Space?

[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’.

Good post! You have the general idea down correctly; and if it helps your "visualization’ of the mechanism operating at the implicate level, to assign a “mass” to the s-points; then fine. However, an s-point is a point of massless space, hence s-points have no mass, none is needed. Mass is a scientific construct that makes what scientists observe work. Two bodies attract one another because of gravitational force and matter exerts gravitational force because it has mass and mass is the thing that causes two bodies to attract one another. This circularity is the general nature of science, that arises because science goes very slowly into a deeper level to explain the “why” question because their descriptions at an explicate level have been so successful. (or perhaps they are afraid that they will find God at that deper level). In Newton’s second law. a body of matter accelerates in proportion to the applied force. Because what God makes happen at the implicate level is so coherent and reproducible, scientists observing at the explicate level can quantify the force/acceleration proportionality by introducing a constant of proportionality called “mass”. They don’t explain what “mass” is or what causes the force.

Having said all of that, let me just say your scheme of visualizing the action of s-points is better as mine. I think of points of light that and s-points have no light. An s-point is the essence of nothing, no mass, no light; they are the nothing from which God created us creatio ex nihilo.

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

The use of “force” is also a good visualization scheme. Because I try to keep the terminology associated with the implicate level separated from that used at the explicate level, I use “impetus” to describe the action (reconfiguration of s-points) that the nomos (Holy Spirit) causes, just as I use “nomos” instead of Holy Spirit" to keep the physical explanation separate from the theological explanation. In my general thesis I keep the terminology separated for strategic purposes, namely, if we can get materialists to buy into the “physical” explanations, then they would have a difficult time denying God once they find out that the nomos is really the Holy Ghost. But I have already let the cat out of the bag when I answer your perceptive question.
Let me just say, that I like your visualization scheme better than mine, but I am keeping my terminology i what I write.

Still trying to catch up.
Yppop

WASSUP - I will answer your questions as soon as I am able.

 

[wussup]

WASSUP - I will answer your questions as soon as I am able.

take yer time, i’ve been on this subject for a while…

 

[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

One of the reasons I use the word “impetus” to describe the action taken by the nomos in reconfiguring s-points is that only one action is required to move each s-point to its new location. Since this is done algorithmically, the information is of the nature of a string of 1’s and 0’s that represent numbers on the real number line. It can be shown (and I have to look it up) that the position of every discrete point in 3-dimensional space can be identified by a single number on the real number line, a set of numbers representing (x, y ,z) are not necessary. Only one “force” (in your visualization scheme) is required; after all it is divine!

Thank you for your responses and have a Merry Christmas.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Good post! You have the general idea down correctly; and if it helps your "visualization’ of the mechanism operating at the implicate level, to assign a “mass” to the s-points; then fine. However, an s-point is a point of massless space, hence s-points have no mass, none is needed. Mass is a scientific construct that makes what scientists observe work. Two bodies attract one another because of gravitational force and matter exerts gravitational force because it has mass and mass is the thing that causes two bodies to attract one another. This circularity is the general nature of science, that arises because science goes very slowly into a deeper level to explain the “why” question because their descriptions at an explicate level have been so successful. (or perhaps they are afraid that they will find God at that deeper level). In Newton’s second law. a body of matter accelerates in proportion to the applied force. Because what God makes happen at the implicate level is so coherent and reproducible, scientists observing at the explicate level can quantify the force/acceleration proportionality by introducing a constant of proportionality called “mass”. They don’t explain what “mass” is or what causes the force.

Having said all of that, let me just say your scheme of visualizing the action of s-points is better as mine. I think of points of light that and s-points have no light. An s-point is the essence of nothing, no mass, no light; they are the nothing from which God created us creatio ex nihilo.

This is not what the Church, or St. Thomas, means by creatio ex nihilo. “Creation from ‘Nothing’” is merely a rather poor transliteration of what we mean. What we mean is, “Something is (created to be) where there was nothing before.” IOW, there is no causation. At the entrance of Creation, He may have created s-points. And, the mechanism may well be what you have postulated. God may create, then configure/re-configure “s-points” to be “things” at the explicate level. I think that is the point you are making. Hopefully.

