Space?

[yppop]

JD,

Time is one of the physical elements of reality. Before the big bang there was no space, no matter, no energy, and no time. All were bundled in the infinitesimal object called the singularity. I contend that the singularity was composed of vast number of s-points; hence space is the primary element. Time and energy appeared with the first incrementation of a Now s-frame to the Next s-frame. Matter came later.

There is a tendency for some to raise an objection to using the phrase “before the big bang” pointing out that time did not exist until after the big bang. Just as there had to be space before the BB — in what else could the singularity been situated — there also had to be time. God thought and thoughts are a form of change; a sequence of thoughts necessarily exists in time. But not the time that we experience. There are two modalities of time: God’s time and the time we experience. God exists within ontological time; we exist within cosmological time. Just as discrete space is immersed in continuous space, cosmological time is embedded in ontological time. Ontological time fills the interval during the incrementation of a Now s-frame to the Next s-frame.

Now I will make a statement that I don’t completely understand and don’t know how to explain without a drawing. Nevertheless, here it is: “Cosmological time is independent of ontological time and the interval of incrementation of a Now to a Next s-frame that we perceive is solely dependent on the change in relative positions of s-points.” In other words, cosmological time has a spatial character, thus the space-time continuum. (I think!) I need to do more thinking about it. However, the consequence of the time decoherence is that God can take all the time He wants between incrementation.

What I have written so far in describing How God may be involved in reality, namely, the holonomic mechanism, need only be understood in facile manner to find it useful in explaining life, mind and soul. I consider the argument for the duality of space as a means to describe the “physical” manner in which the spiritual interacts with “matter” not only as a foundation for explaining life, mind, and soul, but also as a plausible and more understandable way to explain several phenomena that aren’t explained by science.

This forum is not the place to address the plausibility of the holonomic mechanism regarding physical phenomena such as the dual nature of light; I can only submit a broad outline of how such a mechanism ties a broad range of phenomena together. I am writing a book, however I am 78 years old and writing becomes more and more tiresome, so in case I never finish my book, I decided to present my thesis to this forum in order for anyone, that might find them believable, to use them. As Gregory Chaitin says:

Fredkin told me that he spent years trying to make Feynman take digital physics seriously, and was very pleased to see his ideas reproduced in this passage in Feyman’s book ! For an idea to be successful, you have to give it away, you have to be willing to let other people think that it theirs! You can’t be possessive, you can’t be jealous… - Gregory Chaitin, *Meta Math, The Quest For Omega *– pg. 90

Please feel free to ask questions, but if you are still keeping up, unless you do have questions, I will post an outline of where I could go from here.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,

Time is one of the physical elements of reality. Before the big bang there was no space, no matter, no energy, and no time. All were bundled in the infinitesimal object called the singularity. I contend that the singularity was composed of vast number of s-points; hence space is the primary element. Time and energy appeared with the first incrementation of a Now s-frame to the Next s-frame. Matter came later.

There is a tendency for some to raise an objection to using the phrase “before the big bang” pointing out that time did not exist until after the big bang. Just as there had to be space before the BB — in what else could the singularity been situated — there also had to be time. God thought and thoughts are a form of change; a sequence of thoughts necessarily exists in time. But not the time that we experience. There are two modalities of time: God’s time and the time we experience. God exists within ontological time; we exist within cosmological time. Just as discrete space is immersed in continuous space, cosmological time is embedded in ontological time. Ontological time fills the interval during the incrementation of a Now s-frame to the Next s-frame.

Now I will make a statement that I don’t completely understand and don’t know how to explain without a drawing. Nevertheless, here it is: “Cosmological time is independent of ontological time and the interval of incrementation of a Now to a Next s-frame that we perceive is solely dependent on the change in relative positions of s-points.” In other words, cosmological time has a spatial character, thus the space-time continuum. (I think!) I need to do more thinking about it. However, the consequence of the time decoherence is that God can take all the time He wants between incrementation.

What I have written so far in describing How God may be involved in reality, namely, the holonomic mechanism, need only be understood in facile manner to find it useful in explaining life, mind and soul. I consider the argument for the duality of space as a means to describe the “physical” manner in which the spiritual interacts with “matter” not only as a foundation for explaining life, mind, and soul, but also as a plausible and more understandable way to explain several phenomena that aren’t explained by science.

This forum is not the place to address the plausibility of the holonomic mechanism regarding physical phenomena such as the dual nature of light; I can only submit a broad outline of how such a mechanism ties a broad range of phenomena together. I am writing a book, however I am 78 years old and writing becomes more and more tiresome, so in case I never finish my book, I decided to present my thesis to this forum in order for anyone, that might find them believable, to use them. As Gregory Chaitin says:

Please feel free to ask questions, but if you are still keeping up, unless you do have questions, I will post an outline of where I could go from here.
Yppop

Yppop:

I am good with your descriptions of matter, energy and space. I’m still reticent about describing time as physical as I think of the “physical” as having some sort of physicality. IOW, some thing that our souls, or psyches, can grasp: as objectums. “Object,” I define by its original definition as that which strikes against our senses. Matter, energy and space each have physicality. Each in their own ways strike against our senses. Matter and energy are obvious; space, or, in your meaning, discrete space, is a little more difficult. But, there must be that within which there is/are “place(s).” Under your definition, even the Now s-frame must appear (be re-configured) in a new location, i.e., a new place, which is the Next s-frame. So, ontologically, space exists.

But time? Time is not like place. It must exist, in some less perfect form, otherwise every s-frame reconfiguration, or increment, would be simultaneous with the last one. That would be disastrous. That would mean, no motion. I view time, even in the sense you are describing more as a correlate of matter, energy and space. I think of it as “of-the-physical,” but not per se physical.

Could space exist in the absence of matter, energy and time? Of course it could. But, matter/energy could not exist in the absence of space, but could exist in the absence of time (without motion). Matter/energy could not exist without space, but could exist without time. A charged particle could exist in a perfect state of rest, forever, I presume.

