Praying to the Father; thoughts on the Holy Spirit & the Trinity
Michael Sellers
talk.religion.misc too. Apologies to all Easily Offended Followers of the
Towel of Turneep, Et Al. :-)]
> [On Prayer and Saints]
>> See John 16:23-27, esp. v.23 (along the the lines of 'if you ask the Father
>> for anything he will give it to you in my name' (Jesus speaking)), and also
>> the text of the Lords Prayer, which I take to be a template for our prayers.
>
> Obviously one point of difference, since I would say an example rather than a
> template.
I think we are saying the same thing. It is not a limiting thing, but is the
basic form you ought to observe. What you say in a specific prayer depends
on a lot of other things. As an example/template though, this is the way to
go with prayer.
>[...] Now, I stand open to correction on these points, and welcome it, but
>it also seems to me that the ``Our Father'' is also a short and simple prayer,
> free of grandeloquence, without long litanies, and that Jesus was talking about
> people who make a big display of their prayers when he gave us this prayer.
> (I'm also open to correction on this point; I'm at work and have not got a
> NT handy)
I don't know the text of the "Our Father" prayer (not the same as what
Protestants call The Lord's Prayer, is it?), but I believe the passage you
are talking about is in Mark (6:6 I think). Interestingly enough, this is
another place where he explicitly talks about praying to the Father ("when
you pray to your Father who is in secret, pray also in secret" or something
like that, from the NAS translation and my memory :-).
>> Jesus explicitly says to pray to God the Father. He (Jesus) never said that we
>> should pray *to* him, only to the Father in his name. The Holy Spirit is
>> supposed to be a companion and a comforter, but not one to whom one prays.
>
> I understand your point on a rational level; on the other hand if Creator,
> Redeemer, and Spirit are one and coequal, it seems an overnice point that
> we may/should pray to God as Father but not as Holy Spirit, especially since
> Jesus emphasized His oneness with the Father.
Now this is an interesting point. The idea and doctrine of the Trinity is
found nowhere in the Bible. I am not sure, but I believe it evolved from
one of the Bishop's Councils 'round about 300-500 A.D.. I also think that the
idea of the Trinity that some people accept (one God, one being, three
different manifestations) is mistaken. The verses where Jesus talks about
himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit make it clear (to me) that we have
here three separate beings (call them one God if you wish; I think at this
level it is little more than word play) who jointly participate as God, joined
in purpose but with different emphases. I know this is almost heresy for
many Christians (my mother, for example), and yet I believe the N.T. bears
me out. Certainly the references to the nature of God in the Gospel of John,
during the stoning of Stephen, during John's Apocalyptic revelation, and in
Jesus' own speech are open to interpretation at the very least.
Given that I believe that God the Father is a separate being from Jesus
(the Son) and the Holy Spirit (the Comforter), it is not difficult to see
why I believe that Jesus is being quite specific in his statements about
praying to the Father ass opposed to anyone else.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
--
Mike Sellers
UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes
INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL
IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
Paul M Koloc
>>>Jesus explicitly says to pray to God the Father. He (Jesus) never said
>>>that we should pray *to* him, only to the Father in his name. The Holy
>>>Spirit is supposed to be a companion and a comforter, but not one to
>>>whom one prays.
>>I understand your point on a rational level; on the other hand if Creator,
>>Redeemer, and Spirit are one and coequal, it seems an overnice point that
>>we may/should pray to God as Father but not as Holy Spirit, especially since
>>Jesus emphasized His oneness with the Father.
In article <76...@tekecs.UUCP> mi...@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes:
>.. . . . .... . . .... .. . I also think that the
>idea of the Trinity that some people accept (one God, one being, three
>different manifestations) is mistaken.
>.. . . ..... .. .... The verses where Jesus talks about
>himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit make it clear (to me) that we have
>here three separate beings (call them one God if you wish; I think at this
>level it is little more than word play) who jointly participate as God, joined
>in purpose but with different emphases.
The problem with understanding how three can be one is that science
has not yet found the cosmology to explain it. GOD (The Father)
exists only in one dimensional space and he fills it infinitely.
Angels (and our souls) exist in two dimensional space and occupy
a space of area. By our own senses our physical bodies exist
here in three dimensional space. Now GOD can extend HIMSELF into
the second and third dimensional space, while still maintaining
HIS EXISTENCE in One Space. To extend in this way HE actually takes
on substance in those two other domains. That substance in our
space is matter and in two space is hypermatter. But as much as
we are one being which includes a hypermatter soul and a matter
body GOD too is ONE. This is a GRAND thing for GOD to do since,
otherwise, we would be deprived of DIRECT contact with GOD, since
we can only respond to substance of our own type.