God bless, and have a very blessed Christmas!
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

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?

Welcome Wussup!
More heads, more brains, more ideas, more polished end result.
Jano

 

[Jaaanosik]

Good post! You have the general idea down correctly; and if it helps your "visualization’ of the mechanism operating at the implicate level, to assign a “mass” to the s-points; then fine. However, an s-point is a point of massless space, hence s-points have no mass, none is needed. Mass is a scientific construct that makes what scientists observe work. Two bodies attract one another because of gravitational force and matter exerts gravitational force because it has mass and mass is the thing that causes two bodies to attract one another. This circularity is the general nature of science, that arises because science goes very slowly into a deeper level to explain the “why” question because their descriptions at an explicate level have been so successful. (or perhaps they are afraid that they will find God at that deper level). In Newton’s second law. a body of matter accelerates in proportion to the applied force. Because what God makes happen at the implicate level is so coherent and reproducible, scientists observing at the explicate level can quantify the force/acceleration proportionality by introducing a constant of proportionality called “mass”. They don’t explain what “mass” is or what causes the force.

Having said all of that, let me just say your scheme of visualizing the action of s-points is better as mine. I think of points of light that and s-points have no light. An s-point is the essence of nothing, no mass, no light; they are the nothing from which God created us creatio ex nihilo.

The use of “force” is also a good visualization scheme. Because I try to keep the terminology associated with the implicate level separated from that used at the explicate level, I use “impetus” to describe the action (reconfiguration of s-points) that the nomos (Holy Spirit) causes, just as I use “nomos” instead of Holy Spirit" to keep the physical explanation separate from the theological explanation. In my general thesis I keep the terminology separated for strategic purposes, namely, if we can get materialists to buy into the “physical” explanations, then they would have a difficult time denying God once they find out that the nomos is really the Holy Ghost. But I have already let the cat out of the bag when I answer your perceptive question.
Let me just say, that I like your visualization scheme better than mine, but I am keeping my terminology i what I write.

Still trying to catch up.
Yppop

WASSUP - I will answer your questions as soon as I am able.

Yppop,
nomos, impetus it is. No problem there as long as there is good visualization.
Jano

 

[wussup]

I’ve got a ton of questions and comments, the vast majority of which I will address much later as I suspect this conversation will over come and answer them.

Jano

Because Jesus had a material body, according to the MWI, He necessarily appears in each parallel world, but not necessarily at the same time and place. But here I will bow to whatever the theologians decide if and when they ever get around to dealing with the scientific theory of parallel worlds. Consequently, if you believe in paeallelworlds, then Jesus has the same dimensions as He had in this world. God the Father and Holy Spirit are formless, hence dimensionless.

I agree that God has no dimension (Jesus incarnate excepted). I can’t imagine what dimensions creations outside of our space-time have. It sounds like you might want to do some theorizing along those lines. If you do develop a thesis and I am still around I’d happily critique it for you.

I have been contemplating the multiverse/parallel universe consequences for a long time and never thought of one of the consequences would be the Saviour would also experience this multiverse/parallel universe, assuming it to be a part of reality. This has extremely far reaching and complex theological ramifications.

Jano,
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.

The one aspect of your thesis I am struggling with is applying the ‘realm of possibility’ and the Nomos as the physical attributes of God. I suspect this would be a major stumbling block theologically, but addressing it through the lens of logic, does it not seem as likely to be the means by which God intimately interacts with his creation, i.e., manipulates the implicate and explicate?

I am curious, perhaps inappropriately so, how does your son the Priest view these concepts?

 

[yppop]

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?

Wassup
Thank you Wussup for your very kind words. It is nice to welcome another viewpoint to join with JD and Jano’s insightful questions; , I see you are striving to catch up. and I am happy to assist in any way I can’

Ah, someone that appreciates Bohm’s viewpoint. The reason my thesis reminds you of his book is that what I have written has close parallels to his theories… I didn’t read Wholeness and the Implicate Order; I read his Causality & Chance in Modern Physics. I am, however, somewhat familiar, with his (and Pribham’s ) theories. I was born in the same town as him, 13 years later.

