Proof that Light is from God - Quantum Mechanics of Creation

reply to post by Philodemus


Before 1917, Euclidean Geometry was the basis for our view of the world. Are you sure about this? WIKI: "While Euclidean geometry, named after the Greek mathematician Euclid, includes some of the oldest known mathematics, non-Euclidean geometries were not widely accepted as legitimate until the 19th century."

Not all triangles have 180 degrees. What else will we find? Living in a space that is never in the same state twice does not a firm foundation make. We are traveling and have never been in the same place in space twice. The sun moves. 200+ million years to revolve around a moving core. No piece of matter in the universe has ever been in the same state twice and our best understanding is that we are in a hologram. I think the safe bet is to look for the Creator's signature on the creation.

reply to post by Philodemus

Please, bear with me, Enoch. You'll have to hold my hand through this until I understand what exactly you are saying. Are you saying then the order is premise, theory, "parable"?

The order starts by knowing that fact exists, but faith is all we have to infer the truth. Apart from help, we are lost. The help comes in the form of parable that is left to show law. From law, we see there is a governor. We can take this from the other direction and leave the idea of the governor out, but the circle will lead back to the need for a governor.

The order in scientific method is this: systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

When hypothesis ends with the beginning axioms as presented in the Bible, we have risen to the higher degree independently. Science is our independent verification that original postulation was correct all along. We needed to disprove it first. Not having the ability to disprove truth, we know the answer.

Aleph Bet is Father. Word comes from the Father.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

No darkness can hide the light. Even a candle clears a dark room.

reply to post by Philodemus

Why do you give natural selection "intention"? Is it valid? Also, it seems to me that you are incorporating ideas from the theory of evolution into the universe as a whole by saying that it would "want" the strongest outcome. First, the two ideas (evolution and universal development and expansion), as far as I know are not synonymous. Secondly, I would like to understand your reasoning for saying that the universe would "want the strongest outcome". I would think that it would only work to maintain a balanced one. Furthermore, what is your opinion then on entropy?

Doesn't this assume your presuppositions? My presupposition is that Evolution is a result and not a cause. Science clearly implies that there is no cause. They say that Evolution is a cause. Of course, collapsing wave function must have consciousness, just as letters must have a medium and catalyst to occupy form. Letters are of little use if there is no meaning under the hood of the hidden value. There must always be three in nature. One brings the other two into balance as value.

One God is I AM. Consciousness knows itself. From this, it seeks to survive by copying itself across the expanse of its territory. An acorn is unfolded. An oak tree is enfolded back to the acorn. What is the germ in the middle of the process? Word.

Father is Alpha (Strength) Bet (House).

Alphabet is the germ. A germ must enfold to a seed. A seed must be broken to unfold, yet there must be a medium to again house the enfolded information. Again, is this accidental or is it a process of design and complexity by something other than the two coming together?

Before we can have an alphabet and word, we must have a consciousness writing the information into form. This computer you use is the very same process of collapsing wave function. You are the wave function. Who is the author?

Presuppositions can be self-evident. If you have verification that your intuition is correct, then we have an enigma. Who wrote the Aleph Bet? DNA could not have written itself in this universe.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Alright. The specific premise of science would be something along the lines of, “reality/existence/the universe is ultimately knowable to man”. That would certainly feed into how theories are formed but how that results in a “parable” (or what is even meant by that really) I do not yet understand.

What I mean when I say that science starts from axiomatic truth that presuppose its premise, is that there are certain truths which are inherent in the above stated premise. For instance, to say that reality is knowable, is to imply that there is a reality to know in the first place; that existence exists. To deny this is to cut off at the knees any attempt to know or interact with said reality. Secondly, what a premise like the above would indicate is that there is a consciousness able to do the perceiving of that reality; of something able to do the knowing. The consciousness presupposes the concept of “existence”. So, in that case, we now have a consciousness that is in need of definition. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. To be conscious of nothing is to not have consciousness. At this point, we are in a co-supportive structure of axiomatic recognition. Consciousness validates existence and existence validates consciousness. The last thing necessary is to acknowledge is that a thing is a thing itself and no other thing. In other words, to exist is to exist as something specific, i.e. A=A. If this were not the case, objects of our awareness would remain largely unknown to us because there would be no certainty that they would be those same objects the next time we observe them. This gives major fuel to our above stated premise, for without this knowledge we would not be able to move forward in acquiring knowledge.

It is on these three axioms (existence, consciousness, and identity) that one can then propose the primacy of existence. This principle is stated to identify the fact that the objects of awareness hold metaphysical primacy over us as the subject. The objects do not conform to our conscious or subconscious intent. They do not change their essence or existence based on our will, whim, wish, or imagination. No matter how badly I want my computer to be made of solid gold, it will remain what it is.

That is the basis from which I work. What is the basis from which you work? You've mentioned several ways of knowing the reality in which we find ourselves; from some vague mention of scripture being axiomatic, to knowledge being programmed into our DNA, to some sort of undefined sixth sense which we use to perceive the supernatural, even an implicit affirmation that conscious knows itself without any reference to things outside of it (that consciousness is enough to inform consciousness). I would like to know what your basic concepts are in plain English. I want to know on what do you found your metaphysics and on what do you base your epistemology. Your op was interesting, but there is a vast assortment of assumptions that you can not expect people to swallow unless you drop some of the cryptic new-age prophetic jargon and say what you mean.



In regards to your idea that consciousness in some way effects the outcome of a wave function, you are susceptible to a few serious misconceptions. First, you are trying to say that a consciousness is doing the measuring of the wave/particle, when in fact we need an apparatus to do this. So, unless you can categorically rule out the possibility that it is not the device causing the aberration you can not assert it is man's consciousness. When we talk about “seeing” a quantum unit act differently in one situation or another, we are not talking about seeing these things with our literal eyes. Unless you have some superhuman vision that I do not. Secondly, there is no prima facie violation or contradiction of the primacy of existence when a physical object (measuring device or even a man) has an effect on another physical object. If this were the case we would have major violations when the moon goes around the earth or a kick to a soccer ball sends it flying. The only thing that would violate the primacy of existence would be if the scientist could control the outcome of the experiment with his will.

Now, I have to ask you then if the source of our knowledge is some divine sense or innate knowledge woven into you DNA, then why is it you rely on the science of those who do not share your premise in order to validate your conclusions? This seems to be a performative inconsistency.

reply to post by Philodemus


I must also probe the idea that we have innate knowledge. To me this is a blatant contradiction to everything we know about how man learns. If you are saying instead that knowledge is “awoken” in us rather than attained by us, then by what means do we know that? Everything in my experience points to me not having knowledge of something and then acquiring it. If you are going to posit something different, you'll have to show us how you do so.

If much of what I have written is off the mark then I really need you to speak more clearly. I am having a hard time seeing through the mystical presentation. If you are writing a book, clarity should be your primary concern. Not all of us understand where you are coming from.


In Humanity,
Daniel

P.S. I am still interested in how you define God. As I said you listed invariable as an attribute. What other concepts can I utilize to inform the concept "God"? If I am to be convinced of your idea and converted to your belief system, I will need to understand your God. Is this fair?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by cody599

 

But the bible was written originally in Aramaic

Then Hebrew if I recall correctly

So why bring Greek into it ?

Hebrew then Greek and Aramaic. Then Latin. If I recall correctly.

but first..
the old testament was found in sumerian. an ancient culture. other cultures had the same message conveyed in different ways.

in fact, you could achieve God's blessing by following the wisdom in the old testament alone. Jesus just came to expand the meaning of the message to make a bit easier to understand, and to provide proof, so we could believe it.

Clearly a problem of induction in epic proportions, the facts is this charlatan couldn't debate any of this due to his lack of empirical substance. It basically comes down to a jewish woman whom got raped or had an affair, and due to the writings of Leviticus she should have been brought before father's step and stoned to death. Gee, wonder why she lied then (sarcasm). Then comes the issue of the breaking of natural law to have the birth of a deity that somehow prescribes itself to this same deity having the highest moral understandings of any live human. Then, 2000 years later, as hole after hole is blown in all religion's thought, not just christianity, and we have nummies like this guy who wants a theocracy or just a return to medieval times for some odd reason.

So let me ask the original OP, do you believe all the book, the bible, or some of the book or just the parts of the book that work for you?

Alright if you had postulated something based on data recovered in new findings such as this article: Plank Satelite then I would have given you some credence. Maybe you could have said that based on new mathematical formulas, it is clear that the universe is almost unnaturally born and appears to be designed. And maybe your proof could have been based on the unnatural alignment in the universes expansion. But the mumbo-jumbo crap I read really makes feel very disappointed in you.

Originally posted by artemisminion
Ever notice no scientist ever comes to the conclusion of intelligent design from experimentation. They always have a religious awakening and then try to cram science in to it.....

edit on 16-7-2013 by artemisminion because: (no reason given)

Really? Carl Sagan was a scientist and a self proclaimed atheist, yet a supporter of the intelligent design theory based solely on what he seen and discovered through scientific experimentation.

Unlike other religious and scientific bigots, Sagan intelligently points out the fact that we simply don't know no matter which side of the fence we are on, one belief is just as valid as another, because that's all it is, a belief. Just don't confine yourself to one space because of that belief.

reply to post by Konduit


Even Hawking has a design theory. But the difference is that scientists come to recognize the possibility but stay within natural explanation. They hardly ever say the "creative force" is something outside of this universe. I might be wrong though, but that is the impression I get.

In Humanity,
Daniel

reply to post by EnochWasRight
the tree of life was a subject way before the Hebrew language was thought of so as far as having an exclusive claim on God, you should give it a rest.

Originally posted by Philodemus
They hardly ever say the "creative force" is something outside of this universe. I might be wrong though, but that is the impression I get.

In Humanity,
Daniel

this may interest you

reply to post by Konduit


Did you watch those videos???? Carl sagan didn't believe in creationism. He pretty mush even says that in the vid you posted lol. Carl is misquoted by creationists in a famous "quote".

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

the tree of life was a subject way before the Hebrew language was thought of so as far as having an exclusive claim on God, you should give it a rest.

When Adam and Enoch walked the Earth, there was a group that held truth. The book of Enoch makes it clear that the righteous finally died off the Earth and Noah was the sole man left with the pure seed. Enoch was taken and Methuselah died. When this happened, the flood took place. We see the food only in terms of Noah, yet the flood is much more. The flood is the representation of water and rebirth of men. Baptism is the flood. We enter the waters so that we can ride to the other side over time. What was carried through the flood waters with Noah? The root of truth. What happened after the food? Babel. The common thread of truth that made it across this span of water were the letters themselves. This thread was then taken by the Pagan world into many languages, but the true version was held by the Hebrew people.

Joseph entered Egypt for a purpose. Moses entered for a purpose. Between Enoch, Joseph and Moses, we have three parts of the Mystery together in one. Hermes is a representation of these three parts. Truth is Hermetically sealed by the first scribe that never died. The last part of this Word was the Living word that died as the sacrifice for the rest. The flood waters were then engaged by Elijah for the last time over the last 2000 years. The temple is cleansed over the next 1000 years and we exit the ARK onto dry land that is renewed by fire. For believers who take their Sabbath, it's a day of rest as water puts out fire. For the rest, it's a baptism in fire and not water. The truth of the letters is in Christ, the Living Word. Of course, we are also the living word if we are in Christ. This word will be preserved in the Lamb's Book of Life. Information and DNA can be saved and this is what the ARK does. It is a repository so we can be born again. The Bible is a shadow of this word.

Revelation 9

During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

Water is used to purify the soul by repentance. Repentance is turning toward God.

Revelation 21

Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

DNA is the Book.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


He creates more problems than he solves with this nonsense. He knee-caps epistemology. Why can’t people who advocate the primacy of consciousness ever have a cogent hierarchy to follow?

reply to post by Philodemus


Yet, the highest axioms we possess are in the Bible. Not just in the Bible, but it shows that the very DNA we are encoded with is from the Aleph Bet (Father) and the Word (Christ / Son). It then states that the son is Bet Nun (house of the seed) and the mother is Aleph Mem (Strength of the Waters). It then states that Truth is Aleph Mem Tav (Strength of the Waters to save). Tav is the end and the cross of two crossed sticks. Christ is the salvation of the world.

You cannot be saying that this is some accidental arrangement of letters can you? No reason or rational explanation will take this truth away from the Bible. It is the highest axiom we have and the proof is where it originates. It comes form the sheep herders of the Mediterranean. How did they get it? God inspired them to write it and gave them the letters to use. PROOF! I have not just showing the associations and correspondences in this. I have shown proof that a higher intelligence than that of man left us with the blueprint and the blueprint cannot be denied as the highest truth we posses.

Look at my latest thread and read my posts in it as well. This cannot be argued. No critic can disprove this or show this to be anything but divinely inspired by a higher power than we currently possess. Not only this, but we have had it in our possession from the beginning. Again, probability shows the evidence and it is evident with no counterargument.

Unless someone can demonstrate how they know DNA was the Alphabet of the universe, then we have a problem denying what is obvious.

LATEST THREAD

reply to post by EnochWasRightWell, up to this point I have asked you many questions. I have also asked you for clarity. I have a final statement to make but before I do, let's take a stroll down memory lane.

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Can you explain how scripture an axiom? I see an axiom to be a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.
In other words, scripture as an axiom is not conceptually irreducible.

Did you explain how scripture is axiomatic? No.
What did you do? Quoted Wiki.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
From Wikipedia: An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning.
My premise is not founded on a pretext. It's founded on a context found in the Bible. When we use this foundation, the contradiction and paradox below is resolved.

But what's the rest of that Wikipedia entry say?

An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy

Is scripture axiomatic by any accepted definition of the word? No.
I asked:

Originally posted by Philodemus
Right. That's my point. Why should we use the Bible?

You answered:

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Why do we need the Bible?

Apart from a secondary witness to confirm your inference from the evidence, you cannot know that the reflection you observe has a mirror.

So, you answered in assertion.
Someone mentioned to you that they find it hard to believe that the symmetry you point to is exclusive to the Christian bible. You responded with:

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
God can claim the invariable symmetry of physics.

An assertion based argumentum ad ignorantiam...

God is one and his word is one invariable truth. That word is not simply the Bible and it is not found in a creed or ideology. The Word itself are the letters of the tree of life that we use to then reflect the shadows.

and ambiguity based on stolen concept;
Followed by:

No other book claims to be written by the hand of man and the mind of God.

a viciously circular argument. sandwiched by:

As soon as anyone here can produce this level of probability, then this is a proof that we have the source of the word that claims to be the source of the letters of the tree of life (DNA), of which, we would not know to name the tree of life apart from the letters and words we are given.

a. A challenge to produce an argument against metaphor
b. "Proof" by default (argument ad ignorantiam)
c. Passing the burden of proof to the person who is NOT making the claim
Then I asked:

Originally posted by Philodemus
What is our best image? I see you listed "invariable". What other descriptors can you present?
Also, at the end there you seem to be talking about the divine sense. Can you explain yourself?

To which you provided no answers.
But you respond with:

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Philodemus

 

Living in a space that is never in the same state twice does not a firm foundation make. We are traveling and have never been in the same place in space twice. The sun moves. 200+ million years to revolve around a moving core. No piece of matter in the universe has ever been in the same state twice and our best understanding is that we are in a hologram. I think the safe bet is to look for the Creator's signature on the creation.

An argument ad ignorantiam that misses the point of how knowledge and epistemology work for the human mind.
Then you follow up with:

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The order starts by knowing that fact exists, but faith is all we have to infer the truth. Apart from help, we are lost.

Which bypasses an explanation of how we know that facts exist in the first place and introducing the concept of faith without an explanation of how it works or what informs it.

Then you state:

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
My presupposition is that Evolution is a result and not a cause.

Which is now an admission on your part that you do not in fact take your Bible literally. Subsequently, if it is figurative we must rely on the fallible interpretation of man. Which gets us now where. You must then resort to "sensus divinitatis". I'm glad that's not my problem.
Then you assert:

Science clearly implies that there is no cause. They say that Evolution is a cause.

Which is a misunderstanding of both what evolution posits and causality. Then, to tidy up the paragraph you end with

Of course, collapsing wave function must have consciousness, just as letters must have a medium and catalyst to occupy form. Letters are of little use if there is no meaning under the hood of the hidden value. There must always be three in nature. One brings the other two into balance as value.

which is, may I say, unintelligible even to a philosophy major.
You don't leave us with the above, you wrap up the whole reply with this:

Presuppositions can be self-evident. If you have verification that your intuition is correct, then we have an enigma. Who wrote the Aleph Bet? DNA could not have written itself in this universe.

a) Presuppositions can be self-evident, I agree. But since you nowhere display yours who COULD disagree with you?
b) What enigma is there behind validating my intuition by the data of my senses?
c) "Who wrote the Alep Bet?" is nonsensical even after reading all of your material
d) You end with an assertion based on argument ad ignorantiam.
I responded by walking you through my three axioms and how they inform my choice to accept the primacy of existence with flatly contradicts your worldview (I think?) but you nowhere address these points. In fact, I reiterated several of my questions:

Originally posted by Philodemus
That is the basis from which I work. What is the basis from which you work? You've mentioned several ways of knowing the reality in which we find ourselves; from some vague mention of scripture being axiomatic, to knowledge being programmed into our DNA, to some sort of undefined sixth sense which we use to perceive the supernatural, even an implicit affirmation that conscious knows itself without any reference to things outside of it (that consciousness is enough to inform consciousness). I would like to know what your basic concepts are in plain English. I want to know on what do you found your metaphysics and on what do you base your epistemology. Your op was interesting, but there is a vast assortment of assumptions that you cannot expect people to swallow unless you drop some of the cryptic new-age prophetic jargon and say what you mean.

And again, you do not address them in the open were they can be examined. In addition, I address your performative inconsistencies, which you ignored.
In your final remark you say this:

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Yet, the highest axioms we possess are in the Bible.

[The Bible] is the highest axiom we have and the proof is where it originates.

Everything I have posted here and these last two comments bring me to my point. You do not know what an axiom is, or if you do, you abuse the concept along with a myriad of others.
So, there it is. I wish you the best of luck with your new book.

In Humanity,
Daniel

reply to post by Philodemus

An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy

As evidenced by the fact that you counter the OP with a definition instead of speaking to the Axiom that the OP is founded on. TRUTH is the axiom and it is invariable and symmetric. Aside from your counter argument creating no error to the OP, the higher truth stands on high ground. Again, this is the way we arrive at a truth.

reply to post by Philodemus

a. A challenge to produce an argument against metaphor
b. "Proof" by default (argument ad ignorantiam)
c. Passing the burden of proof to the person who is NOT making the claim

If you have a way of arguing the points made in the OP, then consider aiming your comments at the evidence. Trying to render a derailment of the train because you do not like where it leads is not a point that needs to be made. The simple fact remains.

God makes claims. Those claims are shown to be in perfect reflection with the world around us. Shattering the mirror, and picking out aspects of the reflection you do not like, will not change the fact that the mirror reveals God.

Aleph is Strength. We know this to be true for thousands of years.

Bet is House. Again, ageless truth.

Nun is Seed. Older than our technology.

Tav. Symbol for the cross and the last letter of the Aleph Bet.

Mem. Water. I bet the water you drink is older than you.

Nun is Seed in Hebrew.

Aleph Bet is Hebrew for Father (Strong House) and the thing that created the Word (Alphabet). The house of letters is the word. The house of DNA is the Sperm and Egg. The Strong Nuclear force is the nucleus in the middle of the Neutron housing the Proton. Both are mirrored by two up and one down quark. The other has two down and one up.

Aleph Mem is the Hebrew word for Mother. You are immersed in water. 80% of your body is water. 2/3 of the Earth is water. Water is life and Carbon (6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons) is our mark.

Bet Nun means Son in Hebrew. It is the House of the Seed.

DNA is letters made of words. This is your proof that God told us before we used our 'science' to see it at the end. Meeting us at the end is Truth and the Cross of Christ.

Truth is Aleph (Father) Mem (Mother / Matter) and Tav (Word carrying the Seed and the Cross he bears).

Argue all you want, I should not be able to describe physics and DNA within Genesis 1 unless it is both Truth and Divinely inspired.

Unless you can aruge that Aleph Bet makes Word and DNA is word, then you have failed to show credible evidence that this thread is proof that God is light. Speaking of Light, consider the evidence in the OP for the nature of consciousness in matter. It seems to be the entire topic of the Bible and Science. Again, who was there first?

Of course, the one on both ends of the water. Aleph Mem Tav. Alpha and Omega.

Who created the letters? This is a better question for you to be asking.

Using the world's reasoning will fail you. Instead, look at your ABCs of God's word. He keeps it simple for us.