Albert Cipriani

Dear Sandlewood


I'm proposing a radical monotheism, not a duality. I'm trying to drive a wedge into our concept of being to split it into a kind of duality that may be expressed as existence (what we all do) and being (what God alone does). I wish to conflate many separate concepts into one concept -- touch -- and to show that touch is none other than the experience of God.

Definition of terms:
1) Touch is the triune relationship between thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis.
2) Experience, existence, and information (which are interchangeable concepts) mean "to be touched."
3) A physical thing is that which is necessarily in touch with all other physical things.
4) A spiritual thing is that which is necessarily related to all other things.
5) Objective creation is the sum total of things that are touching or things that are related.
6) Subjective creation is a thing's experience/existence/information.
7) Knowledge is the experience of related information. (Thus, knowledge is a spiritual thing.)
8) What a thing is, is what a thing knows.
9) Movement and time, which are interchangeable concepts, are an illusion (Zeno was right!).
10) Movement and time are actually God's recreation of the universe. (Each femtosecond is a jump cut.)

These 8 theses and two (#9 and #10) hypotheses are the bricks I'd like to play in the mud with.

Contrary to what you think, I'm not trying to be elusive or obscure, but as clear as I know how. Nothing depresses me more than to be considered "esoteric" or "mystical" (complements of Single Dad and Jobar). Hopefully these definitions and any clarifications you ask for regarding them will help to dispel the haze that seems to have set in between us – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Draygomb

Albert If Time doesn't exist then god doesn't exist because if the universe exists and there is no time then the universe has always existed and was not created.

Draygomb

By the way you forgot to define what God is.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Draygomb,


is a cirulus demonstando fallacy. If there was no time, it makes no sense to speak of a past (e.g. "has existed") state.

In any case, I still Spring forward and Fall back my clocks in reference to Daylight Savings time. In other words, the effects of what we call time/motion must be dealt with, but time/motion has no metaphysical reality.

There is no thing or power or law (as there is, say, with the law of gravity in regard to mass) called time or motion. Rather, there are mysterious effects that we attribute to a concept called time or motion. It's the same M.O. that you atheists criticize us theist for, of attributing what we don't understand to a god.

Look at it this way. When you watch a "movie" on the silver screen, what's moving, isn't. You're seeing an illusion that a mere 24 static images per second creates in your brain.

Take this concept down to each femptosecond of reality. One femptosecond the electron is here, the next femptosecond it is there. Has it moved? Has some mysterious semantic construction called time somehow "elapsed" (whatever the hell that means) such that "time elapsing" somehow explains how what was here is "now" there?

Well, it's no more mysterious, in fact, it's less mysterious to just face the music, taking our cue from the silver screen, and recognize that the electron was re-created in the there position. We were too. That's why we don't have access to the here position anymore.

And so the universe progresses: it is being recreated anew as many times as there have been what we call femptoseconds to record its progress. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Draygomb

Albert Exactly, It also makes no sense to speak of creation or ReCreaction as those are actions which require time. No Time means No Time for Creation.

Time is the measure of change. If a particle disappears from one location and reappears at another that is change. And as a matter of definition Time is the difference between where the particle was and where it is. If recreation is constant then Time exists.

daemon

I'm astonished, Albert... you have to stop calling yourself Catholic or something, because you keep espousing the pantheist heresy!

What on earth are you talking about here? What is this "triune" relationship? Are you claiming that words have form and substance, that they have three seperate forms and the same substance? If not, you're definitely playing fast and loose with the word "triune."
These are arguably related concepts, but to call them interchangable is definitely an overgeneralization.
Recursive definition; we have no way of determining what is physical and what is not with this definition.
How is this determined?
I can see a case for this.
This one makes no sense. By your defnitions, for something which is spiritual, objective and subjective "creation" are interchangable. Therefore, anything spiritual is inherently omniscient. Are you arguing that humanity is not spiritual, has no spiritual component? Are you actually denying the existence of the soul?!
This has just been utterly lost in the shuffle--given your previous definitions, I can't make any sense out of this statement.
Interesting. So, if God is omniscient--as Catholic doctrine dictates--therefore, God is everything. This is known as "pantheism." Welcome to the heretical fold, Albert!
Of course, by your definitions, there's no difference between "illusion" and "reality," so this is a meaningless observation.
Pointless conjecture. Even if it were the case, this God has made every effort to preserve continuity accross each "moment." This God has made certain that time and motion follow certain rules, and given the illusion that it is a property of the universe. How does this impact anything?
If you wish to seem less esoteric or mystical in posting this, Albert, I'm afraid you've made a big jump backwards...