I don’t know what, if anything, that does to your theory, but perhaps you’ve thought this through. I guess, merely calling time “physical,” is probably not, in the larger picture, any major problem, except that God cannot move or change: move to where? And change to what? Unless he is not infinite, which I believe he must be. I do not think some larger-than-life spacemen created infinite space, discrete space, matter, energy and time.

But, go ahead with your outline.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

JD
Excellent thoughtful post
I need to digest it more deeply than I am able to this morning; I am off a a bus trip today and want to give it more thought. I will study it this evening and get back to you tommorrow unless my brain is still awake upon return and I get to it this evening. i doubt it however.
Thank you
Yppop

 

[yppop]

Yppop:

I am good with your descriptions of matter, energy and space. I’m still reticent about describing time as physical as I think of the “physical” as having some sort of physicality. IOW, some thing that our souls, or psyches, can grasp: as objectums. “Object,” I define by its original definition as that which strikes against our senses. Matter, energy and space each have physicality. Each in their own ways strike against our senses. Matter and energy are obvious; space, or, in your meaning, discrete space, is a little more difficult. But, there must be that within which there is/are “place(s).” Under your definition, even the Now s-frame must appear (be re-configured) in a new location, i.e., a new place, which is the Next s-frame. So, ontologically, space exists.

But time? Time is not like place. It must exist, in some less perfect form, otherwise every s-frame reconfiguration, or increment, would be simultaneous with the last one. That would be disastrous. That would mean, no motion. I view time, even in the sense you are describing more as a correlate of matter, energy and space. I think of it as “of-the-physical,” but not per se physical.

I use the word “physical” to conveniently organize the elements of reality symmetrically. The underlying principle with which I have organized my thesis is duality. Space and time, at the explicate level, are treated as continuous natures. I build duality into my model of reality by recognizing that both space and time exist in two forms: continuous and discrete, spiritual and physical. To me physical means simply, “not spiritual”. This allows me to model space as a duality, with continuous space providing a spiritual form and discrete space providing “physical” form and it allows me to model time as a duality, with continuous (ontological) time providing the spiritual form and incremental (cosmological) time providing the “physical” form.

Could space exist in the absence of matter, energy and time? Of course it could. But, matter/energy could not exist in the absence of space, but could exist in the absence of time (without motion). Matter/energy could not exist without space, but could exist without time. A charged particle could exist in a perfect state of rest, forever, I presume.

I agree with most of what you write here. Space is the prime element. without it, in my view, matter, time, and energy could not exist. I agree that matter could exist without time, however, energy’s timeless existence is a bit tricky. Ponderable energy derives from the motion of matter; radiant energy from the motion of space, so if time does not exist, motion does not exist, and hence ponderable and radiant energy could not exist, but potential energy might.

I don’t know what, if anything, that does to your theory, but perhaps you’ve thought this through. I guess, merely calling time “physical,” is probably not, in the larger picture, any major problem, except that God cannot move or change: move to where? And change to what? Unless he is not infinite, which I believe he must be. I do not think some larger-than-life spacemen created infinite space, discrete space, matter, energy and time.

Whatever the elements of reality are called does not affect my thesis, but I have defined them, especially space and time, in a very specific way with dual natures. Of course God cannot move or change, but that does not preclude divine thought and since thought has a sequential nature that can be interpreted as a form of time, I contend that ontological time exists.

Thank you for your response,
Yppop

But, go ahead with your outline.

 

[yppop]

JD,
I admire your tenacity in sticking with my thesis. I don’t believe it is easy to either understand or swallow. I think that you had already organized most of your thoughts along the lines that I have presented and have managed to understand the basic bones of my thesis. What I have presented so far in my 20 brief posts is a condensation of 142 pages of background, defense, citations, and arguments wrapped around those bare bones. What we have discussed so far could be construed as having to do with your OP, space. IPart 2 in my book length thesis deals with the biologic aspect of reality. Here is a broad outline for where I am heading. I would be pleased to continue our discussion along these lines:

1. Creation and the path of actualization
2. Holonomic explanation of cellular life: corpusculation, metabolism, reproduction
3. Holonomic explanation of multicellular life:
4. Animal Behavior: identity, security, stimulation
5. Human behavior: subjective, rational, transcendent
6. The human mind
7. The formation of the noosphere: radial and tangential insight
8. The human soul

Or, if you have had enough, we could end what has been a true philosophical discussion. There is also a third part to my thesis; it deals with the teleological.

What kind of reading do you do?

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
I admire your tenacity in sticking with my thesis. I don’t believe it is easy to either understand or swallow. I think that you had already organized most of your thoughts along the lines that I have presented and have managed to understand the basic bones of my thesis. What I have presented so far in my 20 brief posts is a condensation of 142 pages of background, defense, citations, and arguments wrapped around those bare bones. What we have discussed so far could be construed as having to do with your OP, space. IPart 2 in my book length thesis deals with the biologic aspect of reality. Here is a broad outline for where I am heading. I would be pleased to continue our discussion along these lines:

1. Creation and the path of actualization
2. Holonomic explanation of cellular life: corpusculation, metabolism, reproduction
3. Holonomic explanation of multicellular life:
4. Animal Behavior: identity, security, stimulation
5. Human behavior: subjective, rational, transcendent
6. The human mind
7. The formation of the noosphere: radial and tangential insight
8. The human soul

Or, if you have had enough, we could end what has been a true philosophical discussion. There is also a third part to my thesis; it deals with the teleological.

What kind of reading do you do?

Yppop

Yppop:

I am not tired of this - but, you may be. If so, please let me know. I am very interested in continuing this discussion.

From time to time I escape from this forum and spend time reading. Recently I’ve read, New Proofs for the Existence of God, by Fr. Robert Spitzer, in which he includes physics and philosophy. Then I read, Sense and Non-sense, by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, which is a phenomenological/existential book that discusses such philosophies as Marx’s, from an historical setting. Then there were a number of books which I read helter-skelter, i.e., in no particular order or relationship. That should give you a little look. If I am thinking about something in particular I tend to look for a prominent book and read it.

