Posted on 11/30/2004 6:21:11 PM PST by betty boop
betty boop
add me to your ping list
Well never fear, my friend: I don't think Plato ever thought that his theory would in any way consign you, a human being, to the status of "a giant sponge."
Plato is not a Buddhist. I don't even think the Buddhists would consign you to such a status in nature. But then, I am only a very general reader in Buddhist philosophy, being fully engaged by the Christian one -- and more than that, in its eschatology.
Whatever the case, I strongly doubt that Plato was a pantheist.
We won the 2004 World Series!!!!! And deserved to!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a God in heaven!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I really don't, PH. I find you a pretty amazing person. If you have any "limitations" at all, I suspect they may be self-imposed. FWIW = 0.
Can I get any specific cites in support of this allegation? Such would be welcome, in the interest of the pursuit of God's everlasting truth....
LOL cornelis!!! I do believe you may be right about that! :^)
Yes, the 'downward tendency' is the necessary thrustblock against which we push to exercise the muscles of our desire for God. To yield to the downward tendency as a rule, is to waste the Grace (time) of God. A weightlifter would make little progress pumping feathers.
Eriugina and Turner define the process of growth and eventual illumination in proper form. Thoroughly enjoyed the read. Thanks for posting this.
I would recommend "The Vision of God" by Vladimir Lossky. It is less than 200 pages and will serve as a good introduction to the development of theology in the early church in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. I must admit I couldn't make much sense of it the first time I read it, mainly because it didn't coincide with the previous Neoplatonic interpretations of Christianity that I had read. I read it again 6 months later and discovered that I had a very different understanding of Christianity because of this book.
Heavy stuff! What you assembled is an effort
of love. I really enjoy reading it, even though
some of is way past me. But it is good exercise
for these brain neurons.
Two questions:
Q1: At death do we revert to that state
we were in prior to conception?
Q2: If we exist in a universe without
beginning or end, then have we
enjoyed infinite existences without
recollections?
A note about infinity. Infinities have
different orders. e.g. The cardinality
of the real numbers is higher than that
of the integers. The set of integers is
said to be a "countable" set. But the RN
are not, since they can't be put in a one
to one correspondence with the integers.
Since time is continuous like the real
numbers, it has the same cardinality as
the RN. The point here is that "infinity"
and "nothing" are concepts that we just
can't comprhend, but we are here and
that is a "miracle", isn't it?
29 posted on 11/30/2004 10:17:03 PM PST by cliff630 (cliff630 (Didn't Christ ask Pilate, "What is the Truth." Even while looking in the face of TRUTH))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Uh, you may want to correct your tagline. Pilate asked Christ, not the other way around.
What mother would name her child 'The Flat One'?
I'm so glad you liked it, cliff! Plus you ask great questions!
Regarding your first question, I really have no idea. Plus I don't know of any way I could possibly find out for sure, sitting here on my own little perch in 3+1D spacetime. Not only have I no recollection of any personal preexistence; but I can't even recollect the birth experience itself. Possibly if there was a preexistence it's buried deep in the unconscious mind. But I wouldn't take that statement to the bank!
As for the second question, it seems clear that the universe had a beginning in time (or at the very least that time began "in the beginning," along with space and matter), which implies it may have an end in time....
But your own observation about infinities having different orders is so interesting, and may actually shed some light on this problem. (I may be in over my head here; if I am, please do let me know.) Both the integers and the real numbers are said to represent infinite sets, yet the latter set is ever so much "richer" than the former, containing an infinitely greater number of elements such that there is no direct correspondence, or cardinality between the two sets. The set of real numbers contains all the elements of the set of integers as elements of itself, plus all the rational and irrational numbers (but not numbers having any imaginary parts). We do seem to have qualitatively different types of infinities here. The integers, or countable numbers, seem analogous to the natural human understanding of the idea of infinity, however imperfect, where the real numbers seem analogous to the nature of infinity as it is in itself. (So to speak.) In other words, the set of integers may be said to be analogous to immanent experience (i.e., its members are "countable'), where the set of real numbers transcends all experience and quite possibly the universe altogether.
Perhaps we then may say that the integers are analogous to time, and the real numbers analogous to eternity. I'll need to think on that some more. I've been working on a little essay on time and the "eternal now." Maybe if I can get it cleaned up, I can post it here. I'll ping it to you if I do, cliff.
Thank you so very much for your thought provoking post!
Essentially true in many ways. Everything in our universe is countable, a property that gives us the laws of physics we observe. We can indirectly describe non-countable spaces, but only in terms compatible with countable and algorithmically finite spaces. If you look at our universe as a system (rather than the definition of "universe" which nothing is outside), it is possible that the universe exists within a non-countable space. Countable computers (like humans) are generally incapable of operating on non-countable spaces, to the extent that normal concepts of "computation" are not even applicable.
Countability is a very deep mathematical assumption for mathematics applicable to our universe. And in fact, our universe is by all mathematical measures a classic example of an algorithmically finite system (a type of countable space). The type of space you are in determines what properties and capabilities will exist within that space -- subjectively you would find countable spaces to be "richer" than non-countable spaces. That might change if you were an aleph-n (n>0) computer though.
All those years of exile and suffering! We Cardinal fans cannot relate to it, even after being swept in 4.
Cordially,
Fascinating, tortoise -- but might these remarks apply equally regardless of whether the universe is a "system" or an "organism?" I know you prefer the former model; and I the latter. Either type of universe might be said to be an entity of which nothing is "outside." For in a certain way, whichever you choose, can we not say that it exists in a non-countable space, and that this space is itself a "part of the system (organism)" -- because whichever model we choose, the universe would be directly contingent (i.e., utterly dependent) on it for its own existence?
It seems possible to me that humans do in fact ultimately live in an "uncountable space" and for the very reason you give: that "normal concepts of 'computation' are not even applicable to such spaces."
This seems to hold equally true, whether we opt for your idea of a system arising in a non-countable space, or an organism arising from Newton's concept of absolute space, which he terms the sensorium Dei.
I really like this: "Countability is a very deep mathematical assumption for mathematics applicable to our universe. And in fact, our universe is by all mathematical measures a classic example of an algorithmically finite system (a type of countable space). The type of space you are in determines what properties and capabilities will exist within that space -- subjectively you would find countable spaces to be "richer" than non-countable spaces. That might change if you were an aleph-n (n>0) computer though."
Please elaborate your point regarding the significance of the aleph-n (n>0) computer as it pertains to the present issues?
Thank you so much for your thought-provoking observations, tortoise!
Don't forget that the real numbers are catagorical. There is essentially only one model for the real numbers. The integers are more problematical. There is no unique model for the integers. There is no set of axioms that uniquely selects the integers from the reals. (There is a set that selects the integers from the rationals, however.)
Tell me about it, Diamond! I didn't know you were a Cardinals fan. So I'm sorry about that "anticlimactic" remark.... :^) But you know the Yankees and BoSox are always at each other hammer-and-tong. So it was great finally to beat them in the World Championship.
True story: a very elderly gentleman -- age 114 -- was a life-long Red Sox fan, too. Within one month of the World Series, he passed away. Perhaps he was just determined to hang on long enough to see the Sox win the Series; and then he promptly died, his great wish having been granted.
It's so good to see you!
Did any mother ever really do that?
"No similarity whatsoever" is a formal absurdity and is not possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.