Space?

[Jaaanosik]

Jano
Nomos is to Infinite Nothingness as Kansas is to the United States and both share the same space-time dimensions

Infinite Nothingness is infinite in two ways: in extent and in depth. Extent means its size; depth means into how many parts can it be divided. And here I must introduce some new terminology, namely, the Realm of Possibility. The Realm of Possibility is all that exists beyond the universe, it is the source of all possibilites; it is God.

Infinite nothingness is the substance of the Realm of Possibility. The Realm of Possibility is infinite in extent, Infinite Nothingness, the substance of the RoP is infinitely divisible .Since nomos is part of and consubstantial (a word that has recently reappeared in the Nicene Creed) with the Realm of Possibility, it is infinitely divisible, but finite in extent. I use the word nomos to identify the infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the universe. Kind of the way that the Caribbean sea is part of the Atlantic Ocean.

You may want to read posts #24 - 29 of this thread for more information about the relationship between rational and real numbers, discrete and continuous space.

Thank for the thought-provoking questions.
Yppop

Thank you Yppop,
The picture in my mind is much clearer now.

What would be a relationship between nomos and the Holy Spirit?

Thanks,
Jano

 

[JDaniel]

Interesting, but no one can answer such a question, given your prefaces.

Curious:

I wish I could tell you that I planned it that way!

May I make this comment, however:

Be my guest - even though this is an “open” forum.

No one knows what is going on physically.

Not Newton, not Einstein, not anyone.

Newton has a good grip on the practical levels, of this earth, but fails miserably, in outer space.

Einstein has outer space down pat, but fails miserably, in inner space.

Now, if we could only get those two together.

Quantum Mechanics, String Theories, General Gravity Theory are among the best ideas our best minds have - but, each is flawed, under experiential measure.

I agree.

What we know, for sure, is that three dimensions and time are not the whole story.

I think I agree with this as well. What other dimension(s) might you postulate?

What we know, for sure, is that everything dies, including our universe - and - is not replaced.

Yes: a new configuration of s-points.

The why and how of it all is still anyone’s guess.

Thanks, Curious. I might add that there are a couple of people herein that may have more insight into how it works than we might think. But, we’ll see (shortly, I hope).

Again, thanks and,
God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Thank you Yppop,
The picture in my mind is much clearer now.

What would be a relationship between nomos and the Holy Spirit?

Thanks,
Jano

Jano,
A very perceptive question?

Nomos is consubstantial with the infinite nothingness, the substance of the Realm of Possibility, which I contend is God. Nomos is part of infinite nothingness, consequently could very well be considered as the Holy Spirit. However I am hesitant about treading through theologocal minefield one would encounter if I were to suggest a “physical” explanation of the Trinity. On the other hand, this is a philosophy and not a theology forum, so why not: Nomos is the Holy Spirit!!

Now all we need to do is to explain the “personhood” of the realm of Possibility and the Nomos.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

When an animal is conceived it corpusculates nomos, the infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the universe. I call it nous, the Greek word that has several meanings. To me, nous is the spiritual component that is conterminous with the body, which over a spectrum of animal species is increasingly concentrated in the head until reaching a maximum in the brain of humans.

The mind is a two part object; the nous in the brain is the spiritual part; the neuronal circuits that create the language capability is the material part. I sometimes do an exercise that clarifies the dual nature of the mind. I close my eyes and think of a category such as fruit, or cars, actors, etc… Consider actors, with little stimulation my mind starts “picturing” the face followed by a name, or sometimes the name followed by a face. sometimes a face and no name, and other times a name and no face. That last combination is rare. The name is a discrete symbol, the associated face is a continuous image in caricature form. This familiar exercise: thinking of a name and picturing a quale: a face, color, tune, a fruit, etc. is an exercise of recall; picturing a quale and thinking of the name is an exercise of recognition. These two interactions, one discrete the other continuous strongly suggest the dual nature of the mind.

The “associated face” wouldn’t have to be in “caricature form,” would it? The “associated face” is recall from our picture memory. If so, it can be a very precise recall, under certain conditions. (And, often even ordinary conditions.)

The soul is the form that nous acquires in each human. It is a form with a portal to the nomos and a connection through the neuronal circuits to the cells of the body. Sin originates in the cells of the body. Life is a continuing battle between body and the soul; between pleasure and joy, pride and humility, anger and peace, etc. The mind arbitrates.

OK.