I still have most of my books from my college days, and those days following college, but not all of them are here in Florida. A good many are in storage in Ohio. Included in that group are books on biology, history, philosophy, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, and physics. So, a lot of what I am doing is from my sketchy memory!

Anyway, forward kind Sir.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Yppop:

I am not tired of this - but, you may be. If so, please let me know. I am very interested in continuing this discussion.

Anyway, forward kind Sir.

God bless,
jd

God has chosen creation to be an unfolding of events in a sequential actualization of possibilities. We don’t know what things are possible until they are actualized, that is to say brought into reality. I refer to the entire scope of creation as the path of actualization. The path of actualization (POA) can be represented by a plot of complexity of matter vs. time. The result is a relatively straight line increasing slowly with time and broken by large periodic discontinuities. The major discontinuities in the complexity curve represent creation events that separate the curve into five distinct stages. The five major creation events are: the big bang, (cosmogenesis); the formation of the planet earth, (geogenesis); the appearance of cellular life, (abiogenesis); the appearance of multicellular life, (morphogenesis); and the emergence of the mind (psychogenesis). Each creation event is followed by a much longer period of time during which complexity increases at a more moderate rate. These periods of slow growth (stasis) represent stages labeled: cosmological, prebiotic; microbiotic, macrobiotic, and reflective stages.

The two most prominent scientific observations addressing the path of actualization are the expansion of the universe and the fossil record. Science describes these two observations by the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. The big bang theory explains only the first 3-400,000 years after which a number of disparate hypotheses are needed to describe the formation of the stars, the galaxies, and the planets.

Unlike science’s need to invoke numerous mechanisms to explain the POA, all five creation events and subsequent stages can be explained with the holonomic mechanism operating at the implicate level. God interposes specific s-frames into the POA to act as an initial configuration, which when (name removed by moderator)ut into the cosmic algorithm produces sequential reconfigured s-frames, each interposition leading to one of the 5 creation events. Yes, God is in the gaps!

I believe that God does interpose in less major ways, for example, in creating species from prototypes. God’s interposition of a species-oriented initial configuration is observed by science as “a mutation”. However, during the stasis stages, God, for the most part, provides only the impetus for Now-Next incrementation, while the cosmic algorithm operates in a way that allows science to observe the results and to generate the models, hypotheses and theories to describe what they observe.

The holonomic mechanism provides a simple and comprehensive explanation of creation, especially when compared to the diverse collection of theories constructed by science. There is no space to describe them all, but a brief and incomplete summary would include: The big bang, inflation (the horizon problem); Higg’s mechanism (mass); bb nucleosynthesis (light elements); gravitational aggregation (star formation); stellar nucleosynthesis (heavy elements); gravitational attraction (galaxies); nebular hypothesis (planets); collisions or internal radiation (molten earth); plate tectonics (land mass). This gets the path of actualization through the prebiotic stage to the cellular creation event, abiogenesis, for which there is a overabundance of scientific explanations.

Early in the 19th century, the Russian scientist A. I. Oparin presented a theory of prebiotic evolution. He proposed that life originated in small steps beginning with an interaction of gases in the earth’s atmosphere producing amino acids. The amino acids formed more complex molecules such as proteins; then the complex molecules combine to form the first proto-cells and eventually the first true living cells. Oparin’s hypothesis was meant to show how life was created from matter without the presence of a non-material substance. Oparin’s hypothesis merely created an outline without decribing a mechanism or explaining how the steps occurred, that was left to the legios of biologists that followed. The result has been multiple hypothesis produced for each of the Oparin steps such as: deep sea vent theory, radioactive beach theory, Gold’s deep hot biosphere theory, the clay theory, the iron-sulfur world theory, polyphosphates, and the lipid theory; Fox’s microspheres and bubbles; and multicellular theories based on symbiosis, multiple nuclei, and colony behavior. In addition the scientific community cannot agree on what came first, DNA or RNA or whether reproduction of metabolism was the driving principle.

Next time I could, if you are interested, I will give my view of evolution as it relates to speciation, without getting into a diversion into Darwinism.

Whether God uses a holonomic mechanism or something else, I believe, either way, God’s mechanism is simple and comprhensive. My next subject is how the holonomic mechanism creates life.

Found out yesterday that I am going to be a great grandfather for the first time.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

God has chosen creation to be an unfolding of events in a sequential actualization of possibilities. We don’t know what things are possible until they are actualized, that is to say brought into reality. I refer to the entire scope of creation as the path of actualization. The path of actualization (POA) can be represented by a plot of complexity of matter vs. time. The result is a relatively straight line increasing slowly with time and broken by large periodic discontinuities. The major discontinuities in the complexity curve represent creation events that separate the curve into five distinct stages. The five major creation events are: the big bang, (cosmogenesis); the formation of the planet earth, (geogenesis); the appearance of cellular life, (abiogenesis); the appearance of multicellular life, (morphogenesis); and the emergence of the mind (psychogenesis). Each creation event is followed by a much longer period of time during which complexity increases at a more moderate rate. These periods of slow growth (stasis) represent stages labeled: cosmological, prebiotic; microbiotic, macrobiotic, and reflective stages.

The two most prominent scientific observations addressing the path of actualization are the expansion of the universe and the fossil record. Science describes these two observations by the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. The big bang theory explains only the first 3-400,000 years after which a number of disparate hypotheses are needed to describe the formation of the stars, the galaxies, and the planets.

Unlike science’s need to invoke numerous mechanisms to explain the POA, all five creation events and subsequent stages can be explained with the holonomic mechanism operating at the implicate level. God interposes specific s-frames into the POA to act as an initial configuration, which when (name removed by moderator)ut into the cosmic algorithm produces sequential reconfigured s-frames, each interposition leading to one of the 5 creation events. Yes, God is in the gaps!

