response to quantum_flux and information for other readers,
Let me explain how I define God and God’s infinity.
I use Plato’s negative. In his Sophist at 257b Plato says, "When we speak of ‘that whi
ch is not,’ it seems that we do not mean something contrary to what exists but only something that is different." (See Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns, Editors (1961) ‘Plato: The Collected Dialogues,’ Princeton: Princeton University Press,. P. 1003) With these words, Plato turns the negative thinking of Socrates into positive thinking.
So, take the concept ‘finite’ and ask your mind to negate it. When your mind negates finite, your mind will replace the concept finite with the concept ‘not-finite.’ As Plato says, the concept not-finite is something different than the concept ‘finite.’ Thus, not-finite is a positive concept. Since today’s dictionaries do not list negatives, the concept ‘not-finite is listed as ‘infinite.’ So, infinite is something positive in our minds.
The errors in using the concept ‘infinite’ found in our dictionaries occurs when today’s logicians argue that the concepts, infinite and finite, are excluded middle opposites and cannot coexist. This is when a logician will become an atheist and will drag many good scientists onto a path of thought that has the smell of a stinky sewer. How can a logician say that these two concepts must be seen as excluded middle opposites when both concepts are positives in our minds? So, our logicians and many scientists live with half-truths in their minds and half-worlds.
Many coexisting concepts are accepted by our minds. My mind accepts the coexistence of the concepts infinite and finite when I sought the origin of all finite things in the universe and concluded that all finite things in the universe must have their origin in a positive concept. So, I argue that the concepts, infinite and finite, coexist.
But, my mind did not stop at the coexistence of these two concepts. My mind went further and negated the concept infinite. This double negative, which exist in my mind is written as not-not-finite. This double negative told me that the concepts infinite and finite must have a unifying principle in my mind. Otherwise these opposites would not coexist. My mind thus saw this unifying principle as a creator God, who unifies all coexisting concepts. Many other coexisting concepts will be found. For instance, I use the concepts, one/many, same/difference, and union/relation to connect God and Universe logically.
As you can see, the concept 'finite' applies to all things in the universe and that the concept 'infinite' applies only to God. In the universe we only find ‘finite infinities.’ This oxymoron is a reality that Georg Cantor and Nicholas of Cusa understood at their time.
I use Plato’s negative. In his Sophist at 257b Plato says, "When we speak of ‘that whi
ch is not,’ it seems that we do not mean something contrary to what exists but only something that is different." (See Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns, Editors (1961) ‘Plato: The Collected Dialogues,’ Princeton: Princeton University Press,. P. 1003) With these words, Plato turns the negative thinking of Socrates into positive thinking.So, take the concept ‘finite’ and ask your mind to negate it. When your mind negates finite, your mind will replace the concept finite with the concept ‘not-finite.’ As Plato says, the concept not-finite is something different than the concept ‘finite.’ Thus, not-finite is a positive concept. Since today’s dictionaries do not list negatives, the concept ‘not-finite is listed as ‘infinite.’ So, infinite is something positive in our minds.
The errors in using the concept ‘infinite’ found in our dictionaries occurs when today’s logicians argue that the concepts, infinite and finite, are excluded middle opposites and cannot coexist. This is when a logician will become an atheist and will drag many good scientists onto a path of thought that has the smell of a stinky sewer. How can a logician say that these two concepts must be seen as excluded middle opposites when both concepts are positives in our minds? So, our logicians and many scientists live with half-truths in their minds and half-worlds.
Many coexisting concepts are accepted by our minds. My mind accepts the coexistence of the concepts infinite and finite when I sought the origin of all finite things in the universe and concluded that all finite things in the universe must have their origin in a positive concept. So, I argue that the concepts, infinite and finite, coexist.
But, my mind did not stop at the coexistence of these two concepts. My mind went further and negated the concept infinite. This double negative, which exist in my mind is written as not-not-finite. This double negative told me that the concepts infinite and finite must have a unifying principle in my mind. Otherwise these opposites would not coexist. My mind thus saw this unifying principle as a creator God, who unifies all coexisting concepts. Many other coexisting concepts will be found. For instance, I use the concepts, one/many, same/difference, and union/relation to connect God and Universe logically.
As you can see, the concept 'finite' applies to all things in the universe and that the concept 'infinite' applies only to God. In the universe we only find ‘finite infinities.’ This oxymoron is a reality that Georg Cantor and Nicholas of Cusa understood at their time.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 10:19 AM
6 Comments:
At 11:50 AM,
Anonymous said…
Nonfinite can mean infinite or non-existant....
At 3:42 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantun_flux,
Such uses of words is why I speak of the English language as an Ugly language.
If one develops symbolic languages, symbols give meaning to each other. There is a unity of meanings in a symbolic language.
What is a non-existant? Is it a no thing, a nothing, nothingness, a vacuum, dark matter, ... etc. When are scientists, that is, those who are following physicists and the laws of physics, going to get precise meanings in the life sciences?
Physicists found many laws because the concepts in these laws give meaning to each other. When are physicists goinf to repeat this stage show to the infinitely small (the atom) and the infinite large (cosmology)?
George
At 8:50 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
I guess I forgot infinitesimal too.
Anyhow, non-existant in the same sense as bigfoot or pink unicorns.... they exist in concept only but have never been legitimately observed or documented. I can say the "God moves the planets around the sun" but clearly the more precise thing to say is that "The planets orbit around the sun in an elliptical trajectory due to a gravitational field, and the angular momentum along with the energy-momentum tensor are conserved" or even more precisely "space time is warped by matter, and that planet is going in a straight line through that warped space time, and that the gravitational radiation from that particular system is neglidgeable. There is a slight relativistic redshift due to frame dragging of the orbit." ....etc.
Somebody could try to say "God makes the galaxies behave as they do" or they could define the laws more precisely with dark matter and energy which are universally consistant with deep space observations. Astronomy is one of the many sciences that will, or has already, benefited from quantum theory. Chemistry, optiks (lasers and masers, relativity theory, solar panels), electronics (p-n-p type semiconducters), biology (photosynthesis), psychology (how matter gives rise to mind), and especially nuclear physics have all benefitted greatly from quantum theories. In fact, many of those theories would be dead wrong if the classical model was all they had to rely on.
I try not to be too narrow minded about just 1 aspect of mathematical physics though, or with my religious/political beliefs, but I do believe I have an obligation to educate people whenever possible, whenever I'm not educating myself that is.
At 9:36 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
I am glad to hear that you educate yourself continually because I believe that our historians are hiding many empirical truths about the nature of man. Hidden empirical truths exist because the development of words prior to the development of writing was not as rational as our thinking is today.
So, I do not interpret any scripture literally. I interpret scriptures by searching for whole thoughts and new ideas. I also search for metaphors. I search this way because I believe that our minds are ‘whole-forming.’ Thus, in God’s intelligent design we will find that man can measure everything found in the universe. So, God’s omniscience is more complex than religions say. To me, a portion of God’s omniscience comes from our minds. So, I believe that physicists will never prove that living things are formed from nonliving things
I follow the teaching of Jesus Christ and rank them at the divine level. To me, divine level thoughts are new thoughts, which have never expressed before, and are predictive. One predictive thought is the darkening of the sun. Another is the need for self-knowledge by man. So, I do not believe that God destroys the universe and creates a Heaven only for people who became followers of Jesus Christ. But, you might benefit from Christian documents by concentrating on the biblical Gospel of St John and St. Paul and the non biblical Gospel of Thomas.
Incidently, I do not believe that space and time can be unified. Thus, I follow the space and time definitions of Leibniz.
George.
At 7:11 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Space and time are unified because energy and momentum are a 4-vector.... out of such, there are 10 degrees of freedom which describe everything that happens in space-time (4 linear translations and 6 rotational translations in matrix algebra.... each plane has a axis of rotation), and according to Twistor Theory there is an orthogonal (on the imaginary axis) phaser spaceframe whereby probability wave-packets reside in the regions of spacetime. Well, with everyday experiences (non-relativistic and low gravitational fields), time appears to be consistant quantity that does not appear to expand or contract. However, for particle physics, it is readily apparent that nuclear decay rates slow down as particles accelerate, or speed up when they are at rest relative to your reference frame (maybe a particle takes 20 seconds to decay instead of a millisecond, etc.).
At 10:17 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
QF: Space and time are unified because energy and momentum are a 4-vector.... out of such, there are 10 degrees of freedom which describe everything that happens in space-time (4 linear translations and 6 rotational translations in matrix algebra.... each plane has a axis of rotation), and according to Twistor Theory there is an orthogonal (on the imaginary axis) phaser spaceframe whereby probability wave-packets reside in the regions of spacetime.
George: As I say in my book, if God is the origin of all finite things in the universe, then ontological studies about all things do not use time. So in the theological science that I am developing, I conclude that time is a man-made dimension. My conclusion seems to be true because humans have built a calender based on the rotation of planet earth around the sun. But, notice that this rotation is not perfect and thus requires an adjustment every four years.
After the field of physics decided to identify six basic dimensions (charge, temperature, mass, length, time duration, and angle), then all other physical attributes could be given ratio scales measures and act as secondary dimensions. But, isn’t it true (1) that these basic and secondary dimensions have been used by physicists to form scientifically proven laws of physics only on planet earth and (2) that, on a different planet, the laws of physics there will be similar but also slightly different? And don’t most physicists see mysteries in this algebraic structure?
George
Post a Comment
<< Home