Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Unity and Continuity of God
The Unity and Continuity of God
Early in the Christian era the philosophic paradoxes of the nature of the divinity of Christ were an open question that tried to resolve issues into a unity of diversity again for substance or being.
Through Newton we define continuity as consecutive, contiguous, and continuous- and in the crude metaphor of simplicity and a logic of a God who for some other issue feels a sadness and homesickness, not without pathos we find the cold reduction unto substance as a gas, a liquid, and a solid to model the metaphysics as physics.
For the three concepts to be resolved since Thales started the school and said the world began as water as to the nature of the Christ (hypostasis or personae of the godhead, prospons of what we can see of the unreachable by reason realm of the devine) The Christ is of the same substance as the One God, or is a similar substance, or is quite a perhaps polytheistic different substance than the Deity so a divine being of its own. All three views had their adherents, some calling the others heretics, resolved by the council of Nicaea eventually in struggles over time.
What then is the claim, to state it as asked so commonly, what came before the Big Bang or Is there an edge to the Universe? In the logic of negation, the idea of opaque matter that beyond some beginning we can deduce is there- so comes the evidence, nearly so, that what was before as the universe leaves traces in what we see in the total sky and time in retrograde in this one.
But that does not have to be the only interpretation of such a model- we could say for example, given perhaps a deeper understanding of topological structures in their ideas of dogma (orthodoxy) evolving and right action (orthopraxy) That we merely are organizing in general a fluid but directed concept of history. If we can see the previous states of the universe that may well be that we see rather as if this were a great atom that it contains a nucleus also. The state then as these metaphors of substance merely a reflection then of the quasic general structure of a universe which by the way seems to me intimately tied up to the first few Fermat numbers unto 256 squared.
There may even be another type of plane not discovered or of which I am not aware as the most general description of space- one that moreover involves congruences and stretches so to make mathematical laws between such planes intelligible in translation between descriptions. For such things to extend our quaint ideas of perfect spheres before the contingency's and imperfections into elliptical degrees of freedom in that vast mathematics and logic or the seeming random or accidental patterns of primes (including those of Gauss and so on) between the remote scales and regions of the multiverse (or universe as unity in such diversity). In a sense a science based on contingency alone can tell us little about the universe or its God. Such God, to quote the Koran, "there is nothing to compare with Him." be that an ongoing revelation or a statement of our limits of imagination- ultimate scriptures of math and logic, of wisdom closed save for perhaps man in awe for the love of woman- or any emptiness of which even with high intellect he desires to fill.
God, in this sense of more complexly evolved philosophy, is greater than dark matter.
But one problem, as even the plane as if a black plane of which it seems much the scandal and paradox it may contain black holes- the plane as will and creation, a sort of praxis of perpetual motion- is, as we realize in our more cloudy views of an atom as quantum motion, that in a deep and discrete sense we cannot say what is absolutely the inside or outside of something- for some moving entity may escape or go thru others invisibly, jet as Lincoln points out but beyond the continuity of such space that seems to find a unity again in the diversity as if a perfect fluid.
There are in this sense of how we paint our pictures on the clouds and even how we sculpt them, literally, or think we do foreseeing the shapes, or know the remarkable coincidences beyond reason that brings home our choices and freedom over any will or fate that strives to map all paths of the whole. That circles and focus to some origin, or even the illusion that there are only three primes for very remote numbers as a sum and all beyond that so to make a more intuitionist value seem perfection of the trinity of space and time at the doorstep of God and nothingness.
* * *
I will try to embed the walking video over footprints in the snow:
* * *
facebook comment on sultans status:
The more I laugh, the more I paint my future with my sadness brush!
L. Edgar Otto I think this relates to the idea of sacrifice but with this hard to obey sense of compassion for other humans, it is not expected that we give so much we cannot afford to give any more ever. Mohamed was deeply aware of the practical world here and now also.
Then the poem:
Sadness <----> happiness
by Sultan Ratrout on Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 3:01pm
Natural for humans to laugh or get sad here or there.
yet there's a latent paradox haunting us everywhere.
That mystery has perplexed us for a long time now,
yet they have failed to solve it by even showing how.