[ edited because even I know the difference between omnipotence and omniscience... ]

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

Albert Cipriani

Dear Draygomb,
You are making a classic mistake. You're confusing ends and means. You said:


It is not. Time is but one means whereby we measure change. For example, my motorcycle goes from 0 to 60 (mph) in 9 seconds. Or my motorcycle goes from this stop light to that intersection one-quarter mile away before you can run 100 yards. Or my motorcycle can gain 3.9 ergs of kinetic energy. Or, quantum mechanically, my motorcycle can gain mass and make time slow down for it relative to you to a presently immeasurable degree.

You say:


I could just as easily assert that it is memory that does this, for we must remember where it was to discover a change in its location. Ergo, it's just as logical to assert that memory is the cause of change than it is to assert the ancient neologism that "time" caused the change.

You say:


Distance is the difference between where the particle was and "now" is. Time is a fiction, a figment of imagination, an conceptual placeholder.

Since time/motion is a quantum event, it is not infinitely divisible. Ergo, at the finest level of resolution, something literally is here and then literally there, with no trace of it in between. I invoke Occam's razor and the law of non-contradiction and call that recreation.

You time affectionatos must postulate that in two quantum moments a particle exists
1) at location A,
2) ceases to exist altogether,
3) and then exists at location B.

That's three modes, three modes of existence in only two time frames, thus violating the dictum that something cannot both exist and not exist in the same manner or at the same time. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

sandlewood

I have to say that your theory is not convincing to me, mostly because I still haven't any idea what you're talking about. And I don't yet see what this issue with information has to do with believing in God, but I assume you're getting to that.

I've been trying to get some idea of your definition of the word information because it's not clear to me. We normally use the word in a loose way. But when you start basing your whole philosophy on it, you can't still support it based on the loose definition and have that loose definition be the justification. You need to be more exact.

To say that information is touch doesn't help me. All you are saying is that we get information through our senses, which we already know. But are objects information? Or do objects have information? What does it mean to say that an object expresses information? Is information a thing in itself of is it just an abstract concept.

Perhaps this is closest to what I was looking for: According to your definition, I can pick up any old rock from the ground and that rock has information. The rock may be composed of partly of silicon, iron, and a little bit of copper. This is the information. Now that I have learned of the rock's composition, I've learned its information.

But let's say that I devise a code. I'll say that if a rock is 90% silicon, 7% iron, and 3% copper, then that rock means "hello". So if I give you such a rock, I am saying "hello" to you. Does the rock now have more information than it had before? I didn't change the rock at all. So how can we say that information is a thing in itself? We use the word "information" as a noun because it's convenient. But we have to be careful not to start think that information is a separate thing.

It's the same with other objects like CD-ROMs. A CD-ROM is just a piece of plastic. The information on it is an agreement between the sender and the receiver on the particular arrangement of the plastic. Without the sender and receiver to agree on the protocol, the CD-ROM is just a hunk of plastic like any other rock on the earth. But in your definition, perhaps you are saying that the hunk of plastic has information at a more basic level. Perhaps the arrangement of atoms, molecules, and structure of the plastic is the information.

If I look at a rock, the photons bouncing off the rock hit my retina, which sends an electrical impulse to my brain, which in turn activates chemical processes and restructures the nerve cells in my brain. With this new structure, I can now remember that I saw the rock, how big it was, and what color it was. One hour from now, if my brain cells retain the same structure, I will remember the rock and its attributes. This is what I call information. The rock itself did not have any information. Rather, it is my brain's understanding and organization of the visual impulses for later use that I call information.

I also cannot be convinced by your theory of applying algebra to objects so that things cancel out. First, I don't even know that there is any such thing as non-material. It seems to be taken for granted that non-material things exist, such as the world of the supernatural, whatever that is. In some sense, things such as thoughts, ideas, and concepts are non-material. But at the root of them, they are material because they are electrons flowing across brain synapses.