I believe that God does interpose in less major ways, for example, in creating species from prototypes. God’s interposition of a species-oriented initial configuration is observed by science as “a mutation”. However, during the stasis stages, God, for the most part, provides only the impetus for Now-Next incrementation, while the cosmic algorithm operates in a way that allows science to observe the results and to generate the models, hypotheses and theories to describe what they observe.

The holonomic mechanism provides a simple and comprehensive explanation of creation, especially when compared to the diverse collection of theories constructed by science. There is no space to describe them all, but a brief and incomplete summary would include: The big bang, inflation (the horizon problem); Higg’s mechanism (mass); bb nucleosynthesis (light elements); gravitational aggregation (star formation); stellar nucleosynthesis (heavy elements); gravitational attraction (galaxies); nebular hypothesis (planets); collisions or internal radiation (molten earth); plate tectonics (land mass). This gets the path of actualization through the prebiotic stage to the cellular creation event, abiogenesis, for which there is a overabundance of scientific explanations.

Early in the 19th century, the Russian scientist A. I. Oparin presented a theory of prebiotic evolution. He proposed that life originated in small steps beginning with an interaction of gases in the earth’s atmosphere producing amino acids. The amino acids formed more complex molecules such as proteins; then the complex molecules combine to form the first proto-cells and eventually the first true living cells. Oparin’s hypothesis was meant to show how life was created from matter without the presence of a non-material substance. Oparin’s hypothesis merely created an outline without describing a mechanism or explaining how the steps occurred, that was left to the legions of biologists that followed. The result has been multiple hypothesis produced for each of the Oparin steps such as: deep sea vent theory, radioactive beach theory, Gold’s deep hot biosphere theory, the clay theory, the iron-sulfur world theory, polyphosphates, and the lipid theory; Fox’s microspheres and bubbles; and multicellular theories based on symbiosis, multiple nuclei, and colony behavior. In addition the scientific community cannot agree on what came first, DNA or RNA or whether reproduction of metabolism was the driving principle.

Next time I could, if you are interested, I will give my view of evolution as it relates to speciation, without getting into a diversion into Darwinism.

Whether God uses a holonomic mechanism or something else, I believe, either way, God’s mechanism is simple and comprehensive. My next subject is how the holonomic mechanism creates life.

Found out yesterday that I am going to be a great grandfather for the first time.

Yppop

Yppop:

Great post! And, congratulations! (I wanted to say those things now, as I want to spend a little more time digesting your post through a second reading.) Please, continue.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Hi JD,
Thanks for sticking with me. I know that it is not easy understanding what is in another’s mind, especially through written communication, but it all may be clearer when you see where I go with the holonomic mechanism. Here is the second part of my view of creation.

With the big bang and a mishmash of speculative hypotheses, science describes the path of actualization (POA) up to the macrobiotic stage that began with morphogenesis, the creation of multicellular organisms. The first body fossils (bones and other hard tissue) were found in 540-490 million year old strata laid down at the base of the Cambrian period of the Paleozoic era. Most major phyla were represented in the Cambrian strata. Only trace fossils of single celled organisms have been found in older strata. Because of this sudden appearance of a vast multitude of multicellular species, this creation event is called the Cambrian explosion.

The enormous increase in complexity in a relatively short (50-million years) geologic time precludes the theory of evolution (small change over great periods of time) as the operative mechanism. Biologists have devised alternate hypotheses to explain morphogenesis. There are three general approaches: symbiotic theory, cellularization theory, and the colonial theory. All three are too simply constructed to apply to the most complex structure in the universe. No matter how God’s implementation of morphogenesis is manifested as a scientific theory, at the explicate level, one thing of which I am certain is that it won’t be the theory of evolution. On the other hand, I believe evolution plays a part throughout the macrobiotic stage of the POA. The effect of evolution is observed in the fossil record as a progression of increasingly complex body types especially as regards the development of the nervous system (cephalization).

In my thesis, morphogenesis is implemented through the holonomic mechanism with which God interposes an altered s-frame, that acts as an initial configuration, that when acted upon by the cosmic algorithm, generates each prototype that is fossilized in the Cambrian strata.

I contend that in addition to God’s direct interposition to create multicellular organisms and the other major creation events, at certain points along the macrobiotic stage of the POA, God utilized the holonomic mechanism to create new prototypes at nodal points on the tree of life. From the major nodal points, single organisms evolve to form a great diversity of similar fauna that we recognize and classify as phylum, class, order, family, and genus. God also applies the holonomic mechanism to genera to create the prototypes (the “missing links”) that become species. Once the missing link is created, I believe God allows evolution to take its course.

There is another metric beside complexity that appears along the POA; it is consciousness. Consciousness tracks the increasing cephalization of the animal kingdom through the entire macrobiotic stage. Cephalization reached a threshold about 50,000 years ago when the first human, Adam, was created. Consciousness which was tracking complexity, separated with an enormous increase that can be identified as the fifth major creation event, psychogenesis.

Before I can explain psychogenesis, I first must discuss the application of the holonomic mechanism to the creation of life and the consquent beahvior that results.

I had hoped to complete my thesis before Thanksgiving, but I probably won’t. Next: the application of the holonomic mechanism to the creation of life, abiogenesis.

Yppop

 

[MindOverMatter2]

God has chosen creation to be an unfolding of events in a sequential actualization of possibilities. We don’t know what things are possible until they are actualized, that is to say brought into reality. I refer to the entire scope of creation as the path of actualization. The path of actualization (POA) can be represented by a plot of complexity of matter vs. time. The result is a relatively straight line increasing slowly with time and broken by large periodic discontinuities. The major discontinuities in the complexity curve represent creation events that separate the curve into five distinct stages. The five major creation events are: the big bang, (cosmogenesis); the formation of the planet earth, (geogenesis); the appearance of cellular life, (abiogenesis); the appearance of multicellular life, (morphogenesis); and the emergence of the mind (psychogenesis). Each creation event is followed by a much longer period of time during which complexity increases at a more moderate rate. These periods of slow growth (stasis) represent stages labeled: cosmological, prebiotic; microbiotic, macrobiotic, and reflective stages.