By “shared” I assume you mean connected; then you are correct. S-points being those that are associated with discrete space are always separated. Matter is the manifestation at the explicate level of configurations of s-points at the implicate level. For example, at the implicate level, electrons and quarks are different specific configurations of s-points, there is one configuration for electrons and one for the up quark and one for the down quark. Two down and one up quark form a new configuration that becomes a neutron and two up and one down quarks form a new configuration that becomes a proton. Then the proton, quark, and electron configurations get together to form and atom configuration, the molecule configurations, then configurations of material objects right on up to the cosmic configuration that I call the cosmic s-frame. The cosmic s-frame is a single complex configuration of s-points in which a variety of local configurations represent the things we observe at the explicate level as stars, planets, rocks, trees, animals, etc. Having created these forms, God created animals, special forms, each an individual s-frame, in which a particle of the spiritual substance was corpusculated which, in the human, contains the qualia that we recognize as color, odor, music, smoothness, joy, dreams, and a thousand other sensations, feelings, and emotions. Without qualia we would be nothing but robotic zombies.

I was thinking along the lines that “sharing” caused fabric forming, while mere proximity would not – allowing for the apple to be picked up from the table top without it adhering to the table. In other words, when s-points are arranged in certain configurations, certain s-points are shared, as atoms share missing electrons to form molecules. And, wherever two distinct objects are in intimate affinity, they do not.

I guess you could call qualia illusions because they, after all, exist only in the spiritual component of the mind. Qualia certainly are not part of objective reality, they are subjective reality.

OK. I need to go back and re-read your post that discusses the two realities.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

In the MDR, the stuff we experience as matter only exists at the explicate level;

And these levels do not intermingle as do substances in mixtures, or suspensions? They are God’s level or our level; what God sees or what we see.

at the implicate level only both modalities of “space” exist.

But, not to us. At the explicate level, then, Reality is rather illusory.

Discrete space exists as configurations of s-points that we experience as matter at the explicate level. The s-points are immersed in continuous space (nomos) that when corpusculated in a configuration of s-points that we observe as the body of a cell, becomes bios and animates the cell, and when corpusculated by a multicellular organism becomes nous and imparts consciousness to the organism.

OK. That makes sense. (I bolded the key words, to me.)

I will answer the discrete/space combination question in my next post.

Thank you.

There is a very, very large but finite number of s-points crammed into the singularity. However close discrete points get to one another, there is always a gap between them. Expansion of the universe is simply the expansion of the s-gap (the minimum distance between s-points). I assume that the s-gap distance is now the same as the Planck length, about 10^-34 meters. It was much, much smaller 14 billion years ago.

Now, a “point,” to me, is dimensionless. It cannot be the building block of a line, for example. So, you view the “s-point” somewhat differently. For your theory, an “s-point” has some dimensionality, or, does the separation you speak of cause it?

Each s-point is identical; each atom of like kind is the same configuration of s-points; each leaf has a different configuration of s-points. The atom and the leaf are observed at the explicate level, the configurations of s-points are at the implicate level. It took me a long time to get this idea of what we experience as matter (and energy) is at deeper level nothing but discrete space.

This is where the problem is, in my mind, as, you can pile up “points” and never achieve extension. A point may be the principle of a line, but the line cannot be divided into points. As dimensionless, points, when stacked, become the self-same, IOW, a point on top of a point renders merely a point - not two points exhibiting tallness. Did I make that understandable?

Thank you for your responses, they stimulate my thinking.

Likewise.

Actually, I am still re-reading your posts, while working and doing other practical stuff. So, no need to rush to respond.

God bless.
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yppop:

Of course, if the “s-point” has no dimensionality, it is, therefore, possible to compress countless trillions of them into a singularity! Hmmm. That’s making more and more sense to me, as a plausible explanation.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

JD
Thank you for responding, I regret that I am only able to get to two of your questions.

The “associated face” wouldn’t have to be in “caricature form,” would it? The “associated face” is recall from our picture memory. If so, it can be a very precise recall, under certain conditions. (And, often even ordinary conditions.)

Not if you have a better “picture memory” than I do. (I like to refer to it as a perceptual memory because it includes another types of sensations such as music and aromas). There are persons that can memorize unbelievable amount of detail; I don’t; my, wife does. However I am very good in recognizing faces from bits of the caricature. Another thing: I recall more easily percepts that were created from photos than those created otherwise.

I was thinking along the lines that “sharing” caused fabric forming, while mere proximity would not – allowing for the apple to be picked up from the table top without it adhering to the table. In other words, when s-points are arranged in certain configurations, certain s-points are shared, as atoms share missing electrons to form molecules. And, wherever two distinct objects are in intimate affinity, they do not.

