2D. If we humans with insignificant mental capacity can produce life-like simulations using strings of 1’s and 0’s; then creating objective reality should be no problem for an omniscient God with His infinite mental capacity. In fact, God has no need to calculate the configuration of each next s-frame, the algorithm does that in basically the same way that Conway’s Life algorithm determines the path of actualization for any given initial configuration

I will address initial configurations in my next post. It is God’s tool for implementing Intelligent Design. Then I will explain the nature of the impetus that causes the s-frames to increment.

Happy Veteran’s Day - an unusual 11/11/11

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JD,

Still hanging in?

Yppop:

Of course.

A bit more about of how information is handled for the holonomic mechanism.

The Now s-frame is a 3D configuration of s-points frozen in time. At every instant God uses the holonomic mechanism to increment the Now s-frame to the Next s-frame and reality happens. The information that determines the configuration of each Next s-frame is produced algorithmically as a series of instructions in such a way that the sub-routines are observed as the laws of physics.

Every s-point in the 3D-s-frame can be represented by a number on the real number line. The holonomic mechanism is basically a computation process, hence binary numbers are used to compute the positional number for each s-point in the Next s-frame. The (name removed by moderator)ut string of 0’s and 1from the Now s-frame when processed through the algorithm creates an output string of 0’s and1’s that positions each s-point in the Next s-frame. The Next s-frame becomes the Now s-frame and the process is repeated. The algorithm generates stable and coherent outputs that allow science to describe them in a series of mathematical formulations. For example the configuration of s-points that represent electrons would always undergo the same reconfiguration .The patterns that we observe at the explicate level are the result of the alteration of coherent configurations at the implicate level.

This mechanism form is not much different than what happens in a flat screen TV or computer monitor. The motion on the screen is due to the activation of the pixels whose state depends on a string of 1’s and 0’s (name removed by moderator)ut into a computer. The result can be amazing life-like simulations in 2D. If we humans with insignificant mental capacity can produce life-like simulations using strings of 1’s and 0’s; then creating objective reality should be no problem for an omniscient God with His infinite mental capacity. In fact, God has no need to calculate the configuration of each next s-frame, the algorithm does that in basically the same way that Conway’s Life algorithm determines the path of actualization for any given initial configuration

I will address initial configurations in my next post. It is God’s tool for implementing Intelligent Design. Then I will explain the nature of the impetus that causes the s-frames to increment.

Happy Veteran’s Day - an unusual 11/11/11

Yppop

Yes. It’s been a hundred years since that last one. I’m still with you. Tomorrow then.

BTW, I downloaded the game and ran it a few times.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Hi JD,
A brief digression in support of my thesis as described up until now:

One has to wonder: how, a simple algorithm for a game like “Life” or even that which processes the data string that operates the TV or Computer screen, can be extrapolated to the entire universe. The fact that our meager minds are not capable of such imagination does not preclude our meager minds from believing that God is certainly capable of doing so. There may those that have followed our discussion on this thread that are skeptical that someone with scant credentials could suggest that the entire universe is based on the discreteness of space and governed by information consisting a very large string of 0’s and 1’s and still be taken as serious. I offer as moral support the following quotation from Paul Davies’ The Mind of God, pg 118:

On the other hand, the continuity of space and time are only assumptions about the world. They cannot be proved, because we can never be sure that at some small scale of size, well below what can be observed, space and time might not be discrete. What would this mean? For one thing it would mean that time advanced in little hops, as in a cellular automaton, rather than smoothly. The situation would resemble a movie film which advances one frame at a time. The film appears to us as continuous, because we cannot resolve the short time intervals between frames. Similarly, in physics, our current our experiments can measure intervals of time as short as 10-26 seconds; there are no signs of any jumps at that level. But, however fine our resolution becomes, there is still the possibility that the little hops are smaller. Similar remarks apply to the assumed continuity of space.”

I can cite other sources in support of my thesis, However, in the 100+ science and math books that I have read, I have yet to come across a direct assumption that universal space is discrete even when the author considers it a possibility. On the other hand such quotes that I’ve come across, often enough gives me confidence that someday science will find God.

Back to my thesis and initial configurations.

I am not a Deist. I do not believe God created the world then let it evolve on its own. I am a Theist. I believe that God not only created the world, but also is involved with its operation. I am not sure how often God is involved on a daily basis, but I am certain that He was involved in the main creation events: cosmogenesis, geogenesis, abiogenesis, morphogenesis, psychogenesis(see post-22).

God is involved and periodiclly creates an initial configuration by altering an information string in order to achieve a particular goal. And here I am going to the literature again and to Davies’ The Mind of God pg. 122 where he writes:

… Some years ago it was proved that certain irreversible systems, like Turing machines and cellular automata with noninvertible rules such as Life, can be programmed to perform any digital computation whatever by appropriately choosing their initial state. This property is called “computational universality.”

I contend that God can and does periodically alter the cosmic algorithm by (name removed by moderator)utting a initial configuration (or condition or state) that He knows will follow a specific path of actualization to a specified goal. For example sometime in the distant past during the formation of planets God changed some 0’s and 1’s that led to a planet, which supported all the conditions require for the creation of life -the planet earth.

Enough for today, next I address the nature of time.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JD,
Back to my thesis and initial configurations.

I am not a Deist. I do not believe God created the world then let it evolve on its own. I am a Theist. I believe that God not only created the world, but also is involved with its operation. I am not sure how often God is involved on a daily basis, but I am certain that He was involved in the main creation events: cosmogenesis, geogenesis, abiogenesis, morphogenesis, psychogenesis(see post-22).

Yppop:

If, as I believe, Reality consists of thoughts in God’s mind, which I believe to be plausible, that would reconcile the idea that God is continuously involved with every-thing in the universe, whether the universe be one or many. That would mean that the giant string of ones and zeroes is, at least to us, an asymmetric progression. I hesitate to say that Reality is a progression in God’s mind, as there can be no change in an Infinite Being. I cannot conceive how a being could exist in an eternal Now.

God is involved and periodically creates an initial configuration by altering an information string in order to achieve a particular goal. And here I am going to the literature again and to Davies’ The Mind of God pg. 122 where he writes:

I recognize that we are hampered by language almost as much as we are aided by it. So, I’m having a difficult problem with this last part. I see a kind of incrementalism that does not necessarily mean “growth,” i.e, “addition to magnitude.”

I contend that God can and does periodically alter the cosmic algorithm by (name removed by moderator)utting a initial configuration (or condition or state) that He knows will follow a specific path of actualization to a specified goal.

I look forward to your next installments as this seems problematic to me.

For example sometime in the distant past during the formation of planets God changed some 0’s and 1’s that led to a planet, which supported all the conditions require for the creation of life -the planet earth.

Still problematic, unless it was all part of the roll-out of Creation.

Enough for today, next I address the nature of time.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

JD,
Thank you for engaging me in a philosophical discussion at the heart of which is always meaning-seeking questions.

A brief recap

At the ground of reality, i.e. at an implicate level, the stuff we experience as matter at the explicate level is the result of specific configurations of the points of space associated with rational numbers, s-points, that are part of the cosmic configuration of s-points, the cosmic s-frame. God periodically interposes in the path of actualization by altering a specific Now s-frame to act as an initial configuration designed to achieve major goals. Those creation events appear in the path of actualization that the world experiences as the creation of the planet earth, the first animated cell, multicellular organisms, and finally man. The incrementation of s-frames is manifested as energy and time. The next question then is: what is the impetus that causes the cosmic s-frame to increment from a Now to the Next.

This recap does not specifically address the questions (and I do welcome questions) you posed in your last post, however what follows may help to answer them.

The impetus in the case of a motion picture screen or a TV screen are well known forms of energy. On the other hand, I am describing a mechanism that operates at the ground of reality where energy - as science describes it - does not exist. However something must cause the s-frame to increment, something that is not energy. The only thing available at the ground of reality is the mind of God.