The two most prominent scientific observations addressing the path of actualization are the expansion of the universe and the fossil record. Science describes these two observations by the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. The big bang theory explains only the first 3-400,000 years after which a number of disparate hypotheses are needed to describe the formation of the stars, the galaxies, and the planets.

Unlike science’s need to invoke numerous mechanisms to explain the POA, all five creation events and subsequent stages can be explained with the holonomic mechanism operating at the implicate level. God interposes specific s-frames into the POA to act as an initial configuration, which when (name removed by moderator)ut into the cosmic algorithm produces sequential reconfigured s-frames, each interposition leading to one of the 5 creation events. Yes, God is in the gaps!

I believe that God does interpose in less major ways, for example, in creating species from prototypes. God’s interposition of a species-oriented initial configuration is observed by science as “a mutation”. However, during the stasis stages, God, for the most part, provides only the impetus for Now-Next incrementation, while the cosmic algorithm operates in a way that allows science to observe the results and to generate the models, hypotheses and theories to describe what they observe.

The holonomic mechanism provides a simple and comprehensive explanation of creation, especially when compared to the diverse collection of theories constructed by science. There is no space to describe them all, but a brief and incomplete summary would include: The big bang, inflation (the horizon problem); Higg’s mechanism (mass); bb nucleosynthesis (light elements); gravitational aggregation (star formation); stellar nucleosynthesis (heavy elements); gravitational attraction (galaxies); nebular hypothesis (planets); collisions or internal radiation (molten earth); plate tectonics (land mass). This gets the path of actualization through the prebiotic stage to the cellular creation event, abiogenesis, for which there is a overabundance of scientific explanations.

Early in the 19th century, the Russian scientist A. I. Oparin presented a theory of prebiotic evolution. He proposed that life originated in small steps beginning with an interaction of gases in the earth’s atmosphere producing amino acids. The amino acids formed more complex molecules such as proteins; then the complex molecules combine to form the first proto-cells and eventually the first true living cells. Oparin’s hypothesis was meant to show how life was created from matter without the presence of a non-material substance. Oparin’s hypothesis merely created an outline without decribing a mechanism or explaining how the steps occurred, that was left to the legios of biologists that followed. The result has been multiple hypothesis produced for each of the Oparin steps such as: deep sea vent theory, radioactive beach theory, Gold’s deep hot biosphere theory, the clay theory, the iron-sulfur world theory, polyphosphates, and the lipid theory; Fox’s microspheres and bubbles; and multicellular theories based on symbiosis, multiple nuclei, and colony behavior. In addition the scientific community cannot agree on what came first, DNA or RNA or whether reproduction of metabolism was the driving principle.

Next time I could, if you are interested, I will give my view of evolution as it relates to speciation, without getting into a diversion into Darwinism.

Whether God uses a holonomic mechanism or something else, I believe, either way, God’s mechanism is simple and comprhensive. My next subject is how the holonomic mechanism creates life.

Found out yesterday that I am going to be a great grandfather for the first time.

Yppop

You got some interesting ideas flowing there. I only had a quick read through, but your ideas seem to have a-lot more intellectual substance then they use to if you don’t mind me saying.

Are you still on that old pony about God being nothing?

 

[yppop]

You got some interesting ideas flowing there. I only had a quick read through, but your ideas seem to have a-lot more intellectual substance then they use to if you don’t mind me saying.

Are you still on that old pony about God being nothing?

MOM
Thanks for your response. Believe me, the intellectual substance hasn’t changed just the presentation, which probably is more understandable. My intent is to develop a “philosophical” thesis that can be used as a weapon to engage the materialist whose main weapon is the success of science. My thesis avoids direct confrontation with science by sorting reality into two levels of understanding: the explicate level that we experience and science describes and the implicate level where God creates and engages reality. I plan to present my entire thesis in this thread if I can avoid arguments.

You obviously are an intelligent person, which is apparent whenever you are engaged in disputation; I am confident that the same mind is capable of understanding novel and out of the mainstream concepts as well. I seek understanding of my thesis even when one disagrees with it.

Yes, still using infinite nothingness to describe the Mind of God. Never said God is nothing as I explain in posts #24 and #26 of this thread.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

Yppop:

Great post! And, congratulations! (I wanted to say those things now, as I want to spend a little more time digesting your post through a second reading.) Please, continue.

God bless,
jd

JD

You are probably still digesting, but I’d thought I’d add this post to your reading to give an idea about how I am going to proceed with the holonomic mechanism. I will wait to hear from you before I proceed in case you have questions.

Science’s explanation of life is that it is an emergent property based on an increasingly complex arrangements of organic molecules. That is a general description that doesn’t explain the nature or root cause of life. Robert Hazen, reports in his book Genesis: “A recent origin-of-life text features an appendix with scientific definitions of life written by 48 different authorities.” Needless to say, there is no consensus among biologists for a definition of life. The authors of biology text books that I examined, deal with the problem of defining life simply by presenting a list of properties and every list is different. Most, however, agree that every list should include: growth, metabolism, and evolution as the major properties. I made a list of all the properties listed in several books and found that I could group them in four broad categories: corpusculation, metabolism, reproduction, and behavior. Don’t look up “corpusculation”, I made that one up.

Corpusculation means forming a corpus (body) of either a cell or a multicellular organism.

My thesis, which is based on the assumption that God exists, describes the holonomic mechanism that God uses to create and operate the universe by creating forms (stars, planets, atoms, molecules, etc.) from the s-points of discrete space and incrementing (cause motion and change) the cosmic configuration of s-points through the agency of a continuous space-like substance I call nomos - that part of the infinite nothingness that is coterminous with the universe.