PRAYER is petition or a requesting communication. If I had
telepathic powers and could communicate "concepts" directly from
my soul to the soul of another, then I would be aware of the
others point of view and know that I had "gotten through".
But, now that only comes by speaking from my soul through my body
and vice versa with another human. My concepts have to be
translated or represented by picture mosaics of "words". Now
the idea may have been encoded and decoded okay and then again
maybe not.
By analogy consider a stone mosaic of an apple tree with red
green brown blue white and black stones making up the scene of
leaves, branches, apples, grasses, sky and clouds. The red
stones would easily be recognized as "apples". But they are
not and eating them could break your teeth. So be careful
reading the "mosaics" of the Bible. Look for the "reality"
pictured not the picture.
When we address each other do we say, "Hey brain of bill, would
you please help me with this programming problem?" ? If you
"feel" like you need help with some deficit you have and it
seems easier to ask mental image Christ, I'm sure the mail will
get to the "Center of Power".
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; p...@prometheus.UUCP | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
Padraig Houlahan
>
> The problem with understanding how three can be one is that science
> has not yet found the cosmology to explain it.
This is not a problem for science. 3 feet is 1 yard not 3 yards; the
only way 3 can "be" 1 is to write 3X = 1Y and note that X != Y where X and Y
are different classes (omitting X=Y=0 case). You are just "squaring the circle"
when you try to have X=Y != 0.
Actually the posting is quite instructive. It is a classic example of
the confusion, frequently exhibited by pseudo-scientists, as to what
constitutes an "explanation". In this gem, the unexplained is introduced
as exotic unsubstantiated assertions and definitions, in order to explain
that which is unexplained.
> GOD (The Father)
> exists only in one dimensional space and he fills it infinitely.
-Assertion /Definition
> Angels (and our souls) exist in two dimensional space and occupy
> a space of area.
-Assertion /Definition
>... Now GOD can extend HIMSELF into the second and third dimensional space,
> while still maintaining HIS EXISTENCE in One Space.
-Assertion /Definition
> To extend in this way HE actually takes
> on substance in those two other domains.
-Assertion /Definition
> That substance in our space is matter and in two space is hypermatter.
-Definition
> But as much as we are one being which includes a hypermatter soul and a
> matter body GOD too is ONE.
-Assertion
>... This is a GRAND thing for GOD to do since,
> otherwise, we would be deprived of DIRECT contact with GOD, since
> we can only respond to substance of our own type.
-Assertion
Introducing 7 unexplained assertions/definitions to explain away your
pet irrationalities, that you don't understand, just doesn't cut it.
Padraig Houlahan.
Charles Hedrick
doctrine is not a mathematical mystery. At least in the Western
tradition, we not trying to bend your mind to the point where you
think 3 = 1 (as unfortunately presentations of the doctrine all too
often try to do). In the West, the Trinity is seen primarily as a
matter of relationship. (Lest you think I am preaching some modern
Liberalism, let me note that this all goes back to Augustine, shortly
after 400 A.D.) That is, we say God is love. But how could there be
love within a single entity? Of course a unitary God could love human
beings. But that would imply that love was in some sense "foreign" to
God, i.e. that it was not possible for him until something outside of
him existed to love. However Christians believe that God is calling
us into a relationship of love that is an eternal part of God's own
life. Consider also the gift that Christ gives us. We are called to
a life of joyful obedience. Again, it might be that this obedience is
something that entered the universe only when creatures appeared,
since until then there was nobody who needed to obey. But Christians
believe that our entire relationship with God is itself a gift from
God. Christ is the only one who could really carry out the human role
fully. We do so only to the extent that we live through him. But
Christians see Christ as God made visible. So what are we to
conclude? It is that God must not be as simple as one might first
think. He has within him the relationship of love. He has within him
that which obeys as well as that which is master. In short, the
relationship of love into which he calls us is something that is
intrinsic to him. For Augustine, and much of the Western tradition,
this is the heart of the Trinity. We tend to start with the concept
of God as one, and add just as much internal definition as it takes to
get the ability to have a relationship within God. Unfortunately,
when Augustine was writing (around 400), the concept "relationship"
was not as well understood as it is now (either in mathematics or in
human relationships). So he spends a lot of time talking around his
subject and giving analogies. But it is fairly clear that for him the
3 Persons are defined solely by their mutual relationship. Consider:
"It was shown that not all that is predicated of God denotes
substance, as do the predicates "good" and "great" and any others
denoting what he is in himself; but that there are also predicates of
relation, denoting not what he is in himself but what he is in
relation to something which is not himself; as he is called Father in
relation to the Son, or Lord in relation to the creature that is
subject to him." (De Trinitate, XV, 5 (iii), summarizing the argument
of chap V) So "there is a trinity of mutually related persons and a
unity of equal substance." (De Trinitate, IX, 1) The rest of book IX
meanders about trying to give us a better idea of what he means by
things being mutually related. It is that they are constituted only
by their relationship to each other.
The argument so far might seem to lead to a binity, rather than a
trinity. However the Holy Spirit is also part of the relationship.
To characterize him in a single sentence, I would quote Augustine:
"..his being suggests to us that mutual charity whereby the Father and
the Son love one another." (De Trinitate, XV, 27 (xvii))
I should warn you that the explanation I have just given is in some
sense an extremist Western explanation. As the West tends to start
with one God and derive the Persons from relationship, the East tends
to start with three Persons, and show that they constitute a single
God. It seems to me that the 3 = 1 arguments are far more appropriate
in the Eastern context. However I am so far from being able to
understand the Eastern view that I am not even going to try to
summarize it. Any time I try it comes out as tritheism, but I have it
on good authority that it was not intended that way.
Paul M Koloc
In article <12...@utastro.UUCP> pad...@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>Actually the posting is quite instructive. It is a classic example of
>the confusion, frequently exhibited by pseudo-scientists, as to what
>constitutes an "explanation". In this gem, the unexplained is introduced
>as exotic unsubstantiated assertions and definitions, in order to explain
>that which is unexplained.
Padraig H. repeats seven definitions (see below) given in an innovative
hypothesis which extends cosmology to include a place for "spiritural
beings" including GOD, and even the somewhat baffling problem of the
Trinity. NOTE: tri + unity.
What was particularly upsetting to Houlahan was the number of new
definitions and that no "explanation" was given. The reason for that
was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology
and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group.
Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look
around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. The generalized
physics of the substances can be interpolated from ordinary physics and
calculus. The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of
our space and two space is not. Also only one object can exist in one
space. That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges"; and
since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided"
into segments like lines in two space can. Consequently, only a single
entity can occupy one dimensional space. Incidentally, zero dimension is
a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because
lines can "intersect").
Then too we can estimate the "time" characteristics of this substance.
This is "interpolation" from the time characteristics of ordinary matter,
but it seems not at all unreasonable. That is that since the matter has
"infinite density" time passes at a "zero" rate. OR as I explained else
where, it means that the "real present time" expands in width infinitely
into both the future and the past. That means the substance exists
simultaneously at all times. That's not the case for our matter (less
then 10^-24seconds). Note that I didn't develop any reason for the
"infinite density of matter" in that space, but I can do that another time.
Think that it takes energy to compress a "coil spring" or an elastic ball.
Now think of the how much energy it would take to compress all of the
nucleii (little powerful elastic balls) into an line of infintismal volume.
Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's
GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy
/information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of
a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD. Well sort of NOT... it's that old trickle
down theory, since 2 space and hypermatter "spilled forth" from 1-space, it
all can be traced backed to GOD the Ultimate source. Then too since time
is quantized, information frames are refreshed at enormous rates, so that
the Creator has his finger on things always. Another "religous" result is
that there has to have been at least two creations. Try to find that in
the Bible!
On the science side, there are some really new, predictable and "measurable"
things that fall out like the magnetic field densities on rapidly spinning
and precessing neutron stars, that "multinegative nucleii" (Helium and
heavier) are unstable and can NOT exist, and a few other nifty little
goodies.
So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces
and that the one space substance looks DIVINE.
These SEVEN definitions could be generlized to a couple of simple statements.
Do you want to try if for us Houlihan.
(Skip the followin > and >> stuff)
Apparently, our position, being at the center of the universe is
being threatened again.
"Oh dear, I thought the two lesser spaces were empty."
"Shucks, Come to think of it
I never even gave it a thought."
Padraig Houlahan
> definitions and that no "explanation" was given. The reason for that
> was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology
> and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group.
The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology -
in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of
angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum.
> Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look
> around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. The generalized
> physics of the substances can be interpolated from ordinary physics and
> calculus.
I'll bet.
> ... The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of
> our space and two space is not. Also only one object can exist in one
> space. That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges"; and
> since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided"
> into segments like lines in two space can. Consequently, only a single
> entity can occupy one dimensional space. Incidentally, zero dimension is
> a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because
> lines can "intersect").
This is garbage for the following reasons:
- You are confusing mathematical constructs - lines, surfaces, volumes-
which are used to MODEL the physical world, with the physical world.
- Mathematically, a line perhaps may be treated as being infinitely
thin, however in physics no substance is known to be infinitely thin.
Physicists are limited in their ability to resolve detail by the
famous Uncertainty Principle. The nearest physical construct you
could construct would be to refer to a line of particles, however
there are no infinitely small particles that I'm aware of.
- A 1-dimensional system can have gradients along it.
- A 1-dimensional system can have edges i.e. {x| 0.0 <= x <= 1.0} has
edges at 0.0 and 1.0.
- A 1-dimensional system can be cut and divided ie the previous set
can be partitioned into {x | 0.0 <= x <= 0.5} and {x| 0.5 < x <= 1.0}.
- "can" and "might" are not the same. Even if we were to go off the
deep end and go along with you, why SHOULD an "entity" exist there?
But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now
allows for an infinite number of "entities".
- Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the
hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into
an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still
permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to
exist.
To some extent I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I am assuming
that you understand that lines are 1-dim objects, points have zero dim. etc.
in spite of the fact that there is evidence that you are confused even at this
level. If this is the case I won't press the edge/gradient/partition
objections above.
> Then too we can estimate the "time" characteristics of this substance.
> This is "interpolation" from the time characteristics of ordinary matter,
> but it seems not at all unreasonable. That is that since the matter has
> "infinite density" time passes at a "zero" rate.
How did you "interpolate" this result from "time characteristics of ordinary
matter"? What are the "time characteristics of ordinary matter"?
>...OR as I explained else
> where, it means that the "real present time" expands in width infinitely
> into both the future and the past.
Really? Can you give us an example of "artifical present time"? Or of time
that doesn't "expand in width"?
> Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's
> GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy
> /information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of
> a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD. Well sort of NOT... it's that old trickle
> down theory, since 2 space and hypermatter "spilled forth" from 1-space, it
> all can be traced backed to GOD the Ultimate source. Then too since time
> is quantized, information frames are refreshed at enormous rates, so that
> the Creator has his finger on things always. Another "religous" result is
> that there has to have been at least two creations. Try to find that in
> the Bible!
>
> On the science side, there are some really new, predictable and "measurable"
> things that fall out like the magnetic field densities on rapidly spinning
> and precessing neutron stars, that "multinegative nucleii" (Helium and
> heavier) are unstable and can NOT exist, and a few other nifty little
> goodies.
As a result of your "cosmology" or that which astronomers and physicists
dabble in?
> So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces
> and that the one space substance looks DIVINE.
>
> These SEVEN definitions could be generlized to a couple of simple statements.
> Do you want to try if for us Houlihan.
I don't have to try and make sense of someone else's garbage.
> "Oh dear, I thought the two lesser spaces were empty."
> "Shucks, Come to think of it
> I never even gave it a thought."
You can say that again.
Padraig Houlahan.
Stephen Nahm
Sender:
In article <2...@prometheus.UUCP>, in defense of a set of assertions and
definitions which he gave to try to justify God, the Trinity and ???,
p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>What was particularly upsetting to Houlahan was the number of new
>definitions and that no "explanation" was given. The reason for that
>was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology
>and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group.
>
>Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look
>around for "strange things" to put in these strange places.
I *think* what you're saying is that one-space, two-space, three-space and
the Big Bang come from scientific hypotheses, and you then tried to hang
God, the Trinity, Angels and Man onto it.
This doesn't address Praig's criticism. What you in fact are doing is
dreaming up a cosmology that would like to tie God and the Big Bang theory
together. What it appears that you are doing is taking the scientific
hypothese of the Big Bang and deriving God, the Trinity, Angels and Man.
Which do *you* think you're trying to do?
Mr. Koloc proceeds with additional pseudo-scientific hand-waving, and ends
with:
>Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's
>GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy
>/information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of
>a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD. Well sort of NOT...
and
>So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces
>and that the one space substance looks DIVINE.
The Big Bang theory indeed cannot explain what events preceded it. If you
take the Big Bang theory to be true, you can try to explain what caused
it by inventing a "god" and saying that "god started it". If you do this,
you have *defined* "god" to mean "that which caused the Big Bang." If you
then want to extrapolate Souls, Angels, and the Trinity from this god, well
good luck. You're not going to do it by appealing to physics.
