Re:Christianity - 2006/04/11 06:11A response to questions arising from the perspective of materialism and determinism. That is there is only material things and all things follow from cause and effect. That there is no "mind" except the brain and that nothing precedes to a final cause and there is no free will.
Our current understanding and modes of representation of the regimes of experience represented in modules C and T and, to a lesser degree, by the upper portions of U and I and their communications with C and T , while imperfect, probably are adequate to support this stage of our conceptual pursuit of the M^5 model. The more crucial regime for further theoretical development and refinement is that where the deepest-lying levels of the unconscious mental and intangible physical sectors merge into some autonomous, holistic amalgam where, in the words of Fred Hoyle, “mind and matter meld.”(30) It is a misty world of innumerable abstract variables, where space and time have not yet been defined, let alone distinguished, where information waits to be born, and where all of our common material and mental metaphors fail. It is the “unus mundus” of Carl Jung, from which emerged his family of archetypes and their associated experiential synchronicities. It is the “ultimate reality” of Bernard d’Espagnat; the “causa sui” of Baruch Spinoza; the “preestablished harmony” of Gottfried Leibniz; the “unbroken symmetry” of Eugene Wigner and his successors. Into this region plunge from one side the most phantasmagoric experiences of human consciousness, and from the other the most abstract mathematical formalisms constructed by human consciousness, both groping in the dark for some coherent validity, some mutually consistent reification of their disparate semantics.
It is not our purpose here to attempt any detailed review or critical assessment of either of these two mixing epistemological streams. What is more critically needed is some ontological grasp, however imperfect, of the properties of their merged state. In this regard, we have found most stimulating the work of Harald Atmanspacher and his colleagues which has endeavored to display the essential unity between the conceptual representations of depth psychology and those of quantum physics, in a somewhat similar tone to that first displayed by Jung and Pauli.(31) In his cogent and courageous article entitled “Mind and Matter as Asymptotically Disjoint, Inequivalent Representations with Broken Time-Reversal Symmetry,”(32) Atmanspacher provides a comprehensive review and reference list of pertinent philosophical, psychological, and physical attention to this topic, and introduces the provocative possibility that the emergence of separate regimes of mind and matter from their underlying automorphic domain might be associated with the breaking of the time-reversal symmetry that prevails in this distinction-free zone. Upon emergence into the more sharply defined epistemic sectors, the future-directed temporal dynamics would, as usual, represent the causal, deterministic evolution of material states from initial conditions. The mathematically equivalent backwardgoing representations, conventionally disregarded in natural science applications, then would be available for characterization of the evolution of mental states that are teleologically responsive to some “final causation.” If such an interpretation is valid, it re-opens the door to a full complementarity of mind and matter in the establishment of reality, wherein expressed physical events self-consistently follow the local dynamical laws our conscious minds have devised for them, but some form of consciousness-based teleological influence, perhaps utilizing the intrinsic uncertainties inherent in those physical processes, may steer the grand pattern of such events toward purposeful goals.
The dichotomy of causality vs. free will has long been a major fiber in the fabrics of philosophy, religion, and science, and persists in its academic bemusement to this day. Among the patriarchs of quantum science, rumination on this puzzle was widespread, and so pertinent and stimulating to our task as to merit serious reconsideration in this context. The excerpts that follow are included not so much to provide authoritative support as to illustrate the particular foci of their authors’ interests in this issue that are pertinent to our proposed applications of M^5 (our italics):
Planck:
How can the independence of human volition be harmonized with the fact that we are integral parts of a universe which is subject to the rigid order of nature’s laws?…
At first sight these two aspects of human existence seem to be logically irreconcilable. On the one hand we have the fact that natural phenomena invariably occur according to the rigid sequence of cause and effect…. But, on the other hand, we have our most direct and intimate source of knowledge, which is the human consciousness, telling us that in the last resort our thought and volition are not subject to this causal order…. The principle of causation is either universally applicable or it is not. If not, where do we draw the line, and why should one part of creation be subject to a law that of its nature seems universal, and another part be exempted from that law?…
Once we have decided that the law of causality is by no means a necessary element in the process of human thought, we have made a mental clearance for the approach to the question of its validity in the world of reality.
Bohr:
…the impossibility in introspection of sharply distinguishing between subject and object as is essential to the ideal of causality would seem to provide the natural play for the feeling of free will.
With regard to this, however, it must not be forgotten that, in associating the psychical and physical aspects of existence, we are concerned with a special relationship of complementarity which it is not possible thoroughly to understand by one-sided application either of physical or of psychological laws. In consideration of the general lessons we have learned from the atomic theory, it would also seem likely that only a renunciation in this respect will enable us to comprehend…that harmony which is experienced as free will and analyzed in terms of causality.
Pauli:
The “unconscious” itself has a certain analogy with the “field” in physics, and both are brought into the realm of the irrepresentable (Unanschauliche) and paradoxical through a problem of observation. In physics however we do not speak of self- reproducing “archetypes,” but of “statistical laws of nature involving primary probabilities;” but both formulations meet in their tendency to extend the old narrower idea of “causality (determinism)” to a more general form of “connections” in nature, a conclusion to which the psycho-physical problem also points.
Schrödinger:
To my view the “statistical theory of time” has an even stronger bearing on the philosophy of time than the theory of relativity. The latter, however revolutionary, leaves untouched the unidirectional flow to time, which it presupposes, while the statistical theory constructs it from the order of the events. This means a liberation from the tyranny of old Chronos. What we in our minds construct ourselves cannot, so I feel, have dictatorial power over our mind, neither the power of bringing it to the fore nor the power of annihilating it. But some of you, I am sure, will call this mysticism. So with all due acknowledgement to the fact that physical theory is at all times relative, in that it depends on certain basic assumptions, we may, or so I believe, assert that physical theory in its present state strongly suggests the indestructibility of Mind by Time.
The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I—I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt “I”—am the person, if any, who controls the “motion of the atoms” according to the Laws of Nature.
Jeans:
…the indeterminacy does not reside in objective nature, but only in our subjective interpretation of nature….
Essentially the same solution was propounded by Clerk Maxwell. The course of a railway train is uniquely prescribed for it at most points of its journey by the rails on which it runs. Here and there, however, it comes to a junction at which alternative courses are open to it, and it may be turned on to one or the other by the quite negligible expenditure of energy involved in moving the points. Maxwell thought that the human body might come to similar junctions, at which it could be turned into one course or another by the action of the mind, without any expenditure of mechanical energy—the body is the train, the mind is the points-man. The indeterminacy of atomic motions has seemed to many to provide just the kind of junction, and possibly also of points, that Maxwell needed.
This may suggest a possible way in which mind can act on matter, but it leaves the deeper problem of freedom of choice untouched. …
Again we can hardly say that the new physics justifies any new conclusions on determinism, causality or free-will, but we can say that the argument for determinism is in some respects less compelling than it seemed to be fifty years ago. There appears to be a case for reopening the whole question as soon as anyone can discover how to do so.
VII. Model Summary and Applications
Our purpose has been to suggest a fresh conceptual model of the relation between the human mind and its material environment that can comfortably accommodate those empirically established forms of information exchange that appear anomalous within the prevailing theoretical paradigms. From this proposed perspective, insights are sought that may enable more effective and instructive experimental designs, and eventually some pragmatic applications of these inherently elusive, but potentially powerful phenomena. The first premise of this model has been that further attempts at direct penetration of the Cartesian interface between the universe of tangible physical events and the realm of conscious mental experience will not be productive, and possibly even may be counter-productive, for this purpose. Rather, mind and matter each must first dissemble into their less explicit and focused forms, i.e., the unconscious and the intangible, to degrees where the traditional coordinates of conscious experience and tangible events lose their utility, and a holistic merger of their purviews obtains. This ultimate, autonomous reality then serves as a common subliminal origin or seed from which can emerge coupled physical events and conscious experiences whose correlations exceed prevailing epistemological expectations (cf. Figure 7).
An attractive possibility for the theoretical representation of this correlated emergence process is the invocation of the traditionally rejected negative time branches of the dynamical physical relations for application to the mental modules, in parallel to the usual positive time versions for the material formulations. In other words, whereas the fully expressed physical branches would continue to conform to a future-directed evolution from prescribed initial states (within the established limits of their microscopic and macroscopic uncertainties), the mental branch would be imbued with the capacity for some teleological response to a final goal, e.g., to a desire or need or intention (within the functional limits of uncertainty available to it). To activate this capacity, it presumably would be necessary to bias those intrinsic uncertainties of the composite mind/matter systems so that their conscious, tangible crystallizations embodied, however slightly, these teleological influences. This biasing of elemental probabilities actually has some empirical support deriving from analyses of the count distributions that comprise the outputs of several of our earlier mind/matter experiments.
In General Relativity, S is regarded as given and complete; the laws of mathematics and science are taken as pre-existing. On the quantum scale, on the other hand, laws governing the states and distributions of matter and energy do not always have sufficient powers of restriction to fully determine quantum behavior, requiring probabilistic augmentation in the course of quantum wavefunction collapse. This prevents a given s, indeed anything other than S, from enclosing a complete nomology (set of laws); while a complete set of laws would amount to a complete deterministic history of the universe, calling the universe "completely deterministic" amounts to asserting the existence of prior determinative constraints. But this is a logical absurdity, since if these constraints were real, they would be included in reality rather than prior or external to it (by the containment principle). It follows that the universe freely determines its own constraints, the establishment of nomology and the creation of its physical (observable) content being effectively simultaneous and recursive. The incoversive distribution of this relationship is the basis of free will, by virtue of which the universe is freely created by sentient agents existing within it.
Einstein:
The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest mainspring of scientific research.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion… The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.Your Peace, Surrender, In You, YHVH Re-connect Co-operative
Re:Christianity - 2006/04/12 13:37Yahovah is understood in entirety as a vector space denoted here by theta with a scalar multipule of infinity for which possess all power.
The summation of energy equaling kinetic energy plus potential energy is simply a statement of the law of conservation of energy; Energy cannot be created or destroyed. And, all in existence possess energy therefore energy is in union with existence, or in other words it is the substance of existence. Therefore energy in it's entirety is a vector space with a scalar multipule of infinity.
Gradient energy equals incremental power divided by the incremental spacial metric. Therefore, gradient energy is in all power. Therefore, the vector space energy possess all power.
The infinite vector space Yahovah possess all power and the infinite vector space energy possess all power. Therefore, energy is a subset of or equal to Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah is in union with existence, or in other words Yahovah is the substance of existence.
The descriptive endomorphism of Yahovah is mapped from the internal points in Yahovah. Therefore, the description of Yahovah is topologically contained in Yahovah. Therefore, the description of Yahovah predicatively contains Yahovah. Therefore, the description of Yahovah equals endomorphic points which predicatively contain Yahovah.
The descriptive endomorphism of Yahovah is mapped from the internal point in Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah topologically contains the description of Yahovah which equals the endomorphic points which predicatively contain Yahovah.
Yahovah topologically contains all endomorphic points which predicatively contain Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah is the infinite spatiotemporal manifold which possess all power.
The summation of energy equaling kinetic energy plus potential energy is simply a statement of the law of conservation of energy; Energy cannot be created or destroyed. And, all endomorphic points in existence possess energy therefore energy is in union with existence, or in other words it is the substance of existence. Therefore energy itself is an infinite spatiotemporal manifold.
Gradient energy equals incremental power divided by the incremental spacial metric. Therefore, gradient energy is in all power. Therefore, the energy manifold possess all power.
The infinite spatiotemporal manifold Yahovah possess all power and the infinite spatiotemporal manifold energy possess all power. Therefore, energy is a subset of or equal to Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah is in union with existence, or in other words Yahovah is the substance of existence.
Re:Christianity - 2006/04/14 23:02(Isaiah 42:5) This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching; the One laying out the earth and its produce, the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it:
??? (I removed; "them out" from the translation... because I question it)
PROP I; <b>Yahovah is the infinite spatiotemporal manifold which possess all power.</b>
Proof logical;
The descriptive endomorphism of Yahovah is mapped from the internal point in Yahovah. (We can thank Christopher Michael Langan and John Archibald Wheeler for the set of all sets CTMU)Therefore, Yahovah topologically contains the description of Yahovah which equals the endomorphic points which predicatively contain Yahovah. Therefore,Yahovah topologically contains all endomorphic points which predicatively contain Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah is the infinite spatiotemporal manifold which possess all power.
Proof theological; (In first person, God speaking)
'The heavens, yes, the heavens of the heavens, themselves cannot contain me', 'I myself actually fill the heavens and the earth'. 'For in me you live and move, and have your being'. 'There is nowhere I am not present'. 'For of me, and by me, and in me, are all things'. 'What may be known about me is manifest because I made it manifest. My invisible [qualities], even my eternal power and Godship, are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.' (1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:24; Acts 17:28; Psalm 139:7; Romans 11:36; Romans 1:19-20)
PROP II; <b>Energy is an infinite spatiotemporal manifold which possess all power.</b>
Proof empirical;
The summation of energy equaling kinetic energy plus potential energy is simply a statement of the law of conservation of energy; Energy cannot be created or destroyed (We can thank Michael Faraday, James Prescott Joule, and Hermann Ludwig Helmholtz for what several philosophers of science consider the greatest generalization ever conceived by humankind). And, all endomorphic points in existence possess energy. And, power equals the indefinite integral of gradient energy times differential acceleration with respects to the temporal metric. Therefore energy itself is an infinite spatiotemporal manifold which possess all power.
The infinite spatiotemporal manifold Yahovah possess all power (PROP I) and the infinite spatiotemporal manifold energy possess all power (PROP II). Therefore, energy is a subset of or equal to Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah exists.
Forum 