To create life, God interposed an initial configurationin into the path of actuality, which when operated on by the cosmic algorithm, caused the a reconfiguration of specific s-points to produce matter that centered on itself and formed a structure that we call “a cell”, a structure that is a quantum jump in complexity far beyond anything else that exists in the universe. I contend that, even though science could produce such a structure in the laboratory, it still would not come to life. I believe that when matter corpusculates it captures a particle of the nomos that remains with the cell until the cell dies. The particle of nomos that is encapsulated within the cell is called bios. It is the bios that animates cellular matter.

Since it is the same substance as nomos, bios has available to it all the information contained in the infinite nothingness, the Mind of God, but with a diminished fidelity just as a piece of a hologram contains the entire image found on the complete hologram but with diminished clarity. Thus, contingency is imparted to living matter.

Bios controls from within the s-points that comprise the corpus of the cell (a cellular s-frame) . The mechanism that animates the cell has the same form as the holonomic mechanism,i.e., it consists of initial configuration, algorithm, and impetus. Bios reconfigures and increments the local s-points associated with the cellular s-frame (the body of the cell) in the same way that nomos reconfigures and increments the cosmic s-frame with the holonomic mechanism. The prototype for each type of cell, whether existing singly or as part of a multicellular organism, is contained within the bios.

With the addition of bios, the spiritual component, the corpusculation of matter leads to the metabolism and reproduction of cells, the main properties of life. Life, at the implicate level, is simply bios reconfiguring and incrementing the cellular s-frame, which is manifested at the explicate level as cellular behavior.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JD,
Thanks for sticking with me. I know that it is not easy understanding what is in another’s mind, especially through written communication, but it all may be clearer when you see where I go with the holonomic mechanism. Here is the second part of my view of creation.

Yppop:

Sorry I was gone for a while, work and other stuff pulled me away.

With the big bang and a mishmash of speculative hypotheses, science describes the path of actualization (POA) up to the macrobiotic stage that began with morphogenesis, the creation of multicellular organisms. The first body fossils (bones and other hard tissue) were found in 540-490 million year old strata laid down at the base of the Cambrian period of the Paleozoic era. Most major phyla were represented in the Cambrian strata. Only trace fossils of single celled organisms have been found in older strata. Because of this sudden appearance of a vast multitude of multicellular species, this creation event is called the Cambrian explosion.

The enormous increase in complexity in a relatively short (50-million years) geologic time precludes the theory of evolution (small change over great periods of time) as the operative mechanism. Biologists have devised alternate hypotheses to explain morphogenesis. There are three general approaches: symbiotic theory, cellularization theory, and the colonial theory. All three are too simply constructed to apply to the most complex structure in the universe. No matter how God’s implementation of morphogenesis is manifested as a scientific theory, at the explicate level, one thing of which I am certain is that it won’t be the theory of evolution. On the other hand, I believe evolution plays a part throughout the macrobiotic stage of the POA. The effect of evolution is observed in the fossil record as a progression of increasingly complex body types especially as regards the development of the nervous system (cephalization).

In my thesis, morphogenesis is implemented through the holonomic mechanism with which God interposes an altered s-frame, that acts as an initial configuration, that when acted upon by the cosmic algorithm, generates each prototype that is fossilized in the Cambrian strata.

I contend that in addition to God’s direct interposition to create multicellular organisms and the other major creation events, at certain points along the macrobiotic stage of the POA, God utilized the holonomic mechanism to create new prototypes at nodal points on the tree of life. From the major nodal points, single organisms evolve to form a great diversity of similar fauna that we recognize and classify as phylum, class, order, family, and genus. God also applies the holonomic mechanism to genera to create the prototypes (the “missing links”) that become species. Once the missing link is created, I believe God allows evolution to take its course.

Hmmm. Then God, who has created the algorithm, passively allows it to transpire?

There is another metric beside complexity that appears along the POA; it is consciousness. Consciousness tracks the increasing cephalization of the animal kingdom through the entire macrobiotic stage. Cephalization reached a threshold about 50,000 years ago when the first human, Adam, was created. Consciousness which was tracking complexity, separated with an enormous increase that can be identified as the fifth major creation event, psychogenesis.

Before I can explain psychogenesis, I first must discuss the application of the holonomic mechanism to the creation of life and the consequent behavior that results.

I had hoped to complete my thesis before Thanksgiving, but I probably won’t. Next: the application of the holonomic mechanism to the creation of life, abiogenesis.

No problems. Enjoy your thanksgiving.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

JD

You are probably still digesting, but I’d thought I’d add this post to your reading to give an idea about how I am going to proceed with the holonomic mechanism. I will wait to hear from you before I proceed in case you have questions.

Science’s explanation of life is that it is an emergent property based on increasingly complex arrangements of organic molecules. That is a general description that doesn’t explain the nature or root cause of life. Robert Hazen, reports in his book Genesis: “A recent origin-of-life text features an appendix with scientific definitions of life written by 48 different authorities.” Needless to say, there is no consensus among biologists for a definition of life. The authors of biology text books that I examined, deal with the problem of defining life simply by presenting a list of properties and every list is different. Most, however, agree that every list should include: growth, metabolism, and evolution as the major properties. I made a list of all the properties listed in several books and found that I could group them in four broad categories: corpusculation, metabolism, reproduction, and behavior. Don’t look up “corpusculation”, I made that one up.

Corpusculation means forming a corpus (body) of either a cell or a multicellular organism.

My thesis, which is based on the assumption that God exists, describes the holonomic mechanism that God uses to create and operate the universe by creating forms (stars, planets, atoms, molecules, etc.) from the s-points of discrete space and incrementing (causing motion and change) the cosmic configuration of s-points through the agency of a continuous space-like substance I call nomos - that part of the infinite nothingness that is coterminous with the universe.