When I am too happy, I feel dejection in my heart,
and my brush sadly starts painting my future part.
When too sad, I feel like giving up going frustrated,
with my brush giving unknown breakthrough fated.
Sadness could replace happiness with a role reverse,
At the time I feel upset, mute or unable to converse.
Mystery goes on with "the more happiness I reveal",
Reflecting the paradox, "the more sadness I conceal."
The more I make the other side happy at my expense,
The more I suffer from sadness inside and it's intense.
If I tell others I'm happy, they could envy me to death,
Then I prefer to say I am sad to enjoy my life breath.
Wondering, I roam the reality and imagination poles,
pondering on the truth of such those paradoxical roles.
I think using all my knowledge coming to my mind,
Religion, logic, philosophy, physics or of any kind.
I apply this or that theory and engage in thought,
hoping to reach a final answer for what I sought.
With the most mysterious oppositions ever known,
awaits are unexpected joys or disasters to be shown.
By Sultan Ratrout, 27/11/2010
comment on the chat to sultan: ... you know, Sultan, your sadness poem does not need much commentary or analysis
"I think using all my knowledge coming to my mind,"
Religion, logic, philosophy, physics or of any kind.
the age old question of science and reason too
* * * But I may come back to this. Not only do simple ideas inspire my poetic and philosophic moods- our intellectual dialog gets rather intense between Sultan and me- but a theory should not be simpler than necessary said the mystic and somewhat prankster and punner Einstein- I say, to see in greater depth we must look under the hood of even the most simplest of things.
Thing is like in the footprints in the snow all the history, all the myths and truths and what is original or individual or not, and what that leads too if we get past the idolatry and not lost in the compassion: Like time goes in both directions and in our season we find the same thing as others found as religion goes in cycles and so on in its struggle with philosophy and science... How can we mortals not be a little lost in all this? Yet, I think in the end our being and doing in life can be a progress and optimism and pursuit of happiness. Such things are of a deep value and comfort despite the embarrassment of our lacks of awareness or regret of our peak age of awakening, gazing into the cold mountain top or the seething volcano that was the beginning- but even that does not but hint so far beyond the veil and mystery of what the depths of creation- know this, I am not wise enough to imagine let alone feel, what must be the depth of your loss and sorrow. In that place that even the struggle can vanish, even the sadness into nothingness, we stand in a place that is our home again and first time to come- and feel no bitter sweet homesickness nor the inadequacy of words to express our hearts beyond our worldly loves and concerns- no matter what is at the end, the omega, the prophets known only truly by God, that which for even the least of us is the stuff of soul.
* * *
Facebook status update- the idea that we can see a little further than we thought into and beyond our illusion or the reality of cosmic origins:
L. Edgar Otto
In my more reductionists times I looked upon a Christian fundamentalist's being so anti-science he won an argument saying- "It is God who holds the atom together". In our age such statements seem low class and are point of derision in science arguments like the red herring of evolution vs creationism. I would reply to him if asked today " It is the possibility of God that holds the nucleus together!"
And a shared comment for some who use the protestant flag:
L. Edgar Otto Not all who use the "Christian Flag" are worthy- so I post one of my own, the international signal flags XR for mutiny, with the liberty tree for Enlightenment!
* * *
I end the day with a further comment to:
# Just Learning Says:
November 28, 2010 at 4:27 pm | Reply
Now to really up the ante
# L. Edgar Otto Says:
November 28, 2010 at 9:05 pm | Reply
I am amazed how all the Phd’s take almost a religious stance on some of this cosmology to the point of calling each other hacks or saying they lost it when there is a disagreement. How much struggle there is before some empirical agreement that others should fall behind.
Yours is a good question on the density of fixed points- I would say they are not random nor to be seen only classically- rather more crystalline on the large scales and yes on fractal like properties of scales.
Now, in my analogy to such rings as if the (observable) universe an atom I like how you really upped the ante- for from one geometric viewpoint we should see evidence of the rings of a nucleus too- how else do we explain the recent results of a surprising liquid nuclear model? Are you not suggesting that fractional Hall effects go a little deeper into ideas of shell structures on any scale, in effect thinking along Penrose’s lines?