Translating the vision of reality that we acquire directly from living at the explicate level makes it difficult to envision what I believe is going on at the implicate level. S-points do not have an impact on one another; they merely change relative position from the NOW s-frame to some subsequent s-frame. For example if configurations we observe as an electron and a proton at the explicate level are within a proximate distance and appear to move closer together, we interpret that as the action of a “force” that causes the observed action. What “causes” the attractive motion, however, isn’t a force or energy, it is information that repositions each and every s-point in the universe based on an algorithm that determines subsequent positions on the basis of the positions of its closest neighbors just as the pixels on a computer screen reacted to the state of their 8 nearest neighbors in John Conway’s game of Life. The big difference is the number of neighboring s-points that determine a new position of each affected s-point in the universe. I speculate that there are around 10^186 s-points in the universe whose new positions are determined for 10^43 incrementations every second. Sound implausible? Ah, but the basic axiom in the MDR is that “God Exists” and God is both omniscient and omnipotent and that means He is capable of such.

I am going out of town overnight and won’t be back until tommorow night. I will probably won’t answer the rest of your question until Tuesday.

I am happy that you and Jano are spending the time in understanding my thesis and am thrilled that you both appear to be succeeding.

All the best to you and yours on the Christmas season.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD
Thank you for responding, I regret that I am only able to get to two of your questions.

Not if you have a better “picture memory” than I do. (I like to refer to it as a perceptual memory because it includes another types of sensations such as music and aromas). There are persons that can memorize unbelievable amount of detail; I don’t; my, wife does. However I am very good in recognizing faces from bits of the caricature. Another thing: I recall more easily percepts that were created from photos than those created otherwise.

Translating the vision of reality that we acquire directly from living at the explicate level makes it difficult to envision what I believe is going on at the implicate level. S-points do not have an impact on one another; they merely change relative position from the NOW s-frame to some subsequent s-frame. For example if configurations we observe as an electron and a proton at the explicate level are within a proximate distance and appear to move closer together, we interpret that as the action of a “force” that causes the observed action. What “causes” the attractive motion, however, isn’t a force or energy, it is information that repositions each and every s-point in the universe based on an algorithm that determines subsequent positions on the basis of the positions of its closest neighbors just as the pixels on a computer screen reacted to the state of their 8 nearest neighbors in John Conway’s game of Life. The big difference is the number of neighboring s-points that determine a new position of each affected s-point in the universe. I speculate that there are around 10^186 s-points in the universe whose new positions are determined for 10^43 incrementations every second. Sound implausible? Ah, but the basic axiom in the MDR is that “God Exists” and God is both omniscient and omnipotent and that means He is capable of such.

I am going out of town overnight and won’t be back until tommorow night. I will probably won’t answer the rest of your question until Tuesday.

I am happy that you and Jano are spending the time in understanding my thesis and am thrilled that you both appear to be succeeding.

All the best to you and yours on the Christmas season.
Yppop

Thank you, Yppop!

God bless,
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jano,
A very perceptive question?

Nomos is consubstantial with the infinite nothingness, the substance of the Realm of Possibility, which I contend is God. Nomos is part of infinite nothingness, consequently could very well be considered as the Holy Spirit. However I am hesitant about treading through theologocal minefield one would encounter if I were to suggest a “physical” explanation of the Trinity. On the other hand, this is a philosophy and not a theology forum, so why not: Nomos is the Holy Spirit!!

Now all we need to do is to explain the “personhood” of the realm of Possibility and the Nomos.

Yppop

Yppop, JD,
This really makes sense to me. The Holy Spirit is where God is touching matter.
S-point, as the smallest building block of our universe, has some attributes. It has a tiny mass and a vector of direction where it will be after next ‘tick’ - jump from now frame to next frame. The vector is an end result of forces that are generated by neighboring s-points. The tiny mass is a source of the forces. It’s like ‘tiny gravity’.
S-points interact between themselves and the Holy Spirit lets it work as intended or He can apply His force.
… and that’s why we have Christmas.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Jaaanosik]

JD
Thank you for responding, I regret that I am only able to get to two of your questions.

Not if you have a better “picture memory” than I do. (I like to refer to it as a perceptual memory because it includes another types of sensations such as music and aromas). There are persons that can memorize unbelievable amount of detail; I don’t; my, wife does. However I am very good in recognizing faces from bits of the caricature. Another thing: I recall more easily percepts that were created from photos than those created otherwise.

