"You choose" Fwd: on the term "universe" in the "cosmos" entry at Biblehub ... Fwd: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
18 views
Skip to first unread message
raps...@fastmail.fm
Jul 8, 2024, 10:44:38 PM7/8/24
to cxmpl...@googlegroups.com, In...@pastorrobert.com
Debbie,
https://archive.ph/wip/GFZsi https://pdfhost.io/v/22JNw2C6r_Refrigerator_Argument https://web.archive.org/web/20240709011740/https://pdfhost.io/v/22JNw2C6r_Refrigerator_Argument (7:18) https://archive.ph/wip/1LIIC
To be sure, my kid sister has a B.S. if Chem E too:
https://archive.ph/wip/ugLEv https://pdfhost.io/v/LVcqYRmgX_consider_No_2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20240709012232/https://pdfhost.io/v/LVcqYRmgX_consider_No_2014 (7:23) https://archive.ph/wip/0ozat
how's the temperature of the water coming out your faucet, sis?
----- Original message -----
From: raps...@fastmail.fm
To: bibl...@aol.com
Subject: on the term "universe" in the "cosmos" entry at Biblehub ... Fwd: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
Date: Sunday, July 07, 2024 4:25 PM
Hello,
My Name is Tim Rappl. I don’t suppose you’ll have anyone on staff there qualified to judge the critique/suggestion I’m about to make. I’m’a make it anyway. Please consider this earnestly.
Below you’ll see the forward of the attempt I recently made towards a somewhat similar goal to (the editors at) “Scientific American.” For further confirmation on my qualification to speak about (the widely misunderstood science of) thermodynamics, and (especially) the concept of entropy, I link you to this article, which was (the centerpiece) of my PhD (Chemical Engineering, Cal) research, before I walked away, - in a great act of faith (akin to “burn the ships,” For king and country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOVrOuKVBuY), - handing it off (unscorched) to Amish:
Observing Nucleation Close to the Binodal by Perturbing Metastable Polymer Blends (Macromolectules)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ma061947%2B
So, I draw your attention to concordance page you have for the greek word “cosmos:”
https://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm
My beef, which I will detail a little for you presently, is that the word “universe” appears on it at all; or at least that it appears unqualified. My suggestion is that the word “universe” gets a proper Christian dispute on that page, and (perhaps) wherever else it might be found on your site. Further, I can imagine us creating a whole link/page on “the Christian ‘universe’ dispute:” that would be really really sick!! (To be sure, I expect nothing to come of my effort here, like everywhere else I’ve tried.)
The term “universe” is non-scientific and anti-christian. Christians are unaware of the violence inherent in the term. When I say that the term “universe” is unscientific, I mean it literally and precisely: it itself is not scientifically useful, nor does it stand for any scientifically useful equation or theory. The closest one really comes is Einstein’s theory of general relativity, but one can accept Einstein’s (recursive) equation without accepting the metaphysical extension to “universe.” In fact, pluralism is a far more natural metaphysical extension to read in to the equation, especially when coupled to the fact that relativity and quantum mechanics have not been united, and especially especially when it is noted that a “background independent” quantum mechanics has not been found. The term “universe” is not the child of science, but metaphysics. Though metaphysics cannot be avoided, (popular) science looks upon it with derision. So, instead, they end up peddling really bad and indefensible metaphysics. Really, “universe” is an attempt to avoid metaphysics by assuming the answer and dis-allowing genuine questions, much less earnest investigation/consideration. So science has been stuck wandering in its own desert (for more than 40 years now).
When I say that “universe” is anti-christian I mean it profoundly. God and “universe” are mutually exclusive. Christians should know that “universe” is not scientifically proven (“yet”), and not even a scientific term at all (“at this point”). More, there are philosophical arguments that prove it absurd! It’s popular because it seems reasonable to common sense without any need for argument or study. But if the simple answer were the right answer we’d have all the answers by now. We don’t. “Universe” is fool’s gold. It would be really special if biblehub would take a stand.
The common-sense notion of “universe” that Christain and science-laymen hold alike, is that of a giant 3D space that objectively exists outside of people’s observation, and within which people live and work and play. People accept the term “universe” because it conforms to their “Newtonian” notions. But, Einstein’s revolutionary work, and what the hard-core scientists mean by “universe” is totally antithetical to Newtonian thinking. For them, “universe” is a 4D time-spanning thing. Consider the well-known (Einsteinian) notion of the “light cone.” The tip(s) of the light cone(s) are where the action of the present happens, but the unifying of everything only happens in the fullness of the (metaphysically extended) 4D (recursive) structure. When I say “fullness” I mean that literally and precisely too: it is only with the absolute fullness of all of all 4 dimensions that “the all” is unified into “universe.” “universe” is not a dynamic arena where things change and people grow. “Universe” is a static “crystal” of all that was, is, and will be – presumedly. There is no “gap” for free will, real people, or God, in “Universe.” Thankfully, “universe” is just really bad metaphysics.
Good metaphysics is knowable and available. Jesus is the master. For those who need a more formal academic defense, George Howison’s “The Limits of Evolution” has been in print since about 1900 (so it is free of copyright today). I won’t try to give a more detailed picture of personalism/idealism, “pluralistic” Xhristianity, at this point. If you would like to discuss this further, and I sure hope you do, I’d look forward to helping in any way I can going forward.
Sincerely,
Tim
raps...@fastmail.fm
“Love, too, now has its adequate definition: it is the all-directing intelligence which includes in its recognition a world of beings accorded free and seen as sacred, -- the primary and supreme act of intelligence, which is the source of all other intelligence, and whose object is that universal circle of spirits which, since the time of the Stoics, has so pertinently been called the City of God. Its contemplation of this sole object proper to it was fitly named by Dante and the great scholastics the Vision Beatific.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&pg=PA361#v=snippet&q=Love%2C%20too%2C%20now%20has%20its%20adequate%20definition&f=false
----- Original message -----
From: raps...@fastmail.fm
To: edi...@sciam.com
Subject: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
Date: Sunday, June 09, 2024 10:14 PM
Editor(s) of Scientific American,
My Name is Tim Rappl. This Tim Rappl: https://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.035702 . I have been long arguing that the term “universe” is absurd, but I have only very recently found the Planck quote I use below (https://archive.org/details/treatiseonthermo00planrich/page/100/mode/2up?view=theater). I beg you to earnestly consider (publishing) my proposed “letter to the editor:”
“
It’s high time we retire the term “universe.” It is an absurd abstraction if taken literally, and even when uttered casually it is detrimental to our working thoughts about life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds. We do an extreme disservice leading kids into thinking “universe” is a scientifically meaningful term. To be sure, there has been no proof of its veracity. Science remains a work-in-progress. We owe our kids a deep and profound apology.
In 1903 Max Planck wrote in his "Treatise on Thermodynamics" (at p.101 translated by Alexander Ogg), “The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.” Two years later Einstein published his special theory of relativity, where he demonstrated the math showing both the relativity of simultaneity and that, in general, spatially separated events are not causally related. It is 2024 and the term “universe” is (still) widely used among laymen and professional alike. Professional scientists should be embarrassed to utter the unwarranted (and unwarrantable) term “universe!” There is no universe. There is no singular copula uniting all that is, much less all that is, was, and will be. There is no such “universe.”
More than a century after Einstein “debunked” Newtonian mechanics, inadequate notions of 3D systems still plague all of science. Thermodynamics is clear that it applies only to equilibrium systems – systems where there is no tendency for change. We have no (general) science for non-equilibrium thermodynamic-like phenomena. Not only do we have no deterministic science governing phase change, we have no sign of hope for developing a deterministic science governing phase change. Science has (developed) no way to think (predictively) of systems outside (spatial) 3D. Thermodynamics will remain useful for determining certain limits of what we can hope to accomplish in reality, but the notions of system used to determine those limits do not model dynamic reality, they are theoretical devices, useful but ultimately inadequate to life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds.
I’m sure this isn’t the place for me to start explicating a positive picture of the philosophy and science that must take its place, but “universe” is demonstrated mis/dis-information and needs a vociferous disclaimer until it is replaced. There’s nothing new here; this shouldn’t be controversial. Let’s make it happen! Our kids are worth our repentance. Say it with me: there is no “universe.” Life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds are more interesting than we’ve been able to imagine so far!
”
Thank you,
Tim
raps...@fastmail.fm
https://archive.ph/wip/GFZsi https://pdfhost.io/v/22JNw2C6r_Refrigerator_Argument https://web.archive.org/web/20240709011740/https://pdfhost.io/v/22JNw2C6r_Refrigerator_Argument (7:18) https://archive.ph/wip/1LIIC
To be sure, my kid sister has a B.S. if Chem E too:
https://archive.ph/wip/ugLEv https://pdfhost.io/v/LVcqYRmgX_consider_No_2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20240709012232/https://pdfhost.io/v/LVcqYRmgX_consider_No_2014 (7:23) https://archive.ph/wip/0ozat
how's the temperature of the water coming out your faucet, sis?