Since "god" generally refers to a supernatural being, I'd caution against
trying to tie god to the Big Bang (a (theoretically) natural phenomenon).
Better to say "some unknown natural phenomenon caused the Big Bang" and
leave it at that.
--
Steve Nahm UUCP route: {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm
sxn...@ubvax.UUCP Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxn...@decwrl.DEC.COM
Joel Rives
Which Eastern view were you referring to?
--
Joel Rives
gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr
{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ ^ }-------{ * }
There is no place to seek the mind;
It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky.
{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }--------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }
Paul M Koloc
>in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of
>angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum.
>
>> Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look
>> around for "strange things" to put in these strange places.
Scanning quickly ahead I notice that Padraig has probed the
cracks and crevices quite well so this could get a little long
and it probably isn't the kind of thing that would interest the
casual or strictly "classical religious" types with rather fixed
and already personally satisfying or complete answers to theological
and human concepts. The response has been split in 2 long articles.
A word to the wise---
One of the common difficulties noted relates to a tangle of different
meanings of concepts when they are visualized in a mathematical space
or a real physical space. Real here means one that is NOT idealized.
Now let's get on with it. Before the angels and souls got in the
picture, the hypothesis was constructed for other reasons.
To be a viable hypothesis and be able to provide the "energy/information"
source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain
requirements. First the source had to logically predate the big
bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than
that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical
universe. The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been
able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open"
within physical space that could do the trick.
>
>> ... The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of
>> our space and two space is not. Also only one object can exist in one
>> space. That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges"; and
>> since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided"
>> into segments like lines in two space can. Consequently, only a single
>> entity can occupy one dimensional space. Incidentally, zero dimension is
>> a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because
>> lines can "intersect").
>This is garbage for the following reasons:
> - You are confusing mathematical constructs - lines, surfaces, volumes
> which are used to MODEL the physical world, with the physical world.
It is true that such constructs do model the "physical three-space world"
and I am using them also to model the three manifolds of one, two and
three dimensional space, of which the physical world is just one (latter).
> - Mathematically, a line perhaps may be treated as being infinitely
> thin, however in physics no substance is known to be infinitely thin.
> Physicists are limited in their ability to resolve detail by the
> famous Uncertainty Principle. The nearest physical construct you
> could construct would be to refer to a line of particles, however
> there are no infinitely small particles that I'm aware of.
Yes, that is very true in physical three space. Because our space
contains a limited amount of information, a location can not be
infinitely precise. Our space is in fact "grainy". This is why
particles have "width" to "smooth" out the otherwise discontinuous
space. I can hear the "mathematical physicists' screams" already
but we'll just ignore them for the time being. So our space is
"quasi continuous" "particle-wise".
This isn't the case with G.. . oops let's back up and get out
of the trap of physical world.
We are used to being a little arrogant with our point of view,
which currently is the "3 space" and the physical world is the
the only one. Used to be the world was flat and the earth was
the center.. we've been making progress but we're not There yet.
The problem with the next set of observations is they don't apply
to a one dimensional space, they apply to a one dimensional line
embedded in a three dimensional space. There's a great difference.
We know that gradients exist in three space, and a line can be
considered to be a cut through the gradient so that gradients can
exist along lines. Of course such lines get their properties
from the three space, and not one space.
If I have a scissors, I can cut a thread pulled taut by a friend.
Also, two straight lines can be drawn to intersect in a plane.
That means that points and zones can be identified along lines
because of "externally originating cuts" or "coordinates".
But in one dimensional space cuts can NOT occur, simply because
there are no intersecting lines.
> - A 1-dimensional system can have gradients along it.
An embedded one can, that BTW does NOT have an infinite density.
> - A 1-dimensional system can have edges i.e. {x| 0.0 <= x <= 1.0} has
> edges at 0.0 and 1.0.
>
> - A 1-dimensional system can be cut and divided ie the previous set
> can be partitioned into {x | 0.0 <= x <= 0.5} and {x| 0.5 < x <= 1.0}.
At this point, Part I is finished; this is continued in Part II.
Then we knew we're here, and
now we know we're there 'n TWO;
So what does it take to switch
our precious physical point of view?
W. pooh
Paul M Koloc
>in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of
>angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum.
>
>> Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look
>> around for "strange things" to put in these strange places.
Let's look at the "physical problem" and assume that the one
space of "Divine substance" (no volume) is embedded in our grainy
three space physical world. How do you find it? How do you cut
it??? How do you cut an infinitely dense infinitesimal width with
a "grainy" cut line. One space could simply exist between the grains
without any measure (physical contact).
> - "can" and "might" are not the same. Even if we were to go off the
> deep end and go along with you, why SHOULD an "entity" exist there?
If this substance did exist there at all, it must exist there at
all times because of its nature. If it never existed there then
it never existed and doesn't exist now, and there was no juice to
generate the substance of two and then three dimensional space,
and we don't exist. Compared to the density of one space, we're
just a fleeting grainy few frames on a television boob tube, anyway.
> But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now
> allows for an infinite number of "entities".
Yes, a "line" can, in two and three space, but that is not the case in
one space.
> - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the
> hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into
> an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still
> permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to
> exist.
Well in mathematical space you can believe (construct) almost anything,
assume infinite information densities, continuity point wise, ..etc.
But in the REAL physical world there isn't an infinite amount of
information, so, it must be that our space is somehow nested
in one dimension rather than vice versa.
>To some extent I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I am assuming
>that you understand that lines are 1-dim objects, points have zero dim. etc.
>in spite of the fact that there is evidence that you are confused even at this
>level. If this is the case I won't press the edge/gradient/partition
>objections above.
>
Well that's very kind, and who knows maybe I'm getting "old timers
disease". :-)
>> Then too we can estimate the "time" characteristics of this substance.
>> This is "interpolation" from the time characteristics of ordinary matter,
>> but it seems not at all unreasonable. That is that since the matter has
>> "infinite density" time passes at a "zero" rate.
>
>How did you "interpolate" this result from "time characteristics of ordinary
>matter"? What are the "time characteristics of ordinary matter"?
The general science that is currently taught is sloppy and
doesn't bother to consider such a dimension as time and "see"
a particles "symmetry" in space and time. It's really nifty, and
the meaning of things like charge and gravity fall out very
nicely. But that's another newsgroup.
The only aspects we need are the concept that a typical particle
has a distribution in time as well as space, and the "width" of
the time distribution can be calculated from the Heisenberg's
relation of uncertainy, where the energy is related to the mass
of the neutron. The inverse of the time width is the "number" of
times or frequency it is recreated each second.
Now this can vary even in our physical universe because it takes
time to "recalculate" the particle's next created location and
that time depends on the total number of grains that have to be
"processed" on each recreation. The numbers go up when the
particle drops into a denser and denser gravity field or is being
accelerated close to the speed of light. The latter is the result
of the particle intercepting nearly as many grains as it can
"recalculate" during its flight through the background fields.
Consequently, it takes a longer time to obtain information that the
accelerating particle should be moving "faster". At the speed of
light it can't go faster because it can't make another recalculation!
The "relativistic mass" is related to the number of grains it interacts
with as it flies through the background fields at nearly the
speed of light.
Anyway that is an interesting aside, because what is important is
that time of existence "real present time" expands into the future
and the past as the "energy density goes up". The frequency or
"particle framing rate" slows down, correspondingly.
The second important thing that takes place during acceleration
is contraction into a more "planar" shape normal to the direction
of acceleration. Now to become infinitely "thin" the energy
expended would have to be infinite. That's not necessary because
all that is required is that the object become "thin enough" to
"slip between the grains" and it will then "quantum mechanically"
disappear into "hypermatter and two dimensional space".
That means the energy density of hyper matter is very large, and
angels must be very "strong"; my guess is that they would be
something up to the level of a "freshly born quasar" in
equivalent punch. The possibility of an angel or the Holy
Spirit "withdrawing" his physical body (Jesus) into 2 space
is just as likely as the extrusion of a physical body into three
space from the conversion of hyper energy to matter. Of course,
the latter causes a big pop from the air displacement as
witnessed by the apostles when Jesus appeared "though the doors
were shut". I think they described it as a "big wind".
Now if a substance greatly increases its density from 3 to 2
dimensions then it's consistent that it would increase if hypermatter
were supercompressed into a line in two space. That means:
When it comes to GOD, .. .oops I mean Divine Matter.. forget
it, AWESOME .. just doesn't even start to define it.
>>...OR as I explained else
>> where, it means that the "real present time" expands in width infinitely
>> into both the future and the past.
>
>Really? Can you give us an example of "artificial present time"? Or of time
>that doesn't "expand in width"?
Cute! I mean to say not a "modeled result" but a real actual occurring
sort of thing.
>As a result of your "cosmology" or that which astronomers and physicists
>dabble in?
I think you want to know if Carl Sagan approves? I am sure he might
since he spouts hypotheses that are just as colorful and even more
controversial. On his recent NOVA appearances he put forth the concept
of "black holes", which haven't exactly made themselves very evident,
may in fact, be "shrinking to nothingness" or so small that they slip
out of our universe. He didn't say where, but then he might have - -
I wasn't paying too much attention. (yawn)
Paul was just glad that He only threw a lightning bolt!
Padraig Houlahan
>
> source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain
> requirements. First the source had to logically predate the big
> bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
> interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
> universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
> thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than
> that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
> should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical
> universe. The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been
> able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open"
> within physical space that could do the trick.
Here we have it. You can't find what you want to see (i.e. a creator to do
the "trick") hence you conjure up spaces to squeeze him into to satisfy
your bias.
Also, covering assertions with more assertions is irritating to me.
Where did you get the idea that any of this has to do with quasars?
Why not seyfert galaxies?
Why should the energy density be greater than that of our physical universe?
All I see here is strings of buzz-words thrown together in an attempt to
explain away that which you don't understand. You are using phrases
like "low interaction cross-section" to protect your theories from
examination.
Padraig Houlahan.
Padraig Houlahan
> >> ...
> In article <12...@utastro.UUCP> pad...@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
> >The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology -
> >in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of
> >angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum.
> >
>
> space of "Divine substance" (no volume) is embedded in our grainy
> three space physical world.
Let's not. I'm still waiting for a good reason to expect it to exist.
>
> If this substance did exist there at all, it must exist there at
> all times because of its nature. If it never existed there then
> it never existed and doesn't exist now, and there was no juice to
> generate the substance of two and then three dimensional space,
> and we don't exist. Compared to the density of one space, we're
> just a fleeting grainy few frames on a television boob tube, anyway.
More assertions:
- "juice "
- three space came from two, and two from one...
- infinite density of one space (implied)
> > But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now
> > allows for an infinite number of "entities".
>
> Yes, a "line" can, in two and three space, but that is not the case in
> one space.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any 1 dimensional space can be partitioned into sub spaces.
> > - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the
> > hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into
> > an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still
> > permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to
> > exist.
>
> Well in mathematical space you can believe (construct) almost anything,
> assume infinite information densities, continuity point wise, ..etc.
> But in the REAL physical world there isn't an infinite amount of
> information, so, it must be that our space is somehow nested
> in one dimension rather than vice versa.
More assertions?
-Finiteness of the "REAL physical world"'s information
-Three dimensional space is subset of a one dimensional space
I'm not going to spend any more time on this. You are not just covering
assertions with assertions but are also attempting "proof by repeated
assertion".
Padraig Houlahan.
Paul M Koloc
>> ...
>> To be a viable hypothesis and be able to provide the "energy/information"
>> source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain
>> requirements. First the source had to logically predate the big
>> bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
>> interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
>> universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
>> thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than
>> that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
>> should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical
>> universe. The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been
>> able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open"
>> within physical space that could do the trick.
>
No! No! No! Paddy! The Creator Substance CAN'T be physical matter
without upsetting the nature of matter. Also, an "alien substance"
co-existing with physical matter would still raise havoc with the
"universality of the "laws of physics" here in three space. We don't
expect Him, and therefore want NOT to see him "face to face" here in
this space. Now, if we DID FIND the CREATOR SUBSTANCE here in 3-space,
then I would have problems accepting the data until I really triple
checked it myself. I couldn't help but think that it was not a logical
way for THE GOD, and so perhaps it may be an intermediate form such as
an angel. I would take a long and hard look before I "worship".
>..you conjure up spaces to squeeze him into to satisfy your bias.
It's quite reasonable to expect that since three space exists (as
known from conscious physical experience) that the simpler spaces
of one and two probably exist too. Also, since likewise we know
that substance exists in 3-space, unique substances also are likely
to exist in the two lesser spaces.
So rest a little easier Padraig, I didn't "conjure" them up, in
spite of any rumors you may have heard about my being Druish.
The energy/information density is "postulated" as being infinite
for the one space substance. That's reasonable because two space
is intermediate in density, 1 space is the beginning, and we can
expect that time is omnichronous. Such densities can be located
in an infinitesimal (no volume) 1-space and "no squeezing" is
required. The squeezing I mentioned in a previous posting was
probably to point out the increase in energy and density with
loss of volume (area).
>Also, covering assertions with more assertions is irritating to me.