Translating the vision of reality that we acquire directly from living at the explicate level makes it difficult to envision what I believe is going on at the implicate level. S-points do not have an impact on one another; they merely change relative position from the NOW s-frame to some subsequent s-frame. For example if configurations we observe as an electron and a proton at the explicate level are within a proximate distance and appear to move closer together, we interpret that as the action of a “force” that causes the observed action. What “causes” the attractive motion, however, isn’t a force or energy, it is information that repositions each and every s-point in the universe based on an algorithm that determines subsequent positions on the basis of the positions of its closest neighbors just as the pixels on a computer screen reacted to the state of their 8 nearest neighbors in John Conway’s game of Life. The big difference is the number of neighboring s-points that determine a new position of each affected s-point in the universe. I speculate that there are around 10^186 s-points in the universe whose new positions are determined for 10^43 incrementations every second. Sound implausible? Ah, but the basic axiom in the MDR is that “God Exists” and God is both omniscient and omnipotent and that means He is capable of such.

I am going out of town overnight and won’t be back until tommorow night. I will probably won’t answer the rest of your question until Tuesday.

I am happy that you and Jano are spending the time in understanding my thesis and am thrilled that you both appear to be succeeding.

All the best to you and yours on the Christmas season.
Yppop

Yppop,
It seems the algorithm that you mentioned that determines the next s-frame is implemented via four forces. The Holy Spirit is in full control of the four forces. At least that’s how it appears to me.

God bless,
Jano

 

[yppop]

Originally Posted by yppop
I guess you could call qualia illusions because they, after all, exist only in the spiritual component of the mind. Qualia certainly are not part of objective reality, they are subjective reality.

JD Quote
OK. I need to go back and re-read your post that discusses the two realities

.

Objective reality is nothing more than a very complex universal arrangement of rapidly incrementing s-point configurations: no color, sound, light and dark, aromas, tastes, feelings, emotions. God has blessed us with a particle of divine awareness and we experience all those sensations (qualia) both good and bad without which we would be nothing more than a clump of inert matter capable of motion. But God has filled our lives with sensations that we call subjective reality. Humans all have similar qualia sets that are different that all the other species, for example, they say dogs don’t experience color but experience a rich and exciting set of aromatic quales instead. For them subjective reality is quite different.

Still working on your and Jano’s questions
Yppop

 

[wussup]

Yppop-
You have brought tears to my eyes! I am shocked to find someone articulating so clearly what has been buzzing around in my head for decades. Oh that I could have your education to dig deeper into your ideas. Seriously dude, you have nailed so many aspects of what I have tried to explain with my bumbling words so clearly…amazing, thank you!

I would hope to jump into this discussion, but if unwanted, just don’t respond, I will content myself to read your words a few more times.

Much of what you have wrote reminds me of Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order, one of my top 5 favorite books. If you don’t mind, have you read this? If so, at very high level, what major points would you differ?

You mention ‘11 dimension’ in your writing, and must confess I will need to go back and research my math to get a better idea of what your saying. It is my opinion that what is mathametically possible exists to some extent in reality. Do your concepts allow for more than 11 dimensions?

 

[yppop]

And these levels do not intermingle as do substances in mixtures, or suspensions? They are God’s level or our level; what God sees or what we see.

But, not to us. At the explicate level, then, Reality is rather illusory.

JD
Thank you for these comments because it allowed me to see how easily the idea of an implicate/explicate level of reality can be confounded with the idea of objective/subjective reality.

I view objective reality as that which exists outside of us and it exists without the presence of consciousness. The question is: would we experience the configuration of s-points as matter? That would depend on what we mean by “experience”. The only way that we could experience the configuration of s-points directly would be to eliminate the explicate level, which would require eliminating all our senses. Think of a rock rolling down a hill, it experiences nothing until it runs into another rock, then, in a way, it “experiences” matter. A rock represents pure objective reality, i.e., zero subjective reality, zero sensations. Hence, objective reality exists at both the implicate and explicate level of reality, at the implicate level as configurations of s-points; at the explicate level as the stuff we experience as matter. But we experience matter in a different way than rocks do, a rock experiences other matter as the occupancy of space (something preventing movement into that space). We can see and feel matter. And what we see and feel is qualia. Subjective reality consist of the qualia that exists within the nous (the spiritual part of the human mind and the consciousness in other species). Only the explicate level of reality is subjective.

In summary: objective reality exists at both the implicate and explicate level of reality; subjective reality exists only at the explicate level of reality.

Now, a “point,” to me, is dimensionless. It cannot be the building block of a line, for example. So, you view the “s-point” somewhat differently. For your theory, an “s-point” has some dimensionality, or, does the separation you speak of cause it?