----- Original message -----
From: raps...@fastmail.fm
To: bibl...@aol.com
Subject: on the term "universe" in the "cosmos" entry at Biblehub ... Fwd: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
Date: Sunday, July 07, 2024 4:25 PM
Hello,
My Name is Tim Rappl. I don’t suppose you’ll have anyone on staff there qualified to judge the critique/suggestion I’m about to make. I’m’a make it anyway. Please consider this earnestly.
Below you’ll see the forward of the attempt I recently made towards a somewhat similar goal to (the editors at) “Scientific American.” For further confirmation on my qualification to speak about (the widely misunderstood science of) thermodynamics, and (especially) the concept of entropy, I link you to this article, which was (the centerpiece) of my PhD (Chemical Engineering, Cal) research, before I walked away, - in a great act of faith (akin to “burn the ships,” For king and country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOVrOuKVBuY), - handing it off (unscorched) to Amish:
Observing Nucleation Close to the Binodal by Perturbing Metastable Polymer Blends (Macromolectules)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ma061947%2B
So, I draw your attention to concordance page you have for the greek word “cosmos:”
https://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm
My beef, which I will detail a little for you presently, is that the word “universe” appears on it at all; or at least that it appears unqualified. My suggestion is that the word “universe” gets a proper Christian dispute on that page, and (perhaps) wherever else it might be found on your site. Further, I can imagine us creating a whole link/page on “the Christian ‘universe’ dispute:” that would be really really sick!! (To be sure, I expect nothing to come of my effort here, like everywhere else I’ve tried.)
The term “universe” is non-scientific and anti-christian. Christians are unaware of the violence inherent in the term. When I say that the term “universe” is unscientific, I mean it literally and precisely: it itself is not scientifically useful, nor does it stand for any scientifically useful equation or theory. The closest one really comes is Einstein’s theory of general relativity, but one can accept Einstein’s (recursive) equation without accepting the metaphysical extension to “universe.” In fact, pluralism is a far more natural metaphysical extension to read in to the equation, especially when coupled to the fact that relativity and quantum mechanics have not been united, and especially especially when it is noted that a “background independent” quantum mechanics has not been found. The term “universe” is not the child of science, but metaphysics. Though metaphysics cannot be avoided, (popular) science looks upon it with derision. So, instead, they end up peddling really bad and indefensible metaphysics. Really, “universe” is an attempt to avoid metaphysics by assuming the answer and dis-allowing genuine questions, much less earnest investigation/consideration. So science has been stuck wandering in its own desert (for more than 40 years now).
When I say that “universe” is anti-christian I mean it profoundly. God and “universe” are mutually exclusive. Christians should know that “universe” is not scientifically proven (“yet”), and not even a scientific term at all (“at this point”). More, there are philosophical arguments that prove it absurd! It’s popular because it seems reasonable to common sense without any need for argument or study. But if the simple answer were the right answer we’d have all the answers by now. We don’t. “Universe” is fool’s gold. It would be really special if biblehub would take a stand.
The common-sense notion of “universe” that Christain and science-laymen hold alike, is that of a giant 3D space that objectively exists outside of people’s observation, and within which people live and work and play. People accept the term “universe” because it conforms to their “Newtonian” notions. But, Einstein’s revolutionary work, and what the hard-core scientists mean by “universe” is totally antithetical to Newtonian thinking. For them, “universe” is a 4D time-spanning thing. Consider the well-known (Einsteinian) notion of the “light cone.” The tip(s) of the light cone(s) are where the action of the present happens, but the unifying of everything only happens in the fullness of the (metaphysically extended) 4D (recursive) structure. When I say “fullness” I mean that literally and precisely too: it is only with the absolute fullness of all of all 4 dimensions that “the all” is unified into “universe.” “universe” is not a dynamic arena where things change and people grow. “Universe” is a static “crystal” of all that was, is, and will be – presumedly. There is no “gap” for free will, real people, or God, in “Universe.” Thankfully, “universe” is just really bad metaphysics.
Good metaphysics is knowable and available. Jesus is the master. For those who need a more formal academic defense, George Howison’s “The Limits of Evolution” has been in print since about 1900 (so it is free of copyright today). I won’t try to give a more detailed picture of personalism/idealism, “pluralistic” Xhristianity, at this point. If you would like to discuss this further, and I sure hope you do, I’d look forward to helping in any way I can going forward.