I borrowed his terminology (implicate and explicate). The holomovement: “the undivided wholeness in flowing movement” is not unlike the MDR’s incrementation of the cosmic s-frame, except holomovement implies a continuous model (flowing); the MDR is discrete model. A “pilot wave” guiding an electron is not unlike the action of the nomos in “guiding” the configuration of s-points that is an electron. I use the name holonomic as does Pribham, but I use it differently as an adjective that describes the mechanism that operates at the implicate level. Read post 51, where I use the hologram idea in association with the property of holograms that the entire image is present on every part, while quote: * “Capitalizing on Pribram’s findings, Bohm states that our brains are smaller pieces of the larger hologram. That our brains contain the whole knowledge of the universe. So, you can see how each mind has a limited perspective of the universal hologram.” *.

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?

I believe God only needs 3-dimensions to create reality; scientists need 11-dimensions to include gravity in their attempt at a theory of everything. Fifty years later and a lot of chicken scratching on the blackboard and they still haven’t succeeded.

I will keep working on your questions.

Merry Christmas,
Yppop

 

[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.

The *within/without *of things is the basic idea in his book, The Phenomenon of Man. Here are two quotes from that book:

“It is impossible to deny that, deep within ourselves, an ‘interior’ appears at the heart of beings, as it were seen through a rent. This is enough to ensure that, in one degree or another, this ‘interior’ should obtrude itself as existing everywhere in nature from all time. Since, the stuff of the universe has an inner aspect at one point of itself, there is neccessarily a double aspect to its structure, that is to say in every region of space and time–in the same way, for instance, as it is granular: co-extensive with their Without, there is a Within to things” - The Phenomenon of Man pg56

and

“There is no concept more familiar to us than that of spiritual energy, yet there is none more opaque scientifically. On the one hand the objective reality of psychical effort and work is so well established that the whole of ethics rests on it and, on the other hand, the nature of this inner power is so intangible that the whole description of the universe in mechanical terms has had no need to take account of it, but has been successfully completed in deliberate disregard of its reality.

The difficulties we still encounter in trying to hold together spirit and matter in a reasonable perspective are nowhere more harshly revealed. Nowhere either is the need more urgent of building a bridge between the two banks of our existence – the physical and the moral – if we wish the material and spiritual sides of our activities to be mutually enlivened.

To connect the two energies, of body and the soul, in a coherent manner: science has provisionally decided to ignore the question, and it would be very convenient for us to do the same. Unfortunately, or fortunantely, caught up as we are here in the logic of a system where the within of things has just as much or even more value than their without, we collide with the difficulties head on. It is impossible to avoid the clash. We must advance”. - *The Phenomenon of Man *pg.62

The Phenomenon of Man and yhe Divine Milleau are his two most important books.

Yppop

 

[Jaaanosik]

The *within/without *of things is the basic idea in his book, The Phenomenon of Man. Here are two quotes from that book:

…

and

…
To connect the two energies, of body and the soul, in a coherent manner: science has provisionally decided to ignore the question, and it would be very convenient for us to do the same. Unfortunately, or fortunately, caught up as we are here in the logic of a system where the within of things has just as much or even more value than their without, we collide with the difficulties head on. It is impossible to avoid the clash. We must advance”.

… “We must advance”.
An extremely difficult thing to do - to understand body and soul. They are both God’s creations therefore they have to have dimensions. Both.
I am looking forward where our discussion will lead us. (… maybe I am jumping ahead )

God bless,
Jano

 

[Jaaanosik]

I’ve got a ton of questions and comments, the vast majority of which I will address much later as I suspect this conversation will over come and answer them.

I have been contemplating the multiverse/parallel universe consequences for a long time and never thought of one of the consequences would be the Saviour would also experience this multiverse/parallel universe, assuming it to be a part of reality. This has extremely far reaching and complex theological ramifications.
**
The one aspect of your thesis I am struggling with is applying the ‘realm of possibility’ and the Nomos as the** physical attributes of God. I suspect this would be a major stumbling block theologically, but addressing it through the lens of logic, does it not seem as likely to be the means by which God intimately interacts with his creation, i.e., manipulates the implicate and explicate?