This is where the problem is, in my mind, as, you can pile up “points” and never achieve extension. A point may be the principle of a line, but the line cannot be divided into points. As dimensionless, points, when stacked, become the self-same, IOW, a point on top of a point renders merely a point - not two points exhibiting tallness. Did I make that understandable?

In the abstract, an s-point is dimensionless like every other point of the real number line. The current view of the real number line is that it is continuous. Mathematicians create continuity from dimensionless points by invoking infinity. There is a trick to this: they assume for every number on the real number line there is a point and we can abstract an infinite number of numbers, hence points to fill the line. On the other hand, if space is discrete and there is a gap between points than its seems that it is more plausible to create extension from the gaps (they are innately extended) than from an infinite number of dimensionless points. Discrete space is defined by the rational numbers. Then we can fill the gaps with continuous space that is defined by the real numbers.

JD, from reading some of your other posts you seem quite adamant that nothing is an “actual infinity”.In the MDR model, actuality consists of a finite number of s-points; therefore actuality is not infinite. However, there is an infinite number of real points between the s-points, but that is God. I think we are on the same page with this, I will just have to be careful about how I view actuality. I will try to use it strictly as that composed of a finite number of s-points, so that I too can say actual infinity does not exist because continuous space does not exist in actuality. Only God is infinite…

I am falling behind in my responses, but will do my best to keep up even though the Christmas season is a very busy time for me. I am not about to surrender the valuable help that you and Jano have given me.

Thank you,
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Yppop-
You have brought tears to my eyes! I am shocked to find someone articulating so clearly what has been buzzing around in my head for decades. Oh that I could have your education to dig deeper into your ideas. Seriously dude, you have nailed so many aspects of what I have tried to explain with my bumbling words so clearly…amazing, thank you!

I would hope to jump into this discussion, but if unwanted, just don’t respond, I will content myself to read your words a few more times.

Much of what you have wrote reminds me of Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order, one of my top 5 favorite books. If you don’t mind, have you read this? If so, at very high level, what major points would you differ?

You mention ‘11 dimension’ in your writing, and must confess I will need to go back and research my math to get a better idea of what your saying. It is my opinion that what is mathametically possible exists to some extent in reality. Do your concepts allow for more than 11 dimensions?

Wassup:

Since I am really the OP of this thread, on behalf of Yppop, Jano, and others, I will invite you. (Yppop and Jano are more than likely busy with Christmas stuff.) I’m sure Yppop’s words would even express more elation than mine at having you join in. And, I know Jano won’t mind either. So, you are Welcome here!

Do you see any problems with his theory thus far?

God bless,
jd

 

[wussup]

jd,
There is a lot to chew on here. He has expanded my vague and extremely rudi-mentary ideas into, well, you fill in the words. I need to re-re-reread this, and review my calc, probability physics, etc… It has been a while.

At the risk of sounding even more ignorant of the subject than I suspect I am, the last response has me wondering at yppop’s differentiation of explicate and implicate, subjective and objective realities.

Bohm theory posits a ‘holomovement’ that entails (among many consequences) the concept that the mind (perhaps thought of as subjective) and matter (the objective) are interdependent upon each other. Really, I need to go back over what has been stated here. My question may seem totally out of whack, or has been answered/explained previously.

My mind is blown…

 

[JDaniel]

jd,
There is a lot to chew on here. He has expanded my vague and extremely rudi-mentary ideas into, well, you fill in the words. I need to re-re-reread this, and review my calc, probability physics, etc… It has been a while.

At the risk of sounding even more ignorant of the subject than I suspect I am, the last response has me wondering at yppop’s differentiation of explicate and implicate, subjective and objective realities.

Bohm theory posits a ‘holomovement’ that entails (among many consequences) the concept that the mind (perhaps thought of as subjective) and matter (the objective) are interdependent upon each other. Really, I need to go back over what has been stated here. My question may seem totally out of whack, or has been answered/explained previously.

My mind is blown…

Thank you, very interesting observation.

Well, get going and hurry up back!

God bless,
jd

 

[wussup]

Teilhard called such “space” the “within” of things —
YPPOP

I am only vaguely familiar with Teilhard, reading scraps hither and yon. Were did he say this? I am interested in the context he might put this in.

 

[wussup]

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).

Does your thesis posit for the 26 bosun dimensions, or is this irrelevant?

 

[wussup]

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.

Have you found this to be… controversial?

 

[wussup]

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.

How would this relate to Pribram’s Holonomic Brain Theory, if at all?