A Study of Qualitative Non-Pluralism

[Dyothelite]

I just had the worst night tossing and turning over this in part from this feedback (im not upset but grateful now).

 

Is there not a universal field that exists beneath the physical material? If you create a vacuum in space is there not a field in which particles emerge and dissappear from and into that becomes revealed? David Bohm, Fritof Capra, Amit Goswami all talk about it. This suggests a universal field of energy that interconnects the entire universe at the subatomic level.

 

My mind is blown. I thought I'd lose it last night.

[Buffy]

I just had the worst night tossing and turning over this in part from this feedback (im not upset but grateful now).

Oh my. Please don't lose sleep over this stuff! Its most definitely *not* worth it! Doesn't improve your Karma or the strength of your character either!

Is there not a universal field that exists beneath the physical material? If you create a vacuum in space is there not a field in which particles emerge and dissappear from and into that becomes revealed?

You're confusing two things: Quantum Foam

is a fairly widely accepted concept and it has been argued to be the source of the Casimir Effect.

 

Unfortunately,

David Bohm, Fritof Capra, Amit Goswami all talk about it.

these guys are all *philosophers* in addition to being physicists and the quotes you are referring to are *conjectures*, that don't really have any theoretical basis or evidence to support them.

 

Thus,

...a universal field of energy that interconnects the entire universe at the subatomic level....

is posited as a "really cool idea" and might well pop out of some as-yet-undefined Theory of Everything, but there's nothing to support it yet. As a result, its probably dangerous to build up your own theory based on something that doesn't exist yet, although you could easily turn out to be right eventually anyway!

 

I personally would not just cross my fingers and jump, but don't let me stop you!

 

How do you get to Conclusions, :doh:

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

1. Oh my. Please don't lose sleep over this stuff! Its most definitely *not* worth it! Doesn't improve your Karma or the strength of your character either!

 

2. Unfortunately, these guys are all *philosophers* in addition to being physicists and the quotes you are referring to are *conjectures*, that don't really have any theoretical basis or evidence to support them.

 

3. Thus, is posited as a "really cool idea" and might well pop out of some as-yet-undefined Theory of Everything, but there's nothing to support it yet. As a result, its probably dangerous to build up your own theory based on something that doesn't exist yet, although you could easily turn out to be right eventually anyway!

 

4. I personally would not just cross my fingers and jump, but don't let me stop you!

 

5. How do you get to Conclusions, :)

Buffy

 

1. As scientists we accept the fact that our theories can be proved wrong but when your theories have theological implications are much deeper especially if you practice schools of meditation.

 

2. you're right and I recgonize a possible bias but they are also first and foremost established physicists.

 

3. Thank you, this is all I need. Not an answer but the possibility of truth.

 

4. Call me what you will but this is the basis of faith. .... the Dalai Lama was once asked: "what if we disprove reincarnation?" his reply: "then i'll stop believing in it (faith)."

 

5. here's how it works: a. if we as physicists see the universe as a plurality of objects, then the theological equivalent is that "God", me, my body, are all like particles; disconnected (Gnosticism, Dvaita Vedanta). b. if we see the universe as merely a universal whole and particles as an illusion then the theological equivalent is pure non-plurality (strict Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta). c. if we can see the universe as a universal whole with inherenty interconnected particles then thelogical equivalent is called qualitative non-pluralism (Augustinian Christianity, Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, Taoism, Tantric Buddhism..... THE GOOD STUFF). As a physicist ask yourself... "what other option is there then these three?

[Southtown]

Uh, B. What constitutes a particle?

[Dyothelite]

Here is a good theological example:

 

This is a general breakdown of early debated Christian viewpoints

 

Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.

Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.

Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.

 

Person rerfers to God, hypostasis refers to being of Christ, nature refers to divine and human nature.

