Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000 Posts: 304
|
fanofVan wrote: I know I've pointed this out to you before but the Papers say that Paradise IS INDEED a "point" of actual location which can be located FROM any other point of location by proper coordinates and movement across space and that all other points of time and space are measured relative to this place outside of or encompassing time and space...as we understand it
Not exactly.
0:4.12 The Isle of Paradise has a universe location but no position in space.
Here TUB distinguishes universe location from position in space. Paradise is an exclusive reality. It does not reside in time and space as you suggest above.
fanofVan wrote: I think it is an error to project the physics of either reality upon the other and hope to understand or explain anything at all.
Nothing can be projected upon another. Spirit realities project finite realities. Show me where I am conflating the two.
fanofVan wrote: As to "godless" science...that's a rather harsh and inaccurate accusation against Newton.
You do me a disservice here in your statement. I never accused the person of Newton of being "godless". I made that reference to his book.
fanofVan wrote: "Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."[125]
Anyone can claim anything such as the above, but Newton, wittily or unwittingly, usurped the Creator with his laws of motion. It matters not what Newton warns, what he does and writes about inertia (momentum) is akin to a great clock initially wound and set in motion. His gravity does not explain the motions of the planets.
fanofVan Wrote: He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity".[127] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities.[128] For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."[129]
Thanks for this Wiki quote because it is most telling. As we know, Newton and Leibniz were contemporary competitors. But while both pay the necessary lip service to the divine, I am inclined to be more on the side of Leibniz. At least Leibniz concedes to "God Almighty" winding his watch from time to time. TUB in the following quote suggest that the winding of the watch is continuous and not just from time to time. Newton concedes nothing of the sort. His law of inertia has God winding the clock and ceasing to function thereafter. Whose side would you take?
4:1.6 The Universal Father has not withdrawn from the management of the universes; he is not an inactive Deity. If God should retire as the present upholder of all creation, there would immediately occur a universal collapse. Except for God, there would be no such thing as reality. At this very moment, as during the remote ages of the past and in the eternal future, God continues to uphold. The divine reach extends around the circle of eternity. The universe is not wound up like a clock to run just so long and then cease to function; all things are constantly being renewed. The Father unceasingly pours forth energy, light, and life. The work of God is literal as well as spiritual. "He stretches out the north over the empty space and hangs the earth upon nothing."
Makalu wrote: it doesn't matter if mass doesn't have a point and space moves and time is circular...you can still do valid, useful math, and its not nonsense at all. physicists already know that they are setting an artificial frame of reference in order to do the math. they already know they are straightening spacetime, stopping motion and generalizing position. if it was nonsense we wouldnt be able to land on mars
And what is the artificial frame of reference that physicist use? A frame of reference for motion must be stillness, Paradise. Paradise is outside of space-time, so how do they do this? Einstein used a constant as a frame of reference, the speed of light. But a moving space precludes a constant speed for light.
What do you consider to be valid math? Show me any valid math in QED and I will believe you. Start with Gauge math. And try going to Mars without a supercomputer and thrusters to correct trajectories here and there and everywhere.
Makalu wrote: i doubt that the uncertainty principle has had much effect on materialistic philosophy or led any scientist toward faith in god...it can easily be seen as purely mechanical. and the UB says the wave/particle problem doesnt exist, there are only particles and wavelike manifestations. but notice all of the useful science we do with that manifestation that some would call nonsense!
65:6.1 It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm.
Do you doubt that the above quote refers to the uncertainty principle? Is TUB referring to a "purely mechanical" paradox?
toto wrote: 42:4.14 The quantity of energy taken in or given out when electronic or other positions are shifted is always a “quantum” or some multiple thereof, but the vibratory or wavelike behavior of such units of energy is wholly determined by the dimensions of the material structures concerned. Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units thus performing. The never-ending confusion attending the observation of the wave mechanics of quantum behavior is due to the superimposition of energy waves: Two crests can combine to make a double-height crest, while a crest and a trough may combine, thus producing mutual cancellation.
Tell me again that TUB says that the wave-particle problem doesn't exist. Is a never-ending confusion a problem? Perhaps not, but confusion is never a good thing.
Makalu wrote: your ideas about the role of mind in the observer effect are just a common misconception among metaphysicians...its an effect of mechanical instruments
TUB disagrees with you in this statement. The observer is responsible for observations and measurements. What mind came up with the mechanical instruments? It is the same mind that is responsible for this "effect". And this is because the human personality can be a cause of space-time events.
12:5.11 The human personality is not merely a concomitant of time-and-space events; the human personality can also act as the cosmic cause of such events.
42:11.3 The ability to discern and discover mind in universe mechanisms depends entirely on the ability, scope, and capacity of the investigating mind engaged in such a task of observation. Time-space minds, organized out of the energies of time and space, are subject to the mechanisms of time and space.
Makalu wrote: Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.[6][7]
Who are you quoting here? My sources are a Mighty Messenger and a Life carrier. I do not think that these two are confused.
Makalu wrote: As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[5]
Thanks for quoting a celebrated atheist.
BTW, what you refer to as useful science is in reality useful engineering. This is the result of very little genius and much perspiration.
|
|