I am curious, perhaps inappropriately so, how does your son the Priest view these concepts?

Wussup,
there must be “an edge” where God interacts with matter. Yppop decided to call it nomos in this thesis. Nomos does not have any dimensions but it has impetus (force).
Yppop, please correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t see anything wrong with this even theologically as far as my knowledge goes.
Jano

 

[yppop]

Post #117

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

It is irrelevant to my thesis; see post 127

Post #118

Have you found this [Yppop’s use of the term *Infinite Nothingness

] to be… controversial?

Yes, some people have a problem with my equating the mind of God to “infinite nothingness”. See the discussion in post #26

Post #119

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

Bohm/Pribram’s theory has wave patterns interacting with neuronal circuits to create thought. I have a spiritual element, nous interacting the s-points that form the neuronal circuits to create thought. I assume that the “wave patterns” are non-material, probably continuous space, as is the nous. The B/P wave patterns are downloaded holographically from a cosmic hologram. In my MDR, information is downloaded from the nomos, holographically in the sense that the part of the downloaded information is at reduced fidelity.

There are a lot of similarities, but the biggest difference is that the MDR is based on discrete space. I am not completely certain that my interpretations of the B/P theory, so if you find fault with them please let me know.

Yppop.

 

[wussup]

Thanks all for your courtesy and thoughtful response to my questions.

; I read his Causality & Chance in Modern Physics.

This is actually on my reading list, but I am having a difficult time finding a copy I don’t have to pay an arm and a leg for. Sir, you must read his Wholeness and the Implicate Order, if only to let me know if I will get more from Causality et. al

I believe God only needs 3-dimensions to create reality; scientists need 11-dimensions to include gravity in their attempt at a theory of everything. Fifty years later and a lot of chicken scratching on the blackboard and they still haven’t succeeded.

I suspect that if and or when we find out how all this came into being, we will see both how simple it is and how infinitely complex. 1+1=2. Sure, that is what we have been taught. Except in many instances the commutative law such as Cantor’s Set Theory. A practical application here would be the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It is my suspicion based on man’s history with discovering, to his amazement, that he really doesn’t understand the meaning of all things, over and over again!

I wrote my question before I thought of both the context you were writing in and the actual theory you suggest. When I realized what you had actually said, it was to late to go back and delete my comments. My apologies.

Wussup,
there must be “an edge” where God interacts with matter. Yppop decided to call it nomos in this thesis. Nomos does not have any dimensions but it has impetus (force).
Yppop, please correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t see anything wrong with this even theologically as far as my knowledge goes.
Jano

My reference was to “Nomos is consubstantial with the infinite nothingness, the substance of the Realm of Possibility, which I contend is God.” Some might say god in immaterial, or without substance. I personally don’t have a problem with it.

Bohm/Pribram’s theory has wave patterns interacting with neuronal circuits to create thought. I have a spiritual element, nous interacting the s-points that form the neuronal circuits to create thought. I assume that the “wave patterns” are non-material, probably continuous space, as is the nous. The B/P wave patterns are downloaded holographically from a cosmic hologram. In my MDR, information is downloaded from the nomos, holographically in the sense that the part of the downloaded information is at reduced fidelity.

There are a lot of similarities, but the biggest difference is that the MDR is based on discrete space. I am not completely certain that my interpretations of the B/P theory, so if you find fault with them please let me know.

Yppop.

As you are probably aware, Bohm had a lot of contact with Krishnamurti (sp?) sometime prior to writing both of the books mentioned and his ‘cosmic hologram’ theory sort of reflects this. thus, one could argue his have a spiritual element as well. Still, I like your constructions better, the fit more into what I am thinking.

Aaaargh…ok, I can’t resist, have you considered how your thesis might fit into the EPR Paradox?

 

[yppop]

This is not what the Church, or St. Thomas, means by creatio ex nihilo. “Creation from ‘Nothing’” is merely a rather poor transliteration of what we mean. What we mean is, “Something is (created to be) where there was nothing before.” IOW, there is no causation. At the entrance of Creation, He may have created s-points. And, the mechanism may well be what you have postulated. God may create, then configure/re-configure “s-points” to be “things” at the explicate level. I think that is the point you are making. Hopefully.

God bless, and have a very blessed Christmas!
jd

Yes, that is my point, but let me elaborate a bit.

The main philosophical argument of our age is the intellectual dispute between the materialist and theist views of reality. The materialist wields a very powerful weapon, science, when compared to the one we theists wield, namely, faith. This allows the materialists, for example, to pejoratively refer to the theist solution to those observations that science cannot explain, as the “god in the gap” argument. My thesis was intended to address this conflict by giving we theists a plausible explanation for reality that walks a thin line between science and theology without imposing on either. However, the MDR that I developed, being a “physical” model based on discrete space, does impact on both science and theology. It had been my intent to keep the MDR impacts on theology and science out of my posts, but have inadvertently let some in, for example, my view of the Holy Ghost and creatio ex nihilo. In regard to your post about the “theological” view of creatio ex nihilo" you are absolutely correct. The “philosophical view” that I gave would require a better explanation that I have given in this thread. And whatever applications of the holonomic mechanism to theology I make, will be scrutinized more thoroughly by someone with better knowledge of theology than me, such as yourself. In my future posts I will try to avoid theology and science wherever possible.

I really appreciate the responses I’ve gotten from you, Jano, and Wassup.

Have a Merry Christmas
Yppop

 

[yppop]

I’ve got a ton of questions and comments, the vast majority of which I will address much later as I suspect this conversation will over come and answer them.

I have been contemplating the multiverse/parallel universe consequences for a long time and never thought of one of the consequences would be the Saviour would also experience this multiverse/parallel universe, assuming it to be a part of reality. This has extremely far reaching and complex theological ramifications.

You may want to read my post #133 to JD concerning the theological implications of the MDR (Model of Dual Reality).

The one aspect of your thesis I am struggling with is applying the ‘realm of possibility’ and the Nomos as the physical attributes of God. I suspect this would be a major stumbling block theologically, but addressing it through the lens of logic, does it not seem as likely to be the means by which God intimately interacts with his creation, i.e., manipulates the implicate and explicate?

Of course to imply a “physical” attribute to God would be worse than a stumbling block. I would appreciate it greatly if you could decribe what I have written that made you conclude that about the nomos and realm of possibility. It is possible that I haven’t adhered to a careful use of terminolgy or something I wrote wasn’t more clearly written to avoid sych an interpretation. At any rate here is what I think in regard to my terminology:

I (attempt to) use the word “physical” in association with the four main elements of objective reality, namely, space, time, matter, and energy. In regards to space, it is discrete space that
is the physical part of objective reality.

Now here is my problem: how do I describe the spiritual part of reality? I have chosen what I consider a neat trick, namely, to liken the nature of the spiritual to continuous space which can be described – since its physical/mathematical nature is that of an infinite number of infinities – as a God-like substance. No one knows the substance or nature of God, but continuous space, in my opinion, is as close as we will come to describing it. This assumption allows me to describe duality in mathematical terms, namely, the use of numbers to describe the points of space.

I am curious, perhaps inappropriately so, how does your son the Priest view these concepts

I have not burdened him with the details. He has a general idea of what I am doing, and may even have read what I written (he has access to my computer). He hasn’t commented.

Thank you for your help.
Have a very Merry Christmas
Yppop

 

[yppop]

Wussup,
there must be “an edge” where God interacts with matter. Yppop decided to call it nomos in this thesis. Nomos does not have any dimensions but it has impetus (force).
Yppop, please correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t see anything wrong with this even theologically as far as my knowledge goes.
Jano

J, J, W

Yes God interacts with matter through the holonomic mechanism. At the ground of reality there is nothing but s-points immersed in a spiritual substance I call nomos that has the attributes of continuous space. The nomos is that part of infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the universe. At any moment the universe is a static configuration that I call the cosmic s-frame. The nomos provides both the information that determines the NEXT cosmic s-frame and the impetus to increment to it. There is no matter or energy involved, they are manifestations at the explicate level, the one we are directly aware of.

How plausible is this? Well, it is as plausible as your getting out of bed in the morning. When I awake, the nous within my head chooses a initial configuration that moves my body toward a specific goal, the closet where my clothes are. I do this without “thinking” just as the nomos animates the universe without thinking. That nous within our heads manifests as the great “I”.

This takes a lot of contemplation to realize that we control our bodies just as the Holy Spirit controls the unieverse using the same mechanism.

Merry Christmas

 

[wussup]

I appreciate your comments and responses. Frankly, your idea of 'grounding reality…[with] s-points] and the clever way of introducing the idea of the ‘infinite nothingness’ is brilliant and I wouldn’t change it. I was making an observation based on responses I have had in my past and wondering if you have had similar.

J, J, W

Yes God interacts with matter through the holonomic mechanism. At the ground of reality there is nothing but s-points immersed in a spiritual substance I call nomos that has the attributes of continuous space. The nomos is that part of infinite nothingness that is conterminous with the universe. At any moment the universe is a static configuration that I call the cosmic s-frame. The nomos provides both the information that determines the NEXT cosmic s-frame and the impetus to increment to it. There is no matter or energy involved, they are manifestations at the explicate level, the one we are directly aware of.

How plausible is this? Well, it is as plausible as your getting out of bed in the morning. When I awake, the nous within my head chooses a initial configuration that moves my body toward a specific goal, the closet where my clothes are. I do this without “thinking” just as the nomos animates the universe without thinking. That nous within our heads manifests as the great “I”.

This takes a lot of contemplation to realize that we control our bodies just as the Holy Spirit controls the unieverse using the same mechanism.

Merry Christmas

This idea of a separation of explicate and implicate levels, and the conterminus holonomic mechanism reminds me of Von Neumann’s separation of fields and particles to his ‘abstract ego’, the experiential reality.There are obvious ontological differences between Von Neumann’s ideas and yours, yet you both understand a separation of two realities and some kind of conterminous intermingling of the both. Von Neumann seems (to me) to try to keep as main-stream with the consequences as he can (perhaps the reputation Bohm developed in attempting to intermingle the two influenced this?).Von Neumann’s approach was developed, in part, with Matrix Derivatives. I sucked at this in Calc 3 etc… Have you gone through this mathematically as well?

 

[yppop]

JD, Jano, Wassup
I will to be unavailable for a couple of days; lots of family celebrations. I will get back to you, my good compatriots, as soon as I can.

Have a very Merry and Holy Christmas.

Yppop

 

[Jaaanosik]

JD, Jano, Wassup
I will to be unavailable for a couple of days; lots of family celebrations. I will get back to you, my good compatriots, as soon as I can.

Have a very Merry and Holy Christmas.

Yppop

Merry Christmas to all,
Jano

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, that is my point, but let me elaborate a bit.

The main philosophical argument of our age is the intellectual dispute between the materialist and theist views of reality. The materialist wields a very powerful weapon, science, when compared to the one we theists wield, namely, faith. This allows the materialists, for example, to pejoratively refer to the theist solution to those observations that science cannot explain, as the “god in the gap” argument. My thesis was intended to address this conflict by giving we theists a plausible explanation for reality that walks a thin line between science and theology without imposing on either. However, the MDR that I developed, being a “physical” model based on discrete space, does impact on both science and theology. It had been my intent to keep the MDR impacts on theology and science out of my posts, but have inadvertently let some in, for example, my view of the Holy Ghost and creatio ex nihilo. In regard to your post about the “theological” view of creatio ex nihilo" you are absolutely correct. The “philosophical view” that I gave would require a better explanation that I have given in this thread. And whatever applications of the holonomic mechanism to theology I make, will be scrutinized more thoroughly by someone with better knowledge of theology than me, such as yourself. In my future posts I will try to avoid theology and science wherever possible.

Yppop:

I’m sorry; it wasn’t my intent to have you limit your theory by avoiding anything theological. In fact, I, for one, would prefer that you include theological considerations herein. If they conflict with theology, someone will point it out and you can perhaps improve on that explanation. After all, that was your stated goal, was it not?

So far, all of this has been very interesting and good. As you said, there does not seem to be any toe stepping.

So, with the approval of everyone else, let’s continue.

I hope everyone had a blessed Christmas and that you will all have a safe New Year.

God bless everyone,
jd