 

The Nestorians believed that Jesus was one with God, but had two separate natures and therefore two separate beings (hypostasis) within him. In other words he had a Divine self and a human self, which were seen as inherently separate, so much that they were worshipped separately. This means that his physical body was dissconected from his divine self.

 

The Monophysites believed that there was only one person, one hypostasis and one nature therefore just a non-plural one being, (God), and that the human nature either did not exist or was absorbed entirely by the Divine. This incidentally, negates the idea of physical suffering and the crucifixion not to mention dying for us through living as us.

 

The Catholic solution was that Jesus had two natures one human and one divine and they were inseparabely harmonized through one hypostasis. Therefore he lived in a physical body and his human self was not inherently separate from divine but did qualitatively exist. Therefore, Jesus, suffered and died in a physical body on the cross, but his physical body was not separate.

 

This isn't identical to the physical science example I contemplating but it parrallels it. If God and the physical universe are inherently separate then the physical body is disconnected from God. If the physical body is an illusion and merely one with God then there is no human nature. If there are two distinctive principles God and the physical universe but they are harmonized as one universal whole then human and divine natures are harmonized as one. (the theory though is that Jesus represents perfect alignment and we are less balanced and seek that alignment through the image of that perfection).

 

1. Nestorianism is a dualistic approach to theology

2. Monophysitism is a non-dual approach to theology

3. Catholicism is a qualitiative non-dual approach to theology (though thats sometimes forgotten in Christians themselves)

 

My hope is that the universe mirrors this truth in some way, particles and waves are not separate, and they are not the same, in fact they are qualitatively distinct but inseparably harmonized.

[Southtown]

You are quite intelligent. I am not used to thinking about seperate deist natures. I might require time to digest what you're saying and respond on a comparable level.

 

Regarding the physics, I just read something in the middle of the night last night that may interest you. It might be too abstract, in which case I can provide links to more focused discussion on the subject. It's about what the universe is made of.

 

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=849347

[Buffy]

Uh, B. What constitutes a particle?

When I've used it in this thread, its meant to refer to the particles in the Standard Model and above. I believe that there is a level below this based mostly on the fact that there is *strong dissimilarity* between the particles in the Standard Model, and I agree (oddly enough :sun: ) that there needs to be something more "unifying" in order to get to a TOE. There may be more than one level, but I still think its finite, because we have already reached the level--as evidenced by string theory--where it is getting physically impossible (due to Planck) to even test the existence of lower levels.

 

I have a problem with the "its turtles all the way down" approach to this though! Could be--just like the Simpson's opener zooming into Homer's brain--endlessly recursive though, but that's different!

 

Finitely infinite,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

There's a major distinction I have to state here. All schools of thought that recognize the existence of a True One-ness admit that the universe is in itself finite. Where God or Brahman is infinite true being (unobservable and unfathomable) the universe is finite in existence, However, the arguement is over whether there is an inherent serpartion between the two, and separation within the universe. There are three basic schools of thought. A dualistic separation, a non-dual complete inherent union, or a qualitative non-dual one-ness but God has different qualities (infinte, independent of cause, unchanging, permanent and eternal) than the universe (finite, dependent on cause to exist- Big Bang, changing and impermanent). Therefore they are either separate, all one, or united but qualitatively different.

 

For this to truly work, the universe would have to be seemingly finite but its true nature must be interconnectedness. Through the interconnectedness it can be united with a theoretical infinite oneness (God) by sharing that quality. If the universe is disconnected internally, then it actually negates the definition of God by limiting its existence as being separate from "something". Therefore, they should be interconnected but qualitatively distinct. Once you create any real pluralism in the universe you break and negate the definition of God because it is not absolute because there is something objectively separate from it.

 

Actually there is one more option, that God and the universe are inherently separted and the universe is merely dependent on God to exist. Therefore, the only connection to God is through the singularity before Creation. This is parallel to Gnostic Dualism and Dvaita Vedanta, However, you are still left with the problem of how God can be infinte onen-ess but something exists separate from it.