I wrote in Post #35: “I believe that God not only created the world, but also is involved with its operation. I am not sure how often God is involved on a daily basis, but I am certain that He was involved in the main creation events: cosmogenesis, geogenesis, abiogenesis, morphogenesis, psychogenesis.”

What I was implying in that paragraph is that God does not determine each Next configuration directly, but designs reality with a periodic alteration of a specific Next configuration to act as the initial configuration that directs the path of actualization to a specific creation event. In addition to the main creation events, God most likely interposes for other specific goals, for example, for prototypes of animals. Once an initial configuration has been set, then God allows the algorithm that science calls evolution do its job. No I don’t believe that God designs on the daily basis; I believe He does, however, provide the impetus that increments each Now to each Next. In that regard God is involved on a daily basis, not for design purpose but for impetus.

Getting a handle on the nature of the impetus is challenging, but I am confident that the impetus that operates the world originates in the mind of God. The only place I can turn to find an answer is to my own mind, which being made in the image of God must operate in a similar fashion as God’s. In other words, each person having a part of God, the thing we call our soul, has a direct experience of an impetus that allows our soul to guide the s-frame that is our bodies. We call it free will. I believe our personnel impetus cannot be unlike the impetus that God uses to create and guide the universe.

When and if we extend this discussion to the phenomena of life, mind, and soul, some of my thoughts when stitched together from start to end may become clearer to you. I seek your understanding more than your acceptance, although acceptance would be very satisfying.

Next time, time.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
Thank you for engaging me in a philosophical discussion at the heart of which is always meaning-seeking questions.

A brief recap

At the ground of reality, i.e. at an implicate level, the stuff we experience as matter at the explicate level is the result of specific configurations of the points of space associated with rational numbers, s-points, that are part of the cosmic configuration of s-points, the cosmic s-frame. God periodically interposes in the path of actualization by altering a specific Now s-frame to act as an initial configuration designed to achieve major goals. Those creation events appear in the path of actualization that the world experiences as the creation of the planet earth, the first animated cell, multicellular organisms, and finally man. The incrementation of s-frames is manifested as energy and time. The next question then is: what is the impetus that causes the cosmic s-frame to increment from a Now to the Next.

This recap does not specifically address the questions (and I do welcome questions) you posed in your last post, however what follows may help to answer them.

The impetus in the case of a motion picture screen or a TV screen are well known forms of energy. On the other hand, I am describing a mechanism that operates at the ground of reality where energy - as science describes it - does not exist. However something must cause the s-frame to increment, something that is not energy. The only thing available at the ground of reality is the mind of God.

I wrote in Post #35: “I believe that God not only created the world, but also is involved with its operation. I am not sure how often God is involved on a daily basis, but I am certain that He was involved in the main creation events: cosmogenesis, geogenesis, abiogenesis, morphogenesis, psychogenesis.”

What I was implying in that paragraph is that God does not determine each Next configuration directly, but designs reality with a periodic alteration of a specific Next configuration to act as the initial configuration that directs the path of actualization to a specific creation event. In addition to the main creation events, God most likely interposes for other specific goals, for example, for prototypes of animals. Once an initial configuration has been set, then God allows the algorithm that science calls evolution do its job. No I don’t believe that God designs on the daily basis; I believe He does, however, provide the impetus that increments each Now to each Next. In that regard God is involved on a daily basis, not for design purpose but for impetus.

Getting a handle on the nature of the impetus is challenging, but I am confident that the impetus that operates the world originates in the mind of God. The only place I can turn to find an answer is to my own mind, which being made in the image of God must operate in a similar fashion as God’s. In other words, each person having a part of God, the thing we call our soul, has a direct experience of an impetus that allows our soul to guide the s-frame that is our bodies. We call it free will. I believe our personnel impetus cannot be unlike the impetus that God uses to create and guide the universe.

When and if we extend this discussion to the phenomena of life, mind, and soul, some of my thoughts when stitched together from start to end may become clearer to you. I seek your understanding more than your acceptance, although acceptance would be very satisfying.

Next time, time.

Yppop

Yppop:

OK. That resolves the main problem that I had, i.e., the problem of the continuous roll-out event and non-design. Good. Now on to time.

jd