You can't just cancel out real things like you cancel out terms in algebra and suddenly say they don't exist because they cancel out. For example, an ostrich has a beak and a sparrow has a beak. Since the common denominator is that they both have a beak, can I just cancel out the rest of the bird and say that an ostrich is a beak and a sparrow is a beak? Therefore an ostrich and a sparrow really are the same thing and nothing but beaks really exist?
So perhaps the question is whether an object has information or whether an object is information. If it has information than it suffers from the bird problem above. And if it is information…well, that's what you're trying to claim so you can't assume that up front. I don't think either is true. To say that a thing has information really means to say that I can gain knowledge about the thing using my senses. It doesn't really mean that the object has anything. So I don't know how you got from 2 to 3. Water derives from a faucet, but water is not a faucet. Of course I'm using the word "derived" in a particular way here, but I think it's the same way you're using it. If you don't see what is wrong with a statement like this, then I don't know what else I can say. You have more statements like this, and you make them faster than I can point out the problem in each one. So I won't list any more. Sorry, but I just can't make sense out of any of these. For example, number 4. Things are related to each other? How? Is a rock in Pakistan related to a rock in North Dakota? You may say that they are "related" if they both have the same elemental components. But then the only reason they are related is because we humans have categorized them that way. That is, we've simply said that rocks with similar attributes are related. But do the rocks themselves know that they are related? Why isn't a tree related to a rock? Would these objects think that they were related to each other if humans never existed? Does the rock in Pakistan "touch" the rock in North Dakota? If not, then how are they related, and what then does "related" mean?

I see no reason to adopt a theory that time and motion are the same thing and are an illusion. All of mankind has existed just fine under the system in which motion and time are real. It works. You have no support for claiming otherwise. While a film may be made up of discrete still images, that doesn't mean that reality works the same way. We have never observed that reality works in discrete steps. As small as we can measure change, movement seems to be continuous. So until there is some evidence that it is not, why should I believe it? Isn't it more likely that an electron simply moved from here to there instead of the whole universe being recreated every moment? And why a femtosecond? Why not one-tenth of a femtosecond?

I suspected that where you're going with this is to say that information is a form of communication. Information is communication between a sender and a receiver. So if you can establish that there is information, then there must be a sender. The sender is God. But if the material objects in the universe merely have information, then this still falls short of evidence that God created the universe because God could have only imbued the already-existing universe with information. So to establish God as the creator of the material universe, you have to equate the material things with information. You have to say that they are the same thing. Then you can claim that God created the material Universe because he created information, that information being communication from him to us. But somehow I think I must be guessing wrong about where you are going, otherwise you could have said it a lot more simply.

I understand that you're trying to be clear. I don't doubt your sincerity. Nevertheless, it is all vague and ambiguous to me.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Jobar

My welcome back also, Albert, and my sympathy for the loss of your job.

I want to point out errors in something you said earlier.

"So I would bow down to the Hindu god Maya, were that god not defined as the god of ILLUSIONARY sensory input. "

Two things here. One, aren't you saying that sensory input- information- is ultimate reality, regardless of its factual or illusory nature?
Two, you are a bit mistaken about Maya being a Hindu god- Maya does indeed mean illusion in one sense. The phenomenological world, with its swarming sense impressions, is not the ultimate or final reality. To consider it so is the illusion- and this seems to be what you are saying, too. There are sects of Hinduism that consider Maya as something to be worshipped, but it is also something to be transcended. (There is a clear parallel between Maya and the term used frequently in the Tao te Ching- "the world of ten thousand things".)

I am in agreement with you that information may be the ultimate form of reality- God, if you will. (As I have pointed out the word conveys no practical information to those who do not agree that reality, information, and God are synonymous. And it *may* not be a useful term even if we do so agree!)

I want to attempt a bit of simplification here. In Vedanta, there is much talk of consciousness, of how consciousness is conveyed, and of the objects of consciousness. We, the knower become aware of objects- the known- through knowing. Much philosophical effort is taken to demonstrate that the known and the knower are one knowing.

In Buddhism, the root of suffering is considered to be clinging to the forms of the world. Albert, I think you are suffering because you cling to the dogmas of your traditional monotheism! Why do you feel you must? Why, in other words, do you believe in God?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Daemon,
Thanks for your detailed response. What follows is my response under each topic of contention.

1) Touch is the triune relationship between thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis.
OK, if "triune" in reference to matter offends your "sensus Catholicus," I'll drop it. It's only an adjective. I don't mean by it that the Triune God is matter, but that God's Triune nature is reflected in matter in the sense that matter is sensed in a three-fold process: something, something other, and the nexus between.