To create life, God interposed an initial configurationin into the path of actuality, which when operated on by the cosmic algorithm, caused the a reconfiguration of specific s-points to produce matter that centered on itself and formed a structure that we call “a cell”, a structure that is a quantum jump in complexity far beyond anything else that exists in the universe. I contend that, even though science could produce such a structure in the laboratory, it still would not come to life. I believe that when matter corpusculates it captures a particle of the nomos that remains with the cell until the cell dies. The particle of nomos that is encapsulated within the cell is called bios.

The Soul?

It is the bios that animates cellular matter.

Since it is the same substance as nomos, bios has available to it all the information contained in the infinite nothingness, the Mind of God, but with a diminished fidelity just as a piece of a hologram contains the entire image found on the complete hologram but with diminished clarity. Thus, contingency is imparted to living matter.

Bios controls from within the s-points that comprise the corpus of the cell (a cellular s-frame) . The mechanism that animates the cell has the same form as the holonomic mechanism,i.e., it consists of initial configuration, algorithm, and impetus. Bios reconfigures and increments the local s-points associated with the cellular s-frame (the body of the cell) in the same way that nomos reconfigures and increments the cosmic s-frame with the holonomic mechanism. The prototype for each type of cell, whether existing singly or as part of a multicellular organism, is contained within the bios.

With the addition of bios, the spiritual component, the corpusculation of matter leads to the metabolism and reproduction of cells, the main properties of life. Life, at the implicate level, is simply bios reconfiguring and incrementing the cellular s-frame, which is manifested at the explicate level as cellular behavior.

What of Thought, and Love, and Hate, and Happiness, etc., i.e, those things which we have that are beyond mere self-awareness (and I am unsing the word, “mere,” very delicately).

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

The Soul?

Yes, I will define the soul. However, I need to discuss the spiritual substance in regards to multi-celled life before I can do so. What I have presented so far is the foundation of duality based on the two modlities of space that lead to the material and spiritual aspects of reality. In my last post I discussed single-celled life in which the same spiritual substance that creates and modulates the universe is present in a much reduced state in each cell and animates matter. Life inheres in the cells.

What of Thought, and Love, and Hate, and Happiness, etc., i.e, those things which we have that are beyond mere self-awareness (and I am unsing the word, “mere,” very delicately).

Once I define and explain the mind and soul as properties unique to human beings I will relate the emotions, feelings, desires, needs, etc. to the levels of reality I mentioned in post #11. First I need to discuss the muti-cellular orgasms (tommorrow) and animal behavior. Our animal nature does play an important part in how each of us relates to the subjective, rational, and transcendental levels of reality. It is our rational existance that allows us to transcend the mundane and leads to our aquiescence of God’s grace.

I greatly appreciate your responses and the time you expend your attempt to understand what I have written.

Thank you,

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, I will define the soul. However, I need to discuss the spiritual substance in regards to multi-celled life before I can do so. What I have presented so far is the foundation of duality based on the two modlities of space that lead to the material and spiritual aspects of reality. In my last post I discussed single-celled life in which the same spiritual substance that creates and modulates the universe is present in a much reduced state in each cell and animates matter. Life inheres in the cells.

Once I define and explain the mind and soul as properties unique to human beings I will relate the emotions, feelings, desires, needs, etc. to the levels of reality I mentioned in post #11. First I need to discuss the muti-cellular orgasms (tommorrow) and animal behavior. Our animal nature does play an important part in how each of us relates to the subjective, rational, and transcendental levels of reality. It is our rational existence that allows us to transcend the mundane and leads to our acquiescence of God’s grace.

I greatly appreciate your responses and the time you expend your attempt to understand what I have written.

Thank you,

Yppop

Yppop:

If what you were saying was not fascinating, I probably would not be reading it. However, it is fascinating and you’ve caught my attention!

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Yppop:

If what you were saying was not fascinating, I probably would not be reading it. However, it is fascinating and you’ve caught my attention!

God bless,
jd

JD,

Now we come to the core of my thesis; our own spiritual component. God is present in each and every human being from the moment of conception. In fact every member of the animal kingdom shares in the gift of a spiritual component that is manifested as consciousness. Only humans, however, possess the special consciousness we call the soul. Let me explain.

Corpusculation of single-celled organisms captures a particle of nomos, the spiritual substance that permeates the universe. The corpusculated nomos that I call bios is the fuel that creates life; life resides in the cells.

When the complexity of the single-celled biosphere reached a certain threshold, God interposed initial configurations for each of the prototypes that are found as fossils in the Cambrian strata.
When multicellular organisms were created by God, there was, a second level of corpusculation. The nomos that is corpusculated by the entire multicellular corpus (body) is called nous. Hence, animals contain two modalities of spiritual substances: bios that gives life and nous that is manifested as consciousness.

The initial configuration of s-points (a morphic s-frame) that becomes the fully developed adult is manifested at the explicate level as a zygote, which contains the algorithmic information, which is manifested at the explicate level as DNA. The impetus that increments the morphic s-frame is the reduced version of the impetus that God applies to the universe to move it along the path of actualization. The morphic impetus is applied at the implicate level and manifests at the explicate level as “energy” and/or “force”. There is no way to describe the impetus because it is the spiritual acting on the material and it is not directly observed at the explicate level except directly through personnel experience that will be described in the next two posts.

Nous, the spiritual component, that allows the holonomic mechanism to operate in all animal types, and is manifested as consciousness, forms a hierarchy of strengths. Insects are less conscious than fish and fish less than birds and birds less conscious than mammals. The strength of consciousness tracks the complexity of the nervous system until another threshold of complexity was reached and God interposed another initial configuration that created man. The result is a complexity of complexities called human behavior, that is driven at the subjective level by animal instinct, moderated at the rational level by the mind, and risen to the transcendental level by the soul’s response to God’s grace.

I will finish this brief synopsis of my thesis in the next couple of posts then will present a summary to allow you to contemplate it in its entirety.