 

On the issue of singularity being the conection to one-ness though, As the universe presumably emerged from singularity and macroscopic atoms are united into singularity in black holes, the connection of particles to one-ness is equatable to these by saying the farther you break a particle down you inevitably reach a similar state of oneness. You could almost argue that God and one-ness are rooted in a hyper-dimensional geomteric relationship to our universe through implosion. Big-Bang imploding into God, stars imploding into singularities, particles shrinking into fields.

[Dyothelite]

You are quite intelligent. I am not used to thinking about seperate deist natures. I might require time to digest what you're saying and respond on a comparable level.

 

Regarding the physics, I just read something in the middle of the night last night that may interest you. It might be too abstract, in which case I can provide links to more focused discussion on the subject. It's about what the universe is made of.

 

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=849347

 

First, thank you. It is the logical approach to theology that i appreciate and want to share with science.

 

Can you explain what the difference between what an open and closed system is?

[Turtle]

Here is a good theological example:

 

...My hope is that the universe mirrors this truth in some way, particles and waves are not separate, and they are not the same, in fact they are qualitatively distinct but inseparably harmonized.

 

And then:

You could almost argue that God and one-ness are rooted in a hyper-dimensional geomteric relationship to our universe through implosion. Big-Bang imploding into God, stars imploding into singularities, particles shrinking into fields.

 

Herin lies the problem with theological approaches attempting to support their claims by science; that is the invocation of such terms as 'hope' and 'almost'. Ever read any of Descartes ontological 'proofs' of God? :Guns:

 

I have a problem with the "its turtles all the way down" approach to this though! Could be--just like the Simpson's opener zooming into Homer's brain--endlessly recursive though, but that's different!

From my perspective you have it quite right and the oft quoted meme is a bit in error. In fact, it's turtles all the way 'round. :hihi:

[Dyothelite]

i've found descartes assertions unsatisfying. his logic concerning proof of God through the unknowable nature of the universe, and even his "I am....." logical assertions unsatisfying. That's just me though.

 

By the way, I fully admit my reliance of terms like hope and almost, the truest reality of this is that even if we can establish logical theories about the existence of God, we will still be forced to believe in it because by its own definition it is beyond empirical obsersations and beyond normal comprehension. I recognize that even with a definitive theory of God, it can never be proven through empirical observation and therefore will always remain a theory. Therefore, it will always be evident that the only way to embrace the theory is with faith. And in this I admit God is a theory by definition, that is why you need hope, and faith. The sad part is even if I acheive a solid theoretical proof of God, through its own definition it is not directly observable or quantifiable, and until I die I will never be able to truly observe or measure God. But my faith is strengthened and solidified through a solid logical proof. For me it is more reassuring than blind faith. I say it this way sometimes, "Logic is the opium of the scientists" where (Nietzche) "Religion is the opium of the masses" in the realm of faith, science is the opium that is the pacification of my insecurity with not understanding reality definitively.

[Southtown]

First, thank you. It is the logical approach to theology that i appreciate and want to share with science.

 

Can you explain what the difference between what an open and closed system is?

A closed system should eventually collapse back and Big Bang all over again. Whereas an open system would just keep expanding. The universe could possibly be infinite in age and size, and that article describes why such a scenario would better fit the observations. Here's the wiki article:

 

Open system (system theory)

[Dyothelite]

Oh ok, that's what I thought. I'm partial to the closed system idea, but that isn't neccessarily coming from my science expertise. Hinduism has some deep cosmologies thaty speak of a closed universe. Brahma the (creator) gives birth to the universe, Vishnu (the sustainer) supports the universe, and Shiva (the destroyer) destroys the universe, then it happens all over again forever. Hindu is has a lot of different theologies but thats a common one.

 

One question though: the wikipedia article doesn't say anything about cosmological collapse. Is it possible to have and open system that collapses or a closed system that has connection to an infinte source of energy?