Contrast this triune model with the dualistic model that computer science and the world has generally embraced. The dualistic model defines information in terms of something being or not being (on or off, zeros or ones). But I say information is a three-fold menage ‘a trois, united by touch.

2) Experience, existence, and information (which are interchangeable concepts) mean "to be touched."
To know that you exist is to know that something other than you exists and this knowledge cannot be acquired except through the information afforded by touch. Touch (the basis of our 5 senses) is not only the means whereby all information is acquired, but also simply another word for "experience."

3) A physical thing is that which is necessarily in touch with all other physical things.
Neutrinos can be detected. Ergo, they are physical things by my definition. If something cannot be detected, like God for instance, than it is not a physical thing and is closed to empirical investigation.

You say that this definition is "recursive," meaning, I suppose, that it is self-referring. Since "physical thing" is the superset of all that is physical and we can detect no such thing as anything other that a physical thing, my definition, is simply obvious. It is more of an axiomatic statement than a definition.

4) A spiritual thing is that which is necessarily related to all other things.
A physical thing is related to all other physical things by touch. Therefore, if there is such a thing as a spiritual thing, it cannot also be related by physical touch. It can only be related by the spiritual equivalent of physical touch, which is knowledge or truth. For example, the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 defines a spiritual relationship.

5) Objective creation is the sum total of things that are touching or things that are related.
I'm glad you can "see a case for this" one. Saves me from a shutout. I guess one out of 10 ain't too bad considering what a tough crowd this is.

6) Subjective creation is a thing's experience/existence/information.
A rock contains INFORMATION and can therefore be said to be in EXISTENCE and can therefore be capable of EXPERIENCE (be dropped, chipped, bought as a pet, etc.).

In other words, what happens to objective creation is what I'm calling subjective creation. Subjective creation is every single quantum moment of the Big Bang from its first quantum moment until this present moment. You might call subjective creation the echoes of the Big Bang. Subjective creation is the necessary (mechanistic) and unnecessary (free will decisions) recapitulation of each thing's creation.

In other words, subjective creation is that which is happening to all things above and beyond all things being in touch with and being related to all things. By all things I mean all things, whether they be angelic, human, viral, or physical.

You conclude:


No, because spiritual things are related to (as physical things are in touch with) all things does not mean that spiritual things know all things. It means that all spiritual things are knowable, not that each spiritual thing knows every other spiritual thing.

To analogize this admittedly difficult concept with physical things: bricks that form an arch are in touch with and in relationship to each other. The brick that forms the keystone maintains the arch and is in that sense the "knowledge" of the arch, the knowledge of the arch that is not shared by any of the other bricks in the arch.

You ask:


I'll happily deny the existence of the soul and the existence of the spiritual if you'll accept in their stead the existence of free will. The reality of free will is synonymous with the reality of the soul and the concept of man having a "spiritual component."

7) Knowledge is the experience of related information. (Thus, knowledge is a spiritual thing.)
Since all things are related, but no thing (save God) experiences all those relationships, whatever relationships a thing does experience may become that thing's knowledge, which is necessarily finite as God's is necessarily omniscient.

It follows that the related information a thing has which it willfully accepts, thereby creating the experience of knowledge, the more spiritual and God-like that thing becomes. Conversely, the related information a thing has which it willfully rejects, thereby avoiding the experience of knowledge, the less spiritual and less God-like that thing becomes.

8) What a thing is, is what a thing knows.

To this you retort:


You've drawn the erroneous conclusion of the Nominalists, who place the metaphysical essence of God in the sum of all His perfection (Cumulus omnium perfectionum) and thus equate the physical and the metaphysical essence. Whereas I am a Thomist, believing that God is the Subsistent Being (ipsum esse subsistens) distinct from created things.

I subscribe to the de fide Catholic doctrine that, for God, the subject, object, and act of cognition are identical and that God is the Absolute Logical Truth. And I embrace the Catholic teaching that distinguishes between Divine self-knowledge and Extra-Divine Things (which are further divided into the real, the purely possible, and the conditionally future).

To put as fine a head as I can on the stake through the heart of this pantheism canard, I quote from St. Thomas, the premiere Doctor of the Church, from his magnum opus, the Summa Theologica I 14,4: as quoted in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 42:


I appreciate you tackling the difficult subject of my metaphysics with me. You give me confidence in the revelatory power of the dialectic. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>