Sincerely,
Tim
raps...@fastmail.fm
“Love, too, now has its adequate definition: it is the all-directing intelligence which includes in its recognition a world of beings accorded free and seen as sacred, -- the primary and supreme act of intelligence, which is the source of all other intelligence, and whose object is that universal circle of spirits which, since the time of the Stoics, has so pertinently been called the City of God. Its contemplation of this sole object proper to it was fitly named by Dante and the great scholastics the Vision Beatific.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&pg=PA361#v=snippet&q=Love%2C%20too%2C%20now%20has%20its%20adequate%20definition&f=false
----- Original message -----
From: raps...@fastmail.fm
To: edi...@sciam.com
Subject: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
Date: Sunday, June 09, 2024 10:14 PM
Editor(s) of Scientific American,
My Name is Tim Rappl. This Tim Rappl: https://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.035702 . I have been long arguing that the term “universe” is absurd, but I have only very recently found the Planck quote I use below (https://archive.org/details/treatiseonthermo00planrich/page/100/mode/2up?view=theater). I beg you to earnestly consider (publishing) my proposed “letter to the editor:”
“
It’s high time we retire the term “universe.” It is an absurd abstraction if taken literally, and even when uttered casually it is detrimental to our working thoughts about life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds. We do an extreme disservice leading kids into thinking “universe” is a scientifically meaningful term. To be sure, there has been no proof of its veracity. Science remains a work-in-progress. We owe our kids a deep and profound apology.
In 1903 Max Planck wrote in his "Treatise on Thermodynamics" (at p.101 translated by Alexander Ogg), “The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.” Two years later Einstein published his special theory of relativity, where he demonstrated the math showing both the relativity of simultaneity and that, in general, spatially separated events are not causally related. It is 2024 and the term “universe” is (still) widely used among laymen and professional alike. Professional scientists should be embarrassed to utter the unwarranted (and unwarrantable) term “universe!” There is no universe. There is no singular copula uniting all that is, much less all that is, was, and will be. There is no such “universe.”
More than a century after Einstein “debunked” Newtonian mechanics, inadequate notions of 3D systems still plague all of science. Thermodynamics is clear that it applies only to equilibrium systems – systems where there is no tendency for change. We have no (general) science for non-equilibrium thermodynamic-like phenomena. Not only do we have no deterministic science governing phase change, we have no sign of hope for developing a deterministic science governing phase change. Science has (developed) no way to think (predictively) of systems outside (spatial) 3D. Thermodynamics will remain useful for determining certain limits of what we can hope to accomplish in reality, but the notions of system used to determine those limits do not model dynamic reality, they are theoretical devices, useful but ultimately inadequate to life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds.
I’m sure this isn’t the place for me to start explicating a positive picture of the philosophy and science that must take its place, but “universe” is demonstrated mis/dis-information and needs a vociferous disclaimer until it is replaced. There’s nothing new here; this shouldn’t be controversial. Let’s make it happen! Our kids are worth our repentance. Say it with me: there is no “universe.” Life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds are more interesting than we’ve been able to imagine so far!
”
Thank you,
Tim
raps...@fastmail.fm
CkU9k/m/d/msg/cxmplxplura/SKVjEy51Sjg/Z157LSGLBQAJ
Jul 9, 2024, 12:05:08 AM7/9/24
to cxmplxplura
raps...@fastmail.fm
Jul 9, 2024, 12:34:49 AM7/9/24
to in...@pastorrobert.com, senior...@gatewaypeople.com, cxmpl...@googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/g/cxmplxplura/c/4UtflX0L3pc
https://archive.ph/wip/88f1l https://pastorrobert.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20240703112001/https://pastorrobert.com/ https://archive.ph/wip/DvU85
https://archive.ph/Kxaga#https://web.archive.org/web/20240622022834/https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1dias3g/megachurch_pastor_admits_to_past_inappropriate/#
https://archive.ph/gvJo9#https://web.archive.org/web/20240618063932/https://www.iheart.com/content/2024-06-17-megachurch-pastor-admits-to-past-inappropriate-relationship-with-child/
https://archive.ph/wip/88f1l https://pastorrobert.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20240703112001/https://pastorrobert.com/ https://archive.ph/wip/DvU85
https://archive.ph/Kxaga#https://web.archive.org/web/20240622022834/https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1dias3g/megachurch_pastor_admits_to_past_inappropriate/#
https://archive.ph/gvJo9#https://web.archive.org/web/20240618063932/https://www.iheart.com/content/2024-06-17-megachurch-pastor-admits-to-past-inappropriate-relationship-with-child/
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cxmplxplura" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cxmplxplura...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cxmplxplura/3c162d7f-79c9-4bad-bfb0-4709ee1475c8n%40googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages