Does God's intelligence rest on a physical platform?

Wooden Shoe


Wayne.
I am in no way saying that you were trying anything other than explaining a very difficult concept.
But if you want us dum-dums to understand it you will have to simplify it.

Regards, John.

I Will make that effort.

-- Updated February 20th, 2012, 10:40 pm to add the following --

James S Saint


Hey John,
I followed it pretty well up to;


Because, Prior the Creation of the Reality of First Cause there was only Darkness upon the Deep, the Reality of First Cause being the First Thing to come to Light

But then he used the word "Singularity", from there on out it was pretty tough for me to make sense out of most of it. I could see a few things that seemed to come together, but "singularities", "quantum" realities, and "relativity" are 3 absurd concepts demonizing Science and philosophy with distraction from reality. They should have never been cast upon the mountain of Science nor famous in the realm of philosophy. Sorry, Wayne. I tried..



What existed before God Created the Heavens and the Earth?

NoThing! Other than God, God existing alone in the Emptiness prior to the Moment of Creation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

God would have to be an Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity.

Singularity;

1. extraordinary; remarkable; exceptional: a singular success.
2. unusual or strange; odd; different: singular behavior.
3. being the only one of its kind; distinctive; unique: a singular example.
4. separate; individual.
5. Gram. noting or pertaining to a member of the category of number found in many languages that indicates that a word form has one referent or denotes one person, place, thing, or instance, as English boy and thing, which are singular nouns, or goes, a singular form of the verb go. Cf. dual (def. 4), plural (def. 4).
6. Logic.
a. of or pertaining to something individual, specific, or not general.
b. (of a proposition) containing no quantifiers, as “Socrates was mortal.”
7. Math.
a. of or pertaining to a linear transformation from a vector space to itself that is not one-to-one.
b. of or pertaining to a matrix having a determinant equal to zero.



Individuality

1. the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature: a person of marked individuality.
2. individualities, individual characteristics.
3. a person or thing of individual or distinctive character.
4. state or quality of being individual; existence as a distinct individual.
5. the interests of the individual as distinguished from the interests of the community.
6. Archaic. state or quality of being indivisible or inseparable.

What existed before God Created the Heavens and the Earth?

NoThing! Other than God, God existing alone in the Emptiness prior to the Moment of Creation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

I believe that to be a misunderstanding of the scriptural text. But I don't speak from scriptural references anyway. If any scripture seriously disagrees with specific things that I know, then they are wrong. It matters not who wrote them or when. On the other hand, I do try to make sure that if there is a disagreement, I give them every chance to be interpreted differently. I found that most scriptures are far more accurate when properly read than how most people read them. The Catholic Church tends to agree on that matter, and certainly the Judists.

God would have to be an Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity.

Singularity;

1. extraordinary; remarkable; exceptional: a singular success.
2. unusual or strange; odd; different: singular behavior.
3. being the only one of its kind; distinctive; unique: a singular example.
4. separate; individual.
5. Gram. noting or pertaining to a member of the category of number found in many languages that indicates that a word form has one referent or denotes one person, place, thing, or instance, as English boy and thing, which are singular nouns, or goes, a singular form of the verb go. Cf. dual (def. 4), plural (def. 4).
6. Logic.
a. of or pertaining to something individual, specific, or not general.
b. (of a proposition) containing no quantifiers, as “Socrates was mortal.”
7. Math.
a. of or pertaining to a linear transformation from a vector space to itself that is not one-to-one.
b. of or pertaining to a matrix having a determinant equal to zero.

Individuality

1. the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature: a person of marked individuality.
2. individualities, individual characteristics.
3. a person or thing of individual or distinctive character.
4. state or quality of being individual; existence as a distinct individual.
5. the interests of the individual as distinguished from the interests of the community.
6. Archaic. state or quality of being indivisible or inseparable.

If that is how you were meaning the word "singularity", I certainly apologize. I have spent the last couple of years embedded in physics and with this subject of "the beginning of the universe", I see that I had presumed. Again, my apologies. And yes, I can now agree that God would indeed have to be a "singularity", but I would strongly advise using a different word.

Hi James S Saint,

What makes you think that the universe has no beginning and has no end, is this just your opinion?

An "opinion" is a belief that has no logical foundation. I don't seriously believe anything without a logical foundation for believing it.

This is not true, an opinion has no relevance to weather the premise is logical or not, an opinion is a statement based on an objective belief or experience, logical how ever alters between indiviudals. For example in my opinion Mike Tyson was the worlds best Boxer, what is illogical about that statement?

In the case of the universe having no beginning, the logic gets rather drawn out. That is why I merely make the statement and pretty much leave it at that. The bottom line is that it is logically impossible for a physical universe to not exist at all times. The notion of "before the physical universe" is an irrational imagining, much like wormholes and time travel or fairy dusted frogs.
Unless you can mathematicaly demonstrate every aspect of physics that varafies you have emperical knowledge explaining how the Universe is sustained or sustains itself at presesnt, you have absoloutely no premises to validate a any form of possible logic regarding a constant or emegrant Universe.

Fundamentally it boils down to the illogical notion that change can begin. Time is merely a measure of change. Saying, "before time" is referring to a state of no changing whatsoever. But how can a state of absolutely no changing change?

Your understanding of time is not completely accurate, to be precise time measures the rate at which matter decays, this is observed as change,; do you see your problem? An early Universe would have only consisted of energy in the form of elementary particles, the tempreature would have been to hot for matter to exist, therefore time would have been absent. This also gets around the problem of chance & probability, until matter existed neither did time.

Hi James S Saint,

What makes you think that the universe has no beginning and has no end, is this just your opinion?

An "opinion" is a belief that has no logical foundation. I don't seriously believe anything without a logical foundation for believing it.

This is not true, an opinion has no relevance to weather the premise is logical or not, an opinion is a statement based on an objective belief or experience, logical how ever alters between indiviudals. For example in my opinion Mike Tyson was the worlds best Boxer, what is illogical about that statement?

Until you understand what "logical foundation" refers to, my disagreement with you would only lead to a pointless discussion.

In the case of the universe having no beginning, the logic gets rather drawn out. That is why I merely make the statement and pretty much leave it at that. The bottom line is that it is logically impossible for a physical universe to not exist at all times. The notion of "before the physical universe" is an irrational imagining, much like wormholes and time travel or fairy dusted frogs.
Unless you can mathematicaly demonstrate every aspect of physics that varafies you have emperical knowledge explaining how the Universe is sustained or sustains itself at presesnt, you have absoloutely no premises to validate a any form of possible logic regarding a constant or emegrant Universe.

I am not sure that I agree with your assertion, but I in fact do have just that.

Fundamentally it boils down to the illogical notion that change can begin. Time is merely a measure of change. Saying, "before time" is referring to a state of no changing whatsoever. But how can a state of absolutely no changing change?

Your understanding of time is not completely accurate, to be precise time measures the rate at which matter decays, this is observed as change,; do you see your problem?

I am pretty sure that I see yours.
Consider that you have just said that an EM wave, having no matter associated with it, has no time associated with it.

The term "rate" presumes time. To say, "the rate of decay" is to say, "the amount of decay per second". But if you say that the "second" is only in reference to rate of decay, then you have said "the amount of decay per amount of decay". But then "decay" merely refers to the amount of entropy per second so you actually have;
"the amount of the amount of entropy per amount of amount of entropy"

It would definitely be a typical postmodern thing to use as a floating, meaningless reference for disguising truth, but I prefer references that have meaning.

An early Universe would have only consisted of energy in the form of elementary particles, the tempreature would have been to hot for matter to exist, therefore time would have been absent. This also gets around the problem of chance & probability, until matter existed neither did time.

I think that you would have a really hard time supporting the notion that you can get something "too hot for time to exist" unless referring to maybe an early Shania Twain or Angelina Jolie.

PhillipS wrote;

I think it helps to divide the subject into two phases: the birth of the universe; and what happened after that.

Wayne wrote;

The subject must be divided into two phases:

Phase 1. The Origin, the Source, of the Reality of Everything, that which existed prior to the Moment of Creation, the existence of the Steady State of Singularity in which existed and untold number of Singularities having no relative, numerical, value, having a Numerical value of Zero-O.


Phase 2. Beginning after the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity to have a dual quality, to have relative, numerical value, the Reality of First Cause having a numerical, value of One.

The Alchemical Transfiguration of a Singularity having a numerical value of --->O, into a
Singularity having a numerical value of 1, taking but a moment in Time and Space;
The value of the O/1 resulting in the sum total of O/1(n).

Wayne,

Would you permit me to try to paraphrase what I think you are saying? Please feel free to correct me. You and James S Saint have come up with different models for the universe, and it is really important to understand how they differ from each other and from other models put forward by physicists in the past 100 years.

It seems that you are saying that, before the creation of the reality of the first cause, there was a bunch of singularities in the dark. Time started when one singuarity underwent a transmutation which activated it. This became the singularity of the first cause. The universe evolved from here. As I understand it, you are not proposing a big bang, so I am not sure just how that evolution is supposed to proceed.

James S Saint, on the other hand, seems to be proposing a continuous or emergent universe with an endless causal chain, going back an infinite time. (my paraphrasing). As such, there is no first cause, but a first or primary reason, which is timeless. The primary reason for the universe presumably is the "how and why" (my words again), which we do not know, and may never know.

Would you and James S Saint care to comment?

Cheers,

PhillipS

Hello All.

With due respect for those who have presented their various ideas on the distant past, have given fine definitions of terms used, but when all is said and done, you are in the same boat I am in, groping in the dark.
Even for science, to try to discover some idea has been a daunting task, because they are looking from todays evidence and postulating about what that says about that distant past.
This has caused them to come up with models which are inventions, without knowing their truth value.
So, could some form of the BB be the right theory? Maybe, but I sure would not bet the farm on it.

So for now as long as the speculators are entertaining, I will read their writings and learn what I can.

Regards, John.

James said:

Until you understand what "logical foundation" refers to, my disagreement with you would only lead to a pointless discussion.

Logical foundation is an ontological term, from what I understand very few phillosophers agree on it's definition, perhaps as you are the one who introduced the term in order to object to the relevance of opinion, you could give us your own definition.

In reply to my comment Unless you can mathematicaly demonstrate every aspect of physics that varafies you have emperical knowledge explaining how the Universe is sustained or sustains itself at presesnt, you have absoloutely no premises to validate a any form of possible logic regarding a constant or emegrant Universe.

James said:

I am not sure that I agree with your assertion, but I in fact do have just that.

Really? So you have managed to achieve what no other man has yet been able to do, even Stephen Hawking recently said that he doubted mans ability to achieve such a feat, of course I know you are not telling the truth, if you did in fact have the knowledge I mentioned there would be no need for further experiments at the LHC, string theory would be explained and thousands of quantum physicsts around the world would proudly salute you.

So James for my entrertaiment and I'm sure other members will also be intrigued, perhaps you may care to mathematicaly demonstrate every aspect of physics that varafies your emperical knowledge which explains how the Universe is sustained or sustains itself at presesnt?

The term "rate" presumes time. To say, "the rate of decay" is to say, "the amount of decay per second". But if you say that the "second" is only in reference to rate of decay, then you have said "the amount of decay per amount of decay". But then "decay" merely refers to the amount of entropy per second so you actually have;
"the amount of the amount of entropy per amount of amount of entropy"

Sorry james but "rate" presumes speed, time is how we measure speed. There is absoloutely nothing wrong with my explination of time, this definition is accepeted by all scientest across the board as far as I'm aware.

I think that you would have a really hard time supporting the notion that you can get something "too hot for time to exist" unless referring to maybe an early Shania Twain or Angelina Jolie.

I never said soemthing can get to hot for time to exist James, perhaps you may wish to re-read my commet.I said tempreatures can be to hot for matter to exist, without matter change does not occur. Further to the point, it is completely irrelevant to the foundation of your argument which claims "The bottom line is that it is logically impossible for a physical universe to not exist at all times. The notion of "before the physical universe" is an irrational imagining " and from the horses mouth "Time is merely a measure of change." See time is a concept created by man defined as "measuring the rate of at which matter deccays" you, yourself admiited time is not a force; in my opinion time can be observed and experienced but not seen, much like gravity. To avoid linguistic issues it is perfectly sound logic to state there may have been NO universe, but now there is; time or references to before are irrelevant if time itself is an ontological concept which consists of neither matter or energy.

James S Saint

Wayne92587 wrote:God would have to be an Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity.

Singularity;

1. extraordinary; remarkable; exceptional: a singular success.
2. unusual or strange; odd; different: singular behavior.
3. being the only one of its kind; distinctive; unique: a singular example.
4. separate; individual.
5. Gram. noting or pertaining to a member of the category of number found in many languages that indicates that a word form has one referent or denotes one person, place, thing, or instance, as English boy and thing, which are singular nouns, or goes, a singular form of the verb go. Cf. dual (def. 4), plural (def. 4).
6. Logic.
a. of or pertaining to something individual, specific, or not general.
b. (of a proposition) containing no quantifiers, as “Socrates was mortal.”
7. Math.
a. of or pertaining to a linear transformation from a vector space to itself that is not one-to-one.
b. of or pertaining to a matrix having a determinant equal to zero.

Individuality

1. the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature: a person of marked individuality.
2. individualities, individual characteristics.
3. a person or thing of individual or distinctive character.
4. state or quality of being individual; existence as a distinct individual.
5. the interests of the individual as distinguished from the interests of the community.
6. Archaic. state or quality of being indivisible or inseparable.

Sames S Saint wrote;-
If that is how you were meaning the word "singularity", I certainly apologize. I have spent the last couple of years embedded in physics and with this subject of "the beginning of the universe", I see that I had presumed. Again, my apologies. And yes, I can now agree that God would indeed have to be a "singularity", but I would strongly advise using a different word.es S Saint.

-- Updated February 29th, 2012, 2:57 pm to add the following --

Wayne92587 wrote
:God would have to be an Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity.

Singularity;

1. extraordinary; remarkable; exceptional: a singular success.
2. unusual or strange; odd; different: singular behavior.
3. being the only one of its kind; distinctive; unique: a singular example.
4. separate; individual.
5. Gram. noting or pertaining to a member of the category of number found in many languages that indicates that a word form has one referent or denotes one person, place, thing, or instance, as English boy and thing, which are singular nouns, or goes, a singular form of the verb go. Cf. dual (def. 4), plural (def. 4).
6. Logic.
a. of or pertaining to something individual, specific, or not general.
b. (of a proposition) containing no quantifiers, as “Socrates was mortal.”
7. Math.
a. of or pertaining to a linear transformation from a vector space to itself that is not one-to-one.
b. of or pertaining to a matrix having a determinant equal to zero.

Individuality

1. the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature: a person of marked individuality.
2. individualities, individual characteristics.
3. a person or thing of individual or distinctive character.
4. state or quality of being individual; existence as a distinct individual.
5. the interests of the individual as distinguished from the interests of the community.
6. Archaic. state or quality of being indivisible or inseparable.

Sames S Saint wrote;


If that is how you were meaning the word "singularity", I certainly apologize. I have spent the last couple of years embedded in physics and with this subject of "the beginning of the universe", I see that I had presumed. Again, my apologies. And yes, I can now agree that God would indeed have to be a "singularity", but I would strongly advise using a different word.



Wayne wrote;

Some refer Singularity as being God; I simply refer to what some call God as being
the Steady State of Singularity.

I believe that man has a sense of Realities that he can not put into words because of an incomplete understanding.

In an attempt to understand said sense of Reality they give it names that are completely incorrect as to its True Nature.

Some talk about the fury of God, others speak of the Passion of God, I speak of the meaningless nature of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness, the Way, the Spirit the Meaningless Nature of the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness of Time and Space, Emotion, Passion, being the Motion of Pure Energy, Heat Energy being generated by the Boundless Nature, the Randomness, the Absolute Freedom of Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness of Time and Space, a Singularity alone in the Emptiness of Time and Space e being an Individuality, an Indivisible Singularity, having no Numerical, Relative Value, not being part of a series, a continuum, Not being subject to the relativity of Time and Space.

The Reality of First Cause, being a Creation, Randomly Generated, acquired its Relativity as a result of the Alchemical Transfiguration of the Passion, the Nature of the Motion of Singularity having no relative, numerical, value.

A Singularity not being readily apparent because it has no mass, no quantity, can not be measured as to location and momentum in Space-Time, because a Singularity is not subject to cause and effect, cause and effect not coming ;into existence until the Creation of the Reality, the Relativity of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have relative, Numerical value; A Singularity alone the in the Emptiness having a Numerical value of Zero--->O, into a the Reality of First Cause, into a Singularity having a Numerical value of One-->1 into the Reality of First Cause, the beginning of Space-Time, the First in a series, the beginning of a continuum, the beginning of the Evolutionary Process.

The Reality of First Cause Having been Randomly Generated, having been born of a Affect, the Steady State of Singularity, a State of Existence, said State consisting of an Untold Number of Singularities, each alone in the Emptiness of it own personal Celestial Sphere; Motion within the Steady State of Singularity being Meaningless; none of the untold number of Singularities having relative, numerical value, said meaningless Motion, Randomness, boundlessness, Absolute Freedom of Motion having no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction.

The Reality of Everything Prior to the Random Generation, the Alchemical Transfiguration of the Reality of First Cause, being Dead in the Water, the Motion within the Steady State of Singularity was meaningless, having no displacement, no angular momentum, not velocity of speed and direction, Nothing was Relative, the Reality of Everything, Nothing being subject to the Relativity of Cause and Effect, Space-Time, the existence of the Universe, of the Reality of Everything as we know it to be not being a possibility.

After Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause having been born of an Affect, a State or Condition, having been born of what some refer to as being the Mind of God ( Creation, being an original product of te mind) the Reality of First Cause being the Original, the first in a series the beginning of Space-Time, the beginning of Space Time, the Universe, the Material Reality of Everything as we know it to be; because of the Nature of the Duality of Cause and Effect, the Universe, the Reality of Everything as we know it to be became a Probability.

Nothingness; The Steady State of Singularity, an untold number of Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularities existing in a State of Equilibrium, having no Relative, Numerical, value, having a numerical value of Zero--->O


The Beginning of Space-Time began with te Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Random generation, the Alchemical Transfiguration of a Singularity having no relative, numerical, value, into a Singularity having relative value, into a Singularity having a Numerical Value of One-->1.

O/1 resulting in the Existence Reality of the Universe, the Reality of Everything as we know it to be (n).

The Source, the Origin =O; the Beginning=1 and the End Result= (n)

The Mathematical Theory of the Realty of Everything =O/1(n)


The only difference between any of the untold Number of Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularities alone in the Emptiness and the Reality of First Cause being in the Nature of the Passion of Each, the Randomness, the meaningless Motion of a Singularity having a numerical value of --->O existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without the velocity of Speed and Direction, and the Passion, the Meaningful Motion of a Singularity having, the numerical value of1, Motion having displacement, angular momentum, velocity of Speed and Dire

-- Updated March 27th, 2012, 11:41 am to add the following --

Yes!


God is not the Reality of First Cause.

God Created the Reality of First Cause; First Cause being God's Physical Platform, entry into the Material, Physical World of Reality: the Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to have Relative value; being the First in a Series, the Beginning of a Continuum such as Space-Time, the Beginning of a Process such as the Evolutionary Process, is the First Singularity to have a Numerical value of One.


O- God
1- The Reality of First Cause.
(n) = the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

O/1(n)