Happy thanksgiving one and all! I will be back on Friday.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,

Now we come to the core of my thesis; our own spiritual component. God is present in each and every human being from the moment of conception. In fact every member of the animal kingdom shares in the gift of a spiritual component that is manifested as consciousness. Only humans, however, possess the special consciousness we call the soul. Let me explain.

Corpusculation of single-celled organisms captures a particle of nomos, the spiritual substance that permeates the universe. The corpusculated nomos that I call bios is the fuel that creates life; life resides in the cells.

When the complexity of the single-celled biosphere reached a certain threshold,

What would you say is the basis for a “threshold?” Perhaps a making ready of the biosphere for the more complex? Or, do you think that it was just pure evolution?

God interposed initial configurations for each of the prototypes that are found as fossils in the Cambrian strata. When multicellular organisms were created by God, there was, a second level of corpusculation. The nomos that is corpusculated by the entire multicellular corpus (body) is called nous. Hence, animals contain two modalities of spiritual substances: bios that gives life and nous that is manifested as consciousness.

The initial configuration of s-points (a morphic s-frame)

Meaning "changeable?

that becomes the fully developed adult is manifested at the explicate level as a zygote, which contains the algorithmic information, which is manifested at the explicate level as DNA. The impetus that increments the morphic s-frame is the reduced version of the impetus that God applies to the universe to move it along the path of actualization. The morphic impetus is applied at the implicate level and manifests at the explicate level as “energy” and/or “force”. There is no way to describe the impetus because it is the spiritual acting on the material and it is not directly observed at the explicate level except directly through personnel experience that will be described in the next two posts.

Nous, the spiritual component, that allows the holonomic mechanism to operate in all animal types, and is manifested as consciousness, forms a hierarchy of strengths. Insects are less conscious than fish and fish less than birds and birds less conscious than mammals. The strength of consciousness tracks the complexity of the nervous system until another threshold of complexity was reached and God interposed another initial configuration that created man. The result is a complexity of complexities called human behavior, that is driven at the subjective level by animal instinct, moderated at the rational level by the mind, and risen to the transcendental level by the soul’s response to God’s grace.

I will finish this brief synopsis of my thesis in the next couple of posts then will present a summary to allow you to contemplate it in its entirety.

Happy thanksgiving one and all! I will be back on Friday.

Yppop

Thanks and God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

What would you say is the basis for a “threshold?” Perhaps a making ready of the biosphere for the more complex? Or, do you think that it was just pure evolution?

JD,
Yes, the complexity induced threshold is an observation that is compatible with the theory of evolution. Science’s approach to the origin of life is to theorize about the chemical pathways. Biologists have synthesized, from simulated early earth environments, many of the components found in a cell. There are a number of competing theories and no consensus and, of course, no success of even coming close to putting them together to create a reasonable simile of a cell. But no matter what science does in the laboratory they can never preclude God, especially if my thesis has any validity. By viewing reality at two levels, no matter what science discovers at the explicate level, God will have created at the implicate level. Science may succeed in constructing a step by step chemical pathway to create the structure of a cell. However, at a deeper level, that pathway would be nothing more than the manifestation of God’s mechanism, holonomic or otherwise. Furthermore, the theory of evolution will never explain abiogenesis or morphogenesis. However I see no problem in viewing the theory of evolution as a manifestation of God’s involvement at the implicate level. On the other hand, I object strenuously to “Darwinism”, the contention that man evolved from a primordial slime one small step at a time over eons of time. There have been creation events that can only be explained by the much maligned “god of the gaps”. I am only trying to provide for our side of the debate a plausible explanation (the holonomic mechanism) of how God might possiblly be involved.

Meaning "changeable?

I assume you are referring to God’s decisions to change the path of actualization toward specific objectives, such as the first live cell, the first frog, and the first human by interposing an initial configuration. I contend that each NOW (a single static s-frame) increments to the NEXT s-frame, which has been reconfigured (changed) according to the rules of the cosmic algorithm, without the direct interposition of God. However when God wants to create a new objective, He changes a specific s-frame to achieve that objective. The interposed s-frame is the thing I refer to as an initial configuration.

Thank you for your interest.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
Yes, the complexity induced threshold is an observation that is compatible with the theory of evolution. Science’s approach to the origin of life is to theorize about the chemical pathways. Biologists have synthesized, from simulated early earth environments, many of the components found in a cell. There are a number of competing theories and no consensus and, of course, no success of even coming close to putting them together to create a reasonable simile of a cell. But no matter what science does in the laboratory they can never preclude God, especially if my thesis has any validity. By viewing reality at two levels, no matter what science discovers at the explicate level, God will have created at the implicate level. Science may succeed in constructing a step by step chemical pathway to create the structure of a cell. However, at a deeper level, that pathway would be nothing more than the manifestation of God’s mechanism, holonomic or otherwise. Furthermore, the theory of evolution will never explain abiogenesis or morphogenesis. However I see no problem in viewing the theory of evolution as a manifestation of God’s involvement at the implicate level. On the other hand, I object strenuously to “Darwinism”, the contention that man evolved from a primordial slime one small step at a time over eons of time. There have been creation events that can only be explained by the much maligned “god of the gaps”. I am only trying to provide for our side of the debate a plausible explanation (the holonomic mechanism) of how God might possiblly be involved.

A good, cogent description, Yppop.

I assume you are referring to God’s decisions to change the path of actualization toward specific objectives, such as the first live cell, the first frog, and the first human by interposing an initial configuration. I contend that each NOW (a single static s-frame) increments to the NEXT s-frame, which has been reconfigured (changed) according to the rules of the cosmic algorithm, without the direct interposition of God. However when God wants to create a new objective, He changes a specific s-frame to achieve that objective. The interposed s-frame is the thing I refer to as an initial configuration.

Specifically, I was referring to your use of the word, “morphic.” However, you’ve opened up another item for questioning. But, this question can wait as it is not a question to be asked in order to receive an informational response, and you will probably cover it in one or other of your ensuing posts. As you can, keep them coming.

God bless,
jd