Gee, just like physics, huh?. Generalize, and find those assertions
that make sense and you can accept as "a possible scenario". Then
let's work on the others and perhaps you could suggest modifications
that would make even better sense. Although I know this is possible,
I also know that I could win the lottery if Padraig buys a ticket for
me. This is NOT a theory it is DOGMA. :-) Just kidding folks. The
operative word here is "HYPOTHESIS" and not dogma.
>Where did you get the idea that any of this has to do with quasars?
They are big energy "consumers" indicating high density. If the big
bang was caused by a "decay of a chunk of hypermatter" than it is
possible that a secondary "wave" also released much smaller and
scattered "micro-shocks or sparks" which may have generated the dense
initial energy that these things are made of.
>Why not seyfert galaxies?
Aren't Seyfert galaxies related to quasars or are "later stages" of quasars???
>Why should the energy density be greater than that of our physical universe?
It's consistent with what we know from thermo and hydrodynamics.
High Energy / (unit space) == pressure == force / (unit boundary space)
Want to make a big Ka-boom? Then suddenly release "pent up energy".
>All I see here is strings of buzz-words thrown together in an attempt to
>explain away that which you don't understand. You are using phrases
>like "low interaction cross-section" to protect your theories from
>examination.
I am sorry you think that. Cross-sections can be measured, and I think
that there is evidence for the "graininess" of "gravity fields". (MTW)
Paul M Koloc
>>In article <12...@utastro.UUCP> pad...@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>> >The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology -
>> >in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of
>> >angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum.
>> >
>>
>> Let's look at the "physical problem" and assume that the one
>> space of "Divine substance" (no volume) is embedded in our grainy
>> three space physical world.
>
Your point of view assumes that one dimensional space is a line
in three space, and that an infinite number of these lines can be
produced (see > paragraphs below).
What I wanted to point out here is that even IF we consider that
one space becomes embedded in three space after the "big bang
creation" of three space then we must look at the "physical"
interactions. Since the infinitesimal one space "slips
between the grains of 3 space", there can be no interaction, no
measure, and therefore, One Space can NOT be embedded in three
space. For a space to be embedded, it must be contiguous.
>> If this substance did exist there at all, it must exist there at
>> all times because of its nature. If it never existed there then
>> it never existed and doesn't exist now, and there was no juice to
>> generate the substance of two and then three dimensional space,
>> and we don't exist. Compared to the density of one space, we're
>> just a fleeting grainy few frames on a television boob tube, anyway.
>More assertions:
> - "juice "
I think it was quite clear from the start that this cosmology was
first conceived to explain the "source of the 'juice' that fueled
the big bang creation of our physical three dimensional universe".
Generalizing that concept doesn't really "add" assertions.
> - three space came from two, and two from one...
Yes, and it's logically consistent and easily generalized.
> - infinite density of one space (implied)
This is indeed postulated.
>
>> > But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now
>> > allows for an infinite number of "entities".
>>
>> Yes, a "line" can, in two and three space, but that is not the case in
>> one space.
>NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you have one, right! Congratulations!
>Any 1 dimensional space can be partitioned into sub spaces.
That's not true.
A purely 1 dimensional space not embedded in higher spaces can NOT
be subdivided or partitioned. Lines existing in two or higher spaces
can be partitioned, simply because other lines can intersect them,
which are also embedded in the same higher space.
There doesn't exist a partitioning "element" (an intersecting line)
in a purely NON-embedded one dimensional space.
>> > - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the
>> > hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into
>> > an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still
>> > permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to
>> > exist.
>More assertions?
> -Finiteness of the "REAL physical world"'s information
> -Three dimensional space is subset of a one dimensional space
Well, if the first is true the second is feasible. Every
astrological student such as yourself, Padraig, knows that the
universe has a limited amount of mass and and a limited size.
Now that can imply a finite number of particles, positions, etc
and ... . . Voila! information. Isn't that possibly true.
>I'm not going to spend any more time on this. You are not just covering
>assertions with assertions but are also attempting "proof by repeated
>assertion".
Mssr. Padraig Houlahan.
I don't think you are giving your brain and soul a fair shake here.
Generalize the assertions! Please, do it! Stretch that brain
muscle. This is in the "conceptual" stage, and as far as "proof"
goes, I'm to battered to believe that such things have much value
except on a very personal level.
Then remember this is NOT DOGMA, it's not a THEORY, it is a
hypothesis. For the time being, only one leg of it is open to
scientific investigation. That will change, in a century or two.
And before that you'll be able to personally investigate another
leg, yourself, first hand. I hope
Good bye and best regards, Paul