 

This is what I've decided to move forward with it seems obvious that at the macroscopic level things are separated and that the universal interconnectedness is actually at the quantum/singularity level. I taught myself speacial relativity at 16 (skipping geometry class and smokin outside) and around that time I tried to compose a hyper-dimensional view of the universe. I tried to show time and gravity on 4 and 5 dimensional spatial levels. I gave up a little once I hit a Einstein dead end so to speak (meaning Einstein proved me wrong), but I have decided to revive part of it. Tell me what you think.

 

The interconnectedness of the universe can be seen at three points (or more), Big Bang singularity, black hole singularity, and at the quantum level of every particle. At singularities all plurlaity of particles are broken down into one, the universe in a closed system emerged from and will return to a singular oneness. And the reason I say quantum oneness is parallel is because like the universe and black holes "implode" to reach one-ness, quantum particles have to be "shrunk" (so to speak) in the direction of implosion in order to find quantum one-ness.

 

The real reason I bring this up is I have always thought that implosion is the direction of higher dimensional geometries. If I can establish a basic multi-dimensional theoretical model of the universe I can essentially show that the universe is interconnectedned on a hyper-dimensional level. The fact is even if I say the universe is interconnected at the subatomic level we stilll have to see that the level of the interconnectedness is not directly at the three dimensional macroscopic level.

 

 

 

Ever read "Flatland" or "Sphereland"?

 

Also would you agree with this quote from wikipedia?: "QM deals with particles and one of the properties of a particle is its position as a function of time and in QM, this becomes the position operator as a function of time (it's constant in the Schrödinger picture and varying in the Heisenberg picture). QFT, on the other hand, deals with fields on a fundamental level and particles only emerge as localized excitations (aka quanta aka quasiparticles) of the ground state (aka the vacuum) and it's precisely these quantum fields which correspond to the operator valued functions."

 

This is a perfect example.... well I'll wait for you to respond so I don't get ahead of myself.

[Turtle]

By the way, I fully admit my reliance of terms like hope and almost, the truest reality of this is that even if we can establish logical theories about the existence of God, we will still be forced to believe in it because by its own definition it is beyond empirical obsersations and beyond normal comprehension.

 

This bears on the issue of why even bother? :hihi: It's akin to continuously knocking your head on a wall on the pretense you may actually go through it by some unknown mechanism (like quantum flunctuation) inspite of all evidence to the contrary. Superstition and irrationality is all I see in it on a personal level, and claims that it is true because 'it is written' stemming from individuals bent on profitting on the ignorance of others.:edizzy: :pirate: :beer: & :dog:

[Dyothelite]

This bears on the issue of why even bother? :hihi: It's akin to continuously knocking your head on a wall on the pretense you may actually go through it by some unknown mechanism (like quantum flunctuation) inspite of all evidence to the contrary. Superstition and irrationality is all I see in it on a personal level, and claims that it is true because 'it is written' stemming from individuals bent on profitting on the ignorance of others.:edizzy: :pirate: :beer: & :dog:

 

I understand your scepticism but if we lived by your logic we'd be left with a geocentric solar system, no electricity, and Newtonian physics. I'll take my chances. Thanks though.

[Dyothelite]

Random important question:

 

A star has a given gravitational constant. As it implodes into a blackhole its gravitational constant changes.

 

Does its gravitational constant change with a constant rate or is it exponential? From normal star to blackhole does the g. constant increase with a constant rate or a changing rate?

[Turtle]

I understand your scepticism but if we lived by your logic we'd be left with a geocentric solar system, no electricity, and Newtonian physics. I'll take my chances. Thanks though.

 

If we live by the logic, we require some qualitative support of your assertion. By my recall, it was the Catholic church that censured Galileo, Ben Franklin made the fundamental discoveries in electricity as an atheist, and Newton & Einstein were autistic. Depends on who casts the last lot. :hihi: