Elmore Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 *"It is impossible for a contradictory thing to be true.* A non-contradictory thing could be true or false depending on context but at least has the *possibility* of being true." - me, I said that ❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (Knowing Good; Functions; limit built into every operation)❌️: 1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are the exact same character. 2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus). 3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics). ✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (Knowing Good from Evil; Relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️: 1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are polar opposite characters. 2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus). 3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics). [🐴Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]: Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍 [🐶Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]: The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers. Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago! 🦧 [Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]: locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary") not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent") [Closing arguments]: The Materialism/Empiricism package brings with it all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙). [infinity and zero, God, soul]: in·fin·i·ty MATHEMATICS a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞). (In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects). What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary? a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity. b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)? Well, 0D is outside of space and time: 0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless 1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural) = temporal dimension Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language. Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1. Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them. In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension). "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)". A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing. [Important point 👉 (dont forget)]: 0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions. 0D monad (Creator event horizon) 1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions 1D line 2D width 3D height 4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions 4D length 5D breadth 6D depth 7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions 7D continuous 8D emission 9D absorption 10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon) It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side. The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God. The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God. It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real or "more real") The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity in Genesis 2-3 who constantly messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️). [Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]: Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. [Monad in mathematics, science and technology]: Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Genady Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 6 hours ago, Elmore said: Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus). There is no such distinction in calculus. BTW, there is no thing called "Einstein calculus". Edited February 10 by Genady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Bufofrog Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 7 hours ago, Elmore said: A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing. I pretty sure that saying a quark and a soul are the same thing means your idea is not part of theoretical physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Peterkin Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 8 hours ago, Elmore said: It is impossible for a contradictory thing to be true It is impossible for a single 'thing' to be contradictory. 8 hours ago, Elmore said: The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are the exact same character. No; there are several major differences. In the first version, God creates humans, like other animals, in two sexes and gives them dominion over the earth. There is no question of obedience or sin or freedom of will. In the second, he creates man, tells him everything in the closed garden is at his disposal except the one forbidden tree; only then does he create the woman. This is the excuse for original sin, and the expulsion of Adam and Eve into a harsh world that's nothing like the earth depicted in the first version. These two versions of the same story indicate that the original comes from a tolerant, prosperous culture, presumably one that developed in a fertile region, and has been adopted and altered by a stern, punitive culture developed by people whose experience is of a difficult environment. If the rest of your gobbledegook is as inaccurate as this observation, it's just as well I won't bother to read it. PS If your hope is to reunite science and religion, this approach is unlikely to succeed. Edited February 10 by Peterkin afterthought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

joigus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Where is the physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Phi for All Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 ! Moderator Note Try this again, in the Speculations section, without religious references. As is, we aren't going to discuss this here, not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts