The Truth of the Conceptual God
For over two thousand years, philosophers have been debating what is called the problem of universals. to understand this problem We must consider how we classify commonalities. When we speak of apples or oranges, we intuitively think that apples have a commonality among them. Each apple is a particular object, but there seems to be common properties that apply to ALL apples. How do we account for this commonality. These common properties are called universals. A universal is a singularity or singular reality that can instantiated in multiple particulars.
The Philosophical case for Divine Conceptualism as the only coherent answer.
Three major views have emerged to answer this question: Platonism, Nominalism, and Conceptualism. Platonism asserts that there the universal a common concrete substance that accounts for the commonality. All particular apples have the substance of the universal apple. It is called Platonism because the Greek philosopher Plato came up with the idea. Each particular was an instance of one of the perfect forms and shared in its substance. Nominalism asserts that there are no universals. These two views have existed since antiquity. During the Middle Ages Conceptualism emerged as a distinct view. Conceptualism asserts that universals exist, not as concrete objects, but as properties in the mind. The remainder of this article will show that Divine Conceptualism is the only coherent answer to the problem of universals.
Nominalism denies that universals exist. Under Nominalism there are no singularities that can be instantiated among multiple particulars means that it denies that there are any conditions or ontological states that are distributed among multiple particulars. This ability to distribute is why the term 'universals' are often used interchangeably with the terms 'sets' or 'categories.' No universal means no singularity that instantiates among multiple particulars, no instantiation among multiple particulars means no distribution of ontological states, no distribution of ontological states means no sets or categories can exist.
If no sets or categories can exist as an ontological state, then virtually all propositions are meaningless. Propositions distribute either the subject or the predicate to an entire set of particulars. The phrase "All men are mortal." distributes the term "men." All of them share in something called mortality. Because of this distribution if the term "men.", one can infer mortality on the basis of the determination that one is a man.
Socrates is a man
All men are Mortal, therefore
Socrates is mortal
If there are no universals, then there can be no distribution of content or meaning across multiple particulars. Without such distribution, no sets can be defined. There would be no set of "men." that Socrates could belong to. Without sets there is no way to compare things that share a common predicate. It would not be possible to refer to both Socrates and Plato as "a man" and both uphold the same meaning for "man." In fact, if there are no universals and therefore no sets, all propositions affirming set membership are meaningless. The phrase "Socrates is a man" could be "Socrates is a..." or "Socrates is a rdtrdete.56" It makes no difference as "man" does not point to anything. You might as well have a monkey typing random keystrokes. The meaningless of Nominalism is so profound that it not only destroys propositions, but even destroys the signage of terms. If Nominalism is true, then the five references to "man" are not even references to the same term. They are five different terms rather than five instances to the same term. It could only be five instances of the same term by implying that the term "man" is a set, which is not possible if Nominalism is true.
There is a variant of Nominalism called Tropism. Tropism argues that universals do exist, but not as universals. Each concrete particular does refer to abstract content that is exactly one particular. It seeks to avoid the obvious difficulty of Nominalism, which makes it impossible for predicates to refer to anything. In Tropism and unlike Nominalism, the term "man" refers to an abstract particular labeled "man" Tropism regards the similarity between similar tropes as " resemblance between tropes is determined by their primitive intrinsic nature.1"
However, "man" is not distributable in either case. The "man" Plato is is ontologically different from "man" Socrates is. There is no ground to assert any commonality between Plato and Socrates on the grounds of being a man. The substance or properties of "man" are not distributable to multiple particulars Under Tropism. We still have no basis to infer that socrates is mortal because he is a man and all men are mortal. As the construction of connection of subjects to verb of being or action) in language relies on distribution of meaning in either subject or verb, Tropism does not escape the fundamental meaninglessness of Nominalism. It is just a Trope (pun intended), to mask the meaninglessness of Nominalism.
Once one considers how particulars are defined, it becomes even more obvious why tropes are no answer. A particular is defined by its properties. If there are no universal concepts or universal substances to serve as properties, then particulars have no properties. Defining particulars would amount to nothing more than to assign a group of empty placeholders to another empty placeholder. Words do not have inherent meaning by virtue of the physical arrangement of the symbols. Words - language - only acquires meaning when it is assigned to logically structured concepts that have semantic meaning. The word “bra,” for example, means good in Swedish, but in English is is an abbreviation for the French brasierre - an undergarment designed to cover women's breasts. The color called “green” in English is “verde” in French. “Church” in English is “Iglesia” in Spanish, “ἐκκλησία” in Greek (transliterated ekklēsia), “kirk” in Scottish, and “kirch” in German. There is a many-to-many correspondence between the physical arrangement in linguistic symbols and to the objects that they refer. There is no way to physically reduce objects to their corresponding words. It is only by mapping words to concepts that meaning is established. If there are no universal concepts, then there is no meaning. Nominalism leads to meaningless - a meaningless that is self-refuting. If all is meaningless, then the statement “all is meaningless” is itself meaningless.
As we move on to consider the possibility that Platonism has the best answer to answer the problem of universals, we must understand that there are two ways to understand Platonism. Platonism asserts that there are concrete, perfect forms that form the universal that can define sets and categories. The two possible interpretation concern whether these perfect concrete forms are divisible or not. If the perfect concrete forms are divisible, then they are like the tropes (Moderate realism). They are no longer universal but a division of particulars with a common nature. This only moves the problem back one layer. Is the nature of the universal turned particulars an indivisible universal or is it divided? If the nature of the universal turned particulars is divided, then there is no common nature. We are left with nothing but unsubstantiatable tropes. If the nature of the universal turned particulars is indivisible, then you have a true and indivisible universal.
If the Platonic form is indivisible, then particulars that share in the substance get the whole substance. Every substance has 1 of itself, by law of identity. Since numbers are indivisible universal substances as Platonic Forms, they are each one of themselves. This results in an incoherency of all numbers other than one. (2= 1, 3 =1, 4=1,etc). This mean that the number 1 is the only coherent number. Therefore there is only one universal and only one particular. If Platonism is true, then everything collapses into a singularity. The existence of being as an indivisible universal also results in a singularity. Everything that exists has being, being is indivisible, therefore everything is indivisible without diversity or differentiation.
If more than one universal is allowed, then Being is divided into parts according to the number of universals. Being is defined as a composition of parts which all have being which is composed of parts which have being, etc. Platonism has no final ground for being, being forced to bootstrap. When Medieval theologians began to import Platonic Forms in as divine ideas, they realized that a God made of parts was no god in any meaningful sense - that God would have no ground for His own Being. The doctrine of Divine Simplicity was born. Divine simplicity asserts that God is equal to His attributes and that each attribute is equal to any other attribute. God === omniscience ==== omnipresence ==== omnipotence && omniscience ==== omnipresence ==== omnipotence. This eliminates all distinction among properties and collapses everything into a singularity. As I have shown in the previous paragraph, the problem is not with Theism but with Platonism. Not only is it incoherent to define universals by metaphysical substances, but it is also incoherent to define reality by metaphysical substances. In the next section I will show scientific problems with Platonism and its analog - Substance Realism.
The incoherence of Substance Realism.
Substance Realism is the idea that ontological status or being is defined in terms of the metaphysical substance that things have. In describing a red barn, for example, redness could be thought of as the substance behind the red color. In addition to the problems of Substance Realism (Platonism) as an answer to the problem of universals, there is the problem of motion. This problem afflicts both philosophical and scientific descriptions of motion. The philosophical problem of motion relates on how to move from necessary existence to the existence of contingent objects, and the scientific problem relates to describing motion in a physical universe where space, time, matter, and energy are all defined as discrete bits.
The philosophical problem of motion concerns how to move from necessity to contingency. This problem was felt as early as Aristotle. The ancient Greeks, when forming their concepts of causality and particularly the necessity of an unmoved mover and impossibility of an infinite regress, had a naïve spatiotemporal view. They saw final causes as simply existing infinitely into the past. This set up a problem in moving from the infinite past to any point in the finite past, present, or future. If an action is infinite, it's complete effect goes infinitely into the future. If it is finite, it never makes it into finite history.
By the middle ages, particularly under Thomas Aquinas, the concepts of causality matured. Causality was understood not only in terms of temporal relationship but contingency. An effect was seen as contingent on or dependent on its cause. In Substance Realism the dependency of a contingent object is a dependency on the material nature of its cause. The nature of the cause determines the nature of the effect. The Aristotelian formulation of the law of non-contradiction provides us with a restraint on causality. No thesis can be derived from its antithesis. Nothing can be drawn from its contradiction. This something cannot come from nothing. Positive properties must exist in the cause to ground an effect. This poses a problem for grounding contingent effects in a necessarily existing cause. None of the properties of a necessarily existing cause are contingency. Likewise, resorting to a series of only contingent causes is also incoherent. That would lead to a series of contingent causes, none of which are sufficient to ground the causal chain.
There are three common ways to mask the incoherence in grounding contingent causes in a necessarily existing ground of being in Substance Realism: the evolving God hypothesis, the static God hypothesis, and the two-part God hypothesis.
The evolving God hypothesis is common among ancient near East religious narratives. Via Aquinas, the Catholic Church also tends towards this view, albeit constraining the philosophy to fit orthodoxy. While the evolving god hypothesis imputes self-existence to the ground of being, it accounts for creation in such a way that undermines that idea. Aristotelian metaphysics asserts that God "created from eternity." This implies a constant change of state. The Thomist ( Thomas Aquinas) interpretation of Aristotelian metaphysics affirms that "God is pure act." Equating being with action implies constant change of state. The notion of change of state implies different states of being, none of which are eternal or necessary. The concept of an evolving God stands in contradiction to the self-existent God. It is relativism on steroids without any sufficient ground for anything as it undermines self-existence.
The static God hypothesis is common among Far East narratives. It is also the tendency with Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Again, the Christian appropriation of these is constrained to fit orthodoxy (at least within certain strains of Evangelicalism). The static God hypothesis asserts that the effects of a necessarily existing ground of being are created of necessity. Therefore the effects necessarily exist. If all effects necessarily exist, then everything necessarily exists. If everything necessarily exists, there is no becoming and no real motions. There is only the illusion of motion. There are two big problems with concluding motion is an illusion: One obvious problem is that if all motion is an illusion, so much of reality is delusion that it contaminates all knowledge. Every piece of knowledge would be altered. Even static properties are changed by motions, and if motion is an illusion, then our knowledge of these properties is incorrect. This leads to the self-refuting conclusion that we know that we cannot know anything. If we truly cannot know anything, then we could not know that we cannot know anything.
The second problem is that it does not explain the occurrence of motion in our consciousness. If such motions, and in general the objects of our imagination, have absolutely no ontological status, then we cannot meaningfully make any statements of them. If an object exists in our conscious, then it has existence. It may not have the same ontological status as objects in the “real” world, but it has an ontological status of some type. To deny the ability to make meaningful statements about the imagination on the grounds that; language is inadequate to convey thought is to return to self-refuting skepticism and meaningless Nominalism. If descriptions of motion really exists in the imagination - if such descriptions are meaningful, then there are changes to states of being which raises the question of how that is possible. The static god hypothesis cannot answer these.
The two-part God hypothesis is a mashup of the evolving god hypothesis and the static god hypothesis. This mashup is common in Hermetic, Gnostic, and Neo-Platonist philosophy. The Eastern Orthodox Churches tend towards this as well, albeit within the confines of orthodoxy. This hypothesis asserts two parts to God: one that is the self-existent absolute, and the others who emanates or breaks off from the absolute and moves as a contingent being in the world. If it is a true emanation, however, it will have the same nature as the source and be static. If a part of a static absolute can break off and move like a contingent being, then the absolute isn’t really an absolute. The tension is still there, it is simply masked. Given Substance Realism - the idea that ontological being is defined based on metaphysical substance , there is no coherent account of how to proceed from a necessarily existing, self-existing ground of being to the contingent reality we experience. We will now proceed to the scientific problem of motion to show how this problem exists in the physical world.
The scientific problem of motion and distance was first described when science was a subcategory of philosophy. Zeno discovered that divisibility carried with it the potential of paradoxes when it is taken infinitely. Zeno proposed ten paradoxes2.
Of those, the ones involving the paradox of distance and the paradox of motion are pertinent. As a divisible reality is divided into more and more pieces, each piece is smaller and smaller. As one divides infinitely, then the result is an infinite number of pieces of zero quantity. Traversing the distance by an infinite number of zero steps = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0… = 0. Zeno also posited that if these quantities were anything greater than zero, that the sum is necessarily infinite, rendering any finite distance of space or time impossible. The ancients found these paradoxes difficult to answer. Advances in mathematics since the nineteenth century have found ways to produce finite answer, but these have even more difficulties. Some putative modern treatments of infinite series that may relate to Zenos paradoxes do not provide coherent answers descriptive of the real world. For example, the sum of the infinite series of 1 + 2 + 3… = -1/122a. One cannot traverse a finite positive distance in the real world by an infinite series of positive steps.
The only possible escape from/Zenos paradoxes of distance and motion that is compatible with substance realism is if the physical world cannot be divided infinitely. Quantum Mechanics has shown that the Classical Physical space-time cannot be divided infinitely. There is a maximally small unit of space, referred to as the Plancke space3. There is also a maximally small unit of time, called a Plancke time4. Additionally, relativity instructs us that time is a dimension of space5. The laws of Classical physics6 do not apply at smaller scales. This means space-time is discretized into Plancke units of space-time rather than a continuous space. This means that it is meaningless to conceive of objects as moving through these tiny units as there is no distance or motion that “runs through” as distances smaller than these units are undefined. The condition of time simply being a dimension of space further exacerbates the problem as time exists alongside space in the same context as an alternate dimension. Every moment of time already exists in the space-time; if time is a dimension of space, then each Plancke unit of space-time has a set time value. There is no physical way to describes changes to that unit over time. In fact all moments of time in a space-time continuum exist simultaneously from the perspective of a relativistic observer outside the space-time. Not only is it impossible to physically account for traversal across or changes to Plancke units in a quantum mechanical universe, motions between Plancke units is also undefined. This mean that you cannot traverse between units either. This impossibility of accounting of motion or state changes to Plancke units also applies to the expansion of space as such expansion does not result in these units being stretched, but in more units appearing ex nihilo (out of nothing). Since each Plancke unit has a set time value, describing these units as emerging in time is incoherent. Motion in a quantum-mechanical, relativistic universe is also physically undefinable.
If motion is physically undefinable, how do we account for our experience of motion. We can account for it conceptually, and a conceptual account of motion is not only valid in a conceptual reality, but expected and necessary in such a reality.Our knowledge of quantum mechanics and relativity is based on and defined by mathematical models
The equation for motion: is
speed = distance / time
speed = Δposition/ Δtime
In arithmetic, these become problematic as Δtime approached zero. This is because arithmetic is based on counting and division by zero involves infinite counting In calculus this is not a problem as differentiation avoided the paradox of dividing by 0. The methods of calculus do not involve infinite counting, but manipulations of terms7. The methods of calculus can approximate an instantaneous rate of change or rate of change at 0. These methods work because it is based on the formal structure of the terms rather than physical values. These are even valid if there is no physical universe in which to apply these equations. All a mathematician needs to do is plug numbers into the these equation to gain approximate values of the position or rate of change in position of any object overtime. These hold even if there is no physical universe to contain any motion. These formal structures, however, constrain what is possible in any physical universe. This is what one would expect in a conceptual reality.
The core incoherence of Substance Realism
There are two core inconsistencies with substance realism: one is that there is tension between Properties and substance in a physicalist reality, and the other is that substance does not have any good way to ground contingency in a necessary ground of being. Denial of a necessary ground of being is also incoherent as that would imply that there is only contingent grounds of being, with none of them being sufficient to account for itself.
There is tension between properties and substance given substance realism because defining properties in terms of metaphysical substance is circular. Do properties exist because they have substance or is substance what it is because it has properties If substance is logically prior to properties, then we come to the absurd conclusion that substance has no properties.
This absurdity plays out most forcefully where contingency and motion are concerned. If the materiality of an object defines its properties, then there is no feasible way of grounding contingency in necessarily existing substance. This is because, under substance realism, one must draw reality out of a necessarily existing substance to bring forth a contingent substance and a substance cannot be both necessary and contingent. The problem of motion also has this absurdly, as motion implies changing states which imply contingency. The problem of motion also adds absurdities of countable infinities and singularities where motion cannot even be defined. All of these absurdities disappear under structural realism, in which properties and relation define essential reality.
From Conceptualism to Structural Realism
Structural realism is simply the view that properties and relations are the fundamental reality Structural realism8 follows from Conceptualism as Conceptualism defines properties in terms of universal ideas. In Divine Conceptualism, these ideas are properties in the mind of God.
While contingency defied a coherent physical description, it is easily described Conceptually. Contingency is described an irreflexive, one way relations. Many such relations are described in logic and mathematics, relations where object B depends on object A but A does not depend on B. This is contingency. This contingency is also the heart of indeterminacy If B depends on A but A does not depend on B, then A does not necessarily produce B. In any reality that is fundamentally conceptual, this indeterminacy manifests as free will.
Conceptualism also allows us to explain motion. The formulas that I wrote earlier in this document that explain motion derived from the fundamental theorem of calculus are derived totally as a formal mathematical construct. They are true simply because of formal structure of the symbols as defined. Given substance realism we have no good reason to account for this. How can a purely conceptual construct explain physical reality when it is true apart from any meta-physical universe if things are defined by their substance. This is not a problem in a Conceptualist reality.
Conceptualism also has explanation of subjective, perceptual phenomena that is not possible under substance realism. If things are physical, how does one explain delusions. A mind with a delusion is different than the same mind without that delusion, and if not we have no meaningful way to discuss or call out delusions. There is no good way to define a delusion in terms of meta-physical substance. This is not a problem in a Conceptually defined reality. Conceptually defined reality allows for many different layers and spheres of virtual existence nested inside a larger, more fundamental existence. In a Conceptual world, a mind can maintain its own virtual world that is isolated from Conceptual ecosystem.
In the first section, I showed that Conceptualism is the only coherent answer to the problem of universals. In the last chapter I showed that Platonistic, Materialistic, substance realism could not answer the joint problems of contingency and motion. These lead us not only to a return to Conceptualism as the answer to the problem of universals but to all of reality. The extension of Conceptualism from an explanation of the problem of universals to an explanation of all reality is called Structural Realism. All of reality is properties and relations. In fact, the entire description of particulars is nothing more than a unique matrix of universal properties and relations. Every statement about Socrates contains a universal (Socrates is a man,Socrates is mortal, etc). Particular are the extension of the universals that they are composed. What makes a particular unique is not a unique substance but the mathematical uniqueness as defined by the matrix of universals. Any theory of reality must therefore be an extension of the theory of universals.
If all of reality is defined conceptually, then mind and information are what fundamentally is. There are three ways that we can think of Conceptualism here, only one of them is coherent. One of them is pluralism. Pluralism is the fantasy of Postmodernism. It should be evident why this is not coherent as a metanarrative of all existence. If each person is god of their own reality and two disagree, which universe is the real universe. Multiple Supreme Beings cannot coexist in the same logical namespace. This leads us to the second, equally incoherent option: solipsism. Solipsism asserts that here is one god and that the self is he. This quickly falls apart “as the rubber meets the road.” if I am my own god, I should be able to re-create my own reality at whim. I should be able to, at a whim, command harems of voluptuous women to appear before me to serve me and re-make the world to serve every vain fleshly desire. If its power and not sex, I could remake myself as a cosmic being more powerful than Superman. If I want money or social status, I could, on a whim, imagine that I am in the same condition as President Donald Trump. If solipsistic interpretation of Conceptualism is true, why should I not be able to do these things; it is my world after all, or is it?
Conceptualism is the only coherent account of reality, and divine Conceptualism is the only coherent account of Conceptualism is Divine Conceptualism. Divine conceptualism is the idea that there is a supreme Divine Mind that is the reference-frame for all of reality. The rest of us live in His world. Both the world and our minds exist in relation to this supreme reference-frame. The Divine Mind has created us so that we can interact with the conceptual reality that is. This is simply a non-religious way of saying that God exists. The case that I have made for Divine Conceptualism is much stronger than merely pointing to some evidences that point to Him, as I did in the book The Logic of God. What the case for Divine Conceptualism shows is that without a Conceptual God, absolutely nothing makes sense about reality.
Scripture confirms a Conceptual creation. God did not fashion the universe out of pre-existing clay as Plato envisioned in his conception of a divine artisan. He did not evolve from the primordial soup as the Babylonian and Greek pantheon of gods did in their early creation myths. The Self-Existent God* spoke words that brought the universe into existence and maintains it (Genesis 1; Psalm 33:6; John 1:1-3 Heb 1:3,11:3). The Bible teaches that the universe is conceptually defined rather than defined by its physicality. In particular, Hebrews 11:3 gives a conceptual account of creation that accounts for both the quantum mechanical nature of the physical universe and for the application of relativity to space-time. This passage asserts that the physical world we see is based on information rather than physical substance.
Hebrews 11:3 instructs us that through faith we can understand that the worlds were created by the word of God. The basic concept is not new to Scripture, but an in depth word study reveals that the language prefigures a knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics with precision. Hebrews 11:3 gives a description of reality that prefigures both quantum mechanics and relativity and grounds these in the utterances of a self-existent, infinite-personal God. It will then show how this truth grounds faith as essential to the Christian life. Below is the verse as it normally reads in English
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11:3 KJV
This analysis will involve an analysis of the words in the original Greek by which this verse was composed9. Below is the same passage with Strong's numbering
Through faithG4102 we understandG3539 that theG3588 worldsG165 were framedG2675 by the wordG4487 of God,G2316 so that things which are seenG991 were notG3361 madeG1096 ofG1537 things which do appear.G5316
- Hebrews 11:3 KJV
The word translated 'worlds' is (G165 αἰών aio¯n ahee-ohn) This word generally has three meanings. One is eternity, which is used in most of the passages that deal with promises of eternal life. It can also refer to an (usually long) interval of time. It is translated 'world' in numerous passages in the KJV.
In the passages where it is rendered eternal or an interval of time, time is the major relevant attribute. When we are promised eternal life, for example, the main point is that this life has no end
In these passages where it is translated ‘world,’ there was a time component to world and a space component to time. The following passages should illustrate that ‘aion’ is often used in ways that includes space or objects that require the context of space to exist.
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. - Mark 4:19 KJV
The cares of this world does not merely mean cares about time, but cares about things that exist and move within this time interval. These things necessarily exist in space.
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life...
...Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
- Mark 10:30; Luke18:30 KJV
There are three time referents are used in these parallel passages. The phrase “in this time” is translated from (g2540 | καιρός | kairos). This word is used when one wishes to refer to time as a mere chronological measurement. The word “eternal”is translated from a form of aion - ‘aionios.’This word is used as a description of the time attribute of the life that will be lived in the “world to come,”which is translated as ‘aion.’ This aion has an extended meaning, referring not just to a future time period, but also implying that it is a place where people will live an endless life.
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
- Luke 16:8 KJV
Time, in and of itself, has no children. This phraseology refers to those who are influenced by the ethos of a given historical period or time interval. The phrase “children of the 60’s,”for example, refers to those influenced by the predominant cultural forces at work in the 1960’s. These forces are at work in people who necessarily occupy space while they live.
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. - Romans 12:2 KJV
Being conformed to this ‘aion’ implies that ‘aion’ has more than chronological attributes. The ‘aion’ has cultural, ideological, and political attributes
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?...
...Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory...
...Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
- 1 Corinthians 1:20 ; 2:6-8; 3:18 KJV
Wisdom is not a property or method of time, but of individuals, groups, and civilizations that exist in time.
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:...
...For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 6:12 KJV
Darkness would not be a property directly of a time-period, but implies that this time interval contains objects that might contain darkness or rulers of darkness.
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; - Titus 2:12 KJV
We are to live godly lives in this ‘aion’ - inside of time. In our lives inside of time, we must occupy space.
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;...
...Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
- Hebrews 1:2; 11:3 KJV
Both Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 speak of the entirety of space-time. The difference between the passages where (G165 αἰών aio¯n ahee-ohn) is used to designate an epoch of time or eternity and those where it is translated ‘world’ require an extended meaning. According to Trench,
“In classical Greek, aion often refers to the duration of a human life. But the essential meaning of aion is time as the condition for all created things and as the measure of their existence. Thus Theodoret wrote: ’Ho aion is not any substance, but it is an irresistible thing, accompanying those who have a mortal nature; for the interval from the constituting of the world [kosmou] to its consummation is called aionaion then is the interval yoked to created nature. Aion came to mean all that exists in the world under conditions of time: "The totality of what is discernible in the passage of time, the world inasmuch as it is active in time." ’ ...
...”the use of aiones in Hebrews 11:3 is decisive. In both passages aiones can only mean ‘the world,’ not ‘the ages...’
...Etymologically our English world more nearly represents aion than does the Greek kosmos. The old Weralt (in modern German Welt) is composed of two words, Wer (man) and Alt (age or generation). Thus the basic meaning of Weralt is "generation of men." The notion of space unfolds from this expression of time, as aion passed into the meaning of kosmos ” 10
What this means is that ‘aion’ implies not only time but space in these passages. The ancients knew nothing of relativity theory - particularly the concept of space-time as a unified substance - and would likely have understood these to have the same meaning that we attach to the idea of historical dispensations today. The term ‘aion’ would be used to refer to an interval of time that contained a common arrangement of physical and cultural dynamics, all of which necessarily occur inside space. In most of these passages this is sufficient.
Hebrews 1:2 and Hebrews 11:3, however, concern the beginning of all creation. The idea of historical dispensation is much too small to fully capture the full meaning of ‘aion.’ These passages are addressing the creation of everything that is not self-existent. Aion as space-time would, in these passages, include all of space-time or space-times. This meaning of ‘aion’ which God intended but would have been unknown to the ancient mind prefigures relativity. Through faith we can understand that God created space-times.
The creation of space-time
How did God create this space-time. We are instructed that is is through the word of God. The word used here is (G4487 | Ῥῆμα | Rhēma hray'-mah). The meaning of this word is utterance. This type of word is a particular word of God rather than the word of God as the full counsel of God or the mind of God. The term for the Word of God that represents the Mind of God and possesses the ontology or essence of God is (G3056 | λόγος | logos | log'-os). The Logos is the Mind of God and the source of all of the prescriptive information and fine-tuning for the creation. The Logos is the ground and constructor of every rhema word. The rhema, because of its particularity as a free will expression of the Logos, has a relativity and contingency that sets it apart from the Logos. The Logos necessarily shares in the divine essence. The rhema, however, while grounded in that essence attains a distinct ontology by virtue of being a particular and freely given word from God. Once the rhema is defined, it has its own distinct essence, dynamics, and constraints.
While not being the essence of God as the Logos is, the Rhema word is defined by prescriptive information in the Logos. This sets the constraints (natural laws and cosmological constants) and initial conditions of the rhema. In the Septuagint, which is the first translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew to Greek that was finished about 200 BC, Isaiah 55:11 uses rhema to mean word. The rhema of God, while going FROM God and having a distinct essence from God, WILL accomplish His divine purposes.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11
What is the purpose of the rhema word in creation in Hebrews 11:3. It was the rhema that would ‘frame’ the space-times. The Greek here is (G2675 | καταρτίζω | katartizo | kat-ar-tid'-zo). It means to complete thoroughly and is translated variously as frame, fit, and prepare. The rhema word frames, or builds, these space-times and sets their properties and methods.
The use of rhema to define building blocks of the universe implies that the space-time universe is composed of information. This has huge implication concerning the nature of material reality. Hebrews 11:3 uses a connective to establish this relation. The, “worlds are framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” There are two key words which define the nature of physical reality which is created: G991 | βλέπω | blepo ̄| blep'-o) and G5316 | φαίνω | phainō| fah'ee-no).
The word ‘blepo’ simply refer to that which is observed or the act of observation. The word ‘phaino’ refers to that which reveals or manifests itself. The use of Phaino implies that an object that already exists comes into view, whereas Blepo refers to the observation. What Hebrews 11:3 is saying that because the rhema word is the building blocks of space-time, the observation of reality is NOT based on objectively existing objects revealing themselves. The objects do not exist as objects - they are not de-serialized - until an observer conducts a measurement through his observation(‘phaino’). It is based on information. When we make an observation( properly called conducting a measurement), we are are observing information and constructing discrete, material objects from the information obtained during the act of observation. This idea prefigures quantum mechanics, whose experimental findings suggest that material reality acts like a wave when it is not being observed but like particles when they are observed. One of the implications of quantum mechanics is that particles are constructs that materialize only when observed12. If the universe is really made up of information, then there would be protocols that would govern how that information to be used to construct objects upon reading the input or output stream in much the same way that a browser constructs Windows, graphics, multimedia, and text upon reading the information stream published by the Web server. When we observe the physical reality, our minds construct concrete objects from an information stream according to rules God has ordained.
Hebrews 11:3 was not written solely to speak about the Bible teaches about science. In context, it is not even primarily about science. This verse was written to provide a meta-physical foundation for understanding how faith works. Because the space-time universe is composed of prescriptive information, God can modify how the universe operates by embedding additional prescriptive information in faith. This faith is revealed to us so that we can access the things God has provided for us. More on this in the third installment that concerns the Life of the conceptual God.
The consciousness as a 4D reality parser.
Consciousness plays a similar role is encoding and decoding information. The Mind of God, via the spoken Rhema Word, has brought forth instructions. These instructions contain cosmological constants, fine-tuning, physical laws, and correct physical descriptions of the universe. Finite conscious agents parse this information and construct a virtual simulation of the physical universe that is also a real physical system. This is distinct from substance realism and materialism which asserts an external physical system, and is also distinct from idealism which denies anything outside the subjectivity of observation. There is an external universe that constrains the results of our observations and measurements. This external world, however, is made of information rather than metaphysical substance. This is the structural realist world created by the contingently spoken rhema of God that came forth from God.
Quantum Mechanics- the interface for interaction with Conceptual Schema
Quantum mechanics supplies the interface for communications that are used to instantiate and construct the physical world and its objects. This is due to the fact that Classical physics breaks down at very small scales. Effects have been observed that make no sense in any Materialistic or substance realist interpretation of reality. Quantum mechanics features a wave/particle duality that suggests that the physical universe is not made up of that which is physical. In an experiment called the double-slit experiment12, light was directed through two holes in very close proximity. Waves going through holes in such proximity will leave a dispersal pattern similar to what happens when two stones hit water in close proximity to each other. Particles will leave a dispersal pattern of two clusters. In the double slit experiment a photon of light or an atomic particle made a wave pattern on film when there was no observation of the wave in transit. When a device for measurement was introduced, the photon/particle made a particle pattern. The double slit experiment suggests that particles only exist when measured or observed. A related experiment called the quantum erasure experiment13 showed that time was also a construct. Mirrors and photographic film were arranged so that particles/waves would hit some of the films before it encountered a measuring device. When there was no measuring device, there was always a wave-pattern on the film regardless of what went through the slits. Whenever a measuring device was introduced, it would not only transform the waves into particles after the encounter with the measuring device but would backload a history as a particle and apply it to the film that were hit before the matter-energy encountered the measuring device. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that time is a construct of measurement.
These discoveries caused an uproar in the Materialistic physics of the day. Einstein once quipped about whether the moon exists when we do not see it. Various forms of idealistic philosophy began to make a resurgence. Idealism is not an adequate explanation, as it suggests that reality only exists in your mind. It is not necessary at all in a Conceptualist reality, and it is false given quantum mechanics. The theoretical basis for the results of the double-slit experiment is the wave function which is described by the Shrödinger equation14,15. The wave-function exists independently of the observer and it contains all of the information that is actualized when an unentangled observer conducts a measurement on it, causing a wave-function collapse16. Physicists are unsure whether the wave-function is a conceptual construct or a physical phenomena. The wave-function contains information on the potential values that could be produced. These are represented as complex numbers which are represented as a + bi where a is any real number and i is an imaginary number that is also the square root of -1. The wave-function does not have a specific, actual value until an unentangled observer conducts a measurement. This causes what they call a wave-function collapse.
The philosophical significance of this is that the wave-function represents all potentialities that could ever exist. These can be mapped to every possible world by using modal logic17, though the wave-function does not organize these as such. The conduction of measurement parses out actual values that map to the actual world. The wave-function acts as a stream of information in a network connection, acting in the same way that a file stream does on a Web page. As a browser reads the file stream that represents the Web page, it parses that information into Windows, text, graphics, and animation of which we are familiar.
What this means is the the wave-function has encoded information that can be decoded. Both the encoding and decoding occur within the context of protocols or rules and constraints on what is possible. Specifically, the Conceptual God conceived every possible contingent state that could ever exist and instantiated one particular matrix of these - this matrix is the space-time in which we live. The matrix of space-time contains other matrices that represent a hosts of other objects that exist and move within space-time His rhema word both conceives of every possible contingent state of affairs and defines the space-time that is instantiated.
The instantiation of space-time is done by embedded code or embedded rules such as logical and mathematical laws, scientific laws, and cosmological constants. These rules are embedded in a similar way that rules are embedded into servers and browsers to encode the information into the source code of Web pages and then parse that code into object familiar to our internet browsing experience. Some rules are embedded into the server while others are embedded into browsers. The wave function is the media connecting the two ends of the communication. The Mind of God is analogous to the server, and the minds of finite conscious beings are analogous to browsers. One feature of all such encoding/decoding information systems is that they are necessarily fine-tuned. The components are compiled with substantial complexity and can only work in a very precise configuration. Even a slight deviation can cause the entire system to either fail or substantially degrade performance
An incomputable consciousness as a Hilbert Space parser.
If quantum mechanics does provide the interface where we can interact with information that defines the universe and physical objects and behaviors emerge out of conducting a measurement on this information, then an unentangled measuring device is required. It is evident that the physical characteristics of measuring devices are not unentangled as they are composed of atoms and molecules that are part of the system being measured. Nothing physical is unentangled from the physical system of which it is a part. Physical systems that are defined by information are inherently computable18. This simply means that a finite sequence of steps can define an object's properties and methods/behavior. In the physical universe as a physical system, space-time exists as a 4-D canvas or screen.
Both physical and computable systems are incapable of instantiating infinity. This is because it is impossible to count to infinity or sum to infinity through arithmetic. Because of this it is not possible to draw an canvas with an infinite number of points. It is also impossible to define motion as I showed previous section of this chapter. Only an incomputable parser can construct motion. This is because motion cannot be adequately defined without reference to infinity a it is continuous. While it has been demonstrated earlier that it is both impossible to either physically map or to plot such continuous motions on a canvas, it is not impossible to conceptualize such motion. We do this whenever we watch video. Nothing actually moves across a computer screen in a literal physical sense. What actually happens is that the various pixels change values in a specified way. The mind conceptualizes motion by parsing pattern to the value changes in the pixels. Four-dimensional space-time is parsed the same way by parsers that perceive in three dimensions (length, width, height) and read space-time in the fourth dimension (time). Nothing actually moves in four-dimensional space-time as each quantum state is defined by four values of length, width, height, and time. The motion is the result of the parser reading the values representing three of the dimensions through the fourth dimension of time. Our experience of motion results from the act of parsing rather than by any physical change on the four-dimensional canvas.
Consciousness can create and perceive motion within itself because it can conceptualize infinity. It uses this ability to create and perceive continuity. None of the physical objects in our reality can do this; only consciousness can do this. Consciousness can create information about continuity in a conceptualized space and plot both position and motions of objects.
Because physical space has only a finite numbers of pixels, it is impossible to define both motions and position with infinite precision. Continuous conceptual descriptions and prescriptions must be approximated (think fudged) on scales below the level of the smallest discrete unit that can be physically defined. This forced approximation creates a limited uncertainty of EXACT values below these thresholds. This is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle19 and is a feature of mapping conceptual motion onto any discrete physical or discrete digital canvas. This necessity of fudging values to make them fit an actual instantiated physical or digital canvas is why reality is not fundamentally physical or even digital.
This is not a problem in a conceptual description of reality. Quantum physicists often represent the wave-function as vectors in what is called a Hilbert space. The simplistic version of Hilbert space20 (though adequate for the purposes of this publication) is that it is n-dimensional space. This means that there is no particular limit on how many dimensions can exist in Hilbert Space. Hilbert space should be understood as a purely conceptual space rather then literal or physical space, and therefore avoids the fallacies and absurdities of counting or summing to infinity that were necessarily part of physicalist and substance realist interpretations of space.
Hilbert space can include the four dimensions of space-time. It can include vectors21 with unique dimensions representing properties we do not typically think in terms of their physicality. Earlier in this document I wrote about particular objects as being a collections of universal properties that were arranged in a unique matrix. Each of these properties can (theoretically) be represented as dimensions in a Hilbert Space, and the matrix mathematics22 is the description of its particularity. Objects in Hilbert Space can be drawn with a unique dimension for every property (and method/behavior) they possess, even abstract properties that seemingly defy physical definition can be represented as a vector in Hilbert Space.
If dimensions are properties (even length, width, height, and time are properties), then the description of any object in Hilbert Space is simply the vector of these properties that can also be represented as a matrix, with the matrix being the unique identifier. This is also how the brain processes information. It uses a distributed storage and retrieval system. It does not, for example, store visual as anything similar to the way a computer might store a JPEG or MP4. There is not a single location where it accesses a picture of a coin. Millions of interconnected neurons are at play in retrieval of even the simplest objects. Think of the brain as storing properties along with matrix information to instruct it how to recreate the necessary connections to re-create the picture. This is how objects exist in a conceptual reality. Particular objects are matrices of properties and methods.
If objects are matrices of properties and methods, then these can be embedded into, and retrieved from, Hilbert Space through mathematics. Such equations can can embed information about an entire space-time. Such encoding of information would require a great deal of fine-tuning of rules that govern encoding and decoding of information. The Conceptual God encodes information that is decoded and instantiated when human consciousness conducts a measurement on the wave-function. This parsing of information will produce an exact correspondence to the conceptualized Hilbert space at scales larger than the “pixels” of the canvas of space-time and discretize values smaller than the pixel. This is the process by which the physical universe is manifest. It is an information system that also has the fine-tuned properties and methods of a real physical system.
Fine tuning as God's cryptographic signature.
If the physical universe is fundamentally an information system, how do we know we are in a simulation within a simulation. How do we know that our Creator is not some drug-addicted and sex-addicted teen in the next universe up? The Conceptual God uses fine-tuning as a cryptographic signature23 to certify that this universe is His.
Fine tuning has value as a cryptographic signature because it constrains how consciousness parses the wave-function. The consciousness of the Conceptual God creates and encodes the wave-function. As the infinite-personal cosmic consciousness, the Conceptual God has an unbounded consciousness. This mean that God could have encoded space-times using any coherent scheme of fine-tuning that He wanted to use.
Another consideration in understanding the role of fine-tuning as a cryptographic signature is that fine-tuning constrains encoding and decoding of information in a networked simulation. God created other consciousness in his image whio could decode the wave-function. What this means is that each consciousness instantiate a space-time that is physically different but logically connected. What this means is that actions I take in my version of the universe are replicated to versions of other conscious agents who may interact with the same part of the wave-function that I interact. This is done in such a way that all instances of the physical universe act as a logically coherent whole. The space-time we live in behaves in a manner similar to that of an online gaming platform where.
While God’s consciousness is unbounded, the same cannot be said about created consciousness. Consciousness is incomputable, so it is not programmed into the simulation. Consciousness flows forth from God as distinct from God or segregated from God, attaining distinct ontological status. Genesis refers to this as a puff of the breath of life. Such puffs do not have the fullness of God but are segregated off - set apart for a purpose.
To what purpose is the puff of the breath of life that is finite consciousness set apart for. The complete answer will be unveiled in a second booklet, but the part of that answer that is relevant here is that finite consciousness is created in such a way to be fine-tuned to interact with the information and physical system that it was created to interact with.
The fact that finite consciousness is fine tuned puts constraints on the types of informational simulations that it will parse as reality. So the answer to the question of whether our reality is a simulation within a simulation is NO!!! To understand why this is so requires a fleshing out of what a simulation really is.
There are three basic types of simulations that are conceivable. The first is what I call non-lucid apparitional simulations, the second is lucid apparitional simulations, and the third is quantum realistic simulations.
Non-lucid apparitional simulations are classical computer simulations where the conscious agent does not realize that they are in a simulation. This is typically encountered in dreams. These types of simulations typically involve reduced levels of consciousness. In dreams, for example, conscious agents typically do not exercise free will or higher, abstract reasoning. The creation such simulation on a classical computer and propagation to conscious agents would be incapable of supporting quantum effects. These types of simulations are often conceived in terms of a brain in a vat. The philosopher who originally constructed the though simulation of the brain in a vat did so to show that such a possibility is incoherent. If all of our sense experience is an apparition, then we have no reference-frame for physical brains in physical vats as we could only perceive in terms of virtual brains and virtual vats. Such simulations cannot account for the ego, nor can any computer simulation account for an incomputable consciousness. Consciousness can only come from other consciousness, and has only manifest in materials known to act quantum mechanically. Computers that act in terms in term of Classical physics can neither produce quantum effect nor account for quantum mechanics. Simulations produced thereby cannot support quantum mechanics
Lucid apparitional simulations are classical computer simulations where the conscious agent knows he or she is in a simulation. Virtual reality and computer gaming are excellent examples of these. Because these are products of classical computing that are based on classical physics (Newtonian mechanics), they can neither produce quantum effect nor account for quantum mechanics.
Quantum realistic simulations do account for quantum mechanics. Both our physical space-time and organic matter are filled with quantum effects. Only a quantum simulation can produce such a world. Such quantum simulations require a quantum field to define the wave-function to be parsed. Such quantum simulations also require encoding and decoding of information that requires a great deal of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning as it relates to physical systems is tied to the resources within that system. This creates a huge problem for fine-tuned conscious agents in one system nesting physical systems wholly inside their physical system. The problem exists due to the impossibility of any nested system to possess the same resources as the system that hosts it. A quantum system inside another quantum the nested system would completely consume its host system, leaving no room for its simulators to exist.
If quantum systems have fine-tuning that it tethered to its resources, then a system nested wholly inside another physical system will of necessity have a different fine tuning configuration. Fine-tuned conscious agents ( like us) would have difficulty parsing both systems as physical reality because only one of the universes would have compatible fine-tuning. Because fine-tuned conscious agents are fine-tuned, we are constrained to only replicate other conscious beings with similar fine-tuning. We cannot create simulations within simulations to even a second level that are actual physical systems based on information. Only the Supreme Creator can create a distinctly fine-tuned information systems that are actual physical systems. Created, fine-tuned conscious agents can only replicate their own kind in their own namespace. While man can create fictitious virtual simulations to serve a variety of universe that are actual physical systems23. The Creator of our universe is THE CREATOR. The second installment is about the Life of the Conceptual God and will relate to the purpose for which we are created.
1(Maurin, Anna-Sofia, "Tropes", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . ) Under Tropism, we can say " in both cases.
2 Zenos paradoxes
2a There are paradoxes of infinity that causes convergent infinite series to often produce
unexpected results. 1 + 2 + 3... = -1/12.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
1 + 1 + 1..., however diverges, meaning that any infinite series of equal steps greater then zero will produce an infinite distance.
3 Plancke length
2a There are paradoxes of infinity that causes convergent infinite series to often produce
unexpected results. 1 + 2 + 3... = -1/12.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
1 + 1 + 1..., however diverges, meaning that any infinite series of equal steps greater then zero will produce an infinite distance.
3 Plancke length
4 Plancke time
5 Relativity holds that time is a dimension of space
6 Classical physics is a reference to Newtonian mechanics, which was the paradigm of physics prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics fit well into a Substance Realist/Platonist/Materialist view of reality.
7 Time Dependent Acceleration, HyperPhysics Lab at Georgia State University
8 Structural Realism is the view that properties and relations are fundamental rather than substance.
9 Strong numbers are used to map English words found in translations to the original languages. This can be verified by consulting Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. It can also be verified using Bible study software like E-sword or Web sites like http://www.blueletterbible.org
10 Trench’s New Testament Synonyms
11 For a quick introduction to quantum mechanics, here is a playlist from Inspiring Philosophy. It is mostly a very excellent treatment of the subject, although Quantum mechanics, in my view, implies Structural Realism rather than “weak pantheism.”
12 Double slit experiment
13 Quantum eraser
14 Wave function
15 ShrÖdinger equation
16 Wave-function collapse
17 Modal Logic is a form of logic specifically geared to handle problems concerned with necessity, contingency, and potentiality.
18 Computability refers to the capability to complete a task by following a finite sequence of steps. While some infinities are computable in an approximate way using calculus, countable infinities are not computable. Thus it is impossible to draw an infinite canvas with each pixel being assigned a specific value out of an infinite number of pixels. Each pixel would have a specific address which would be identified as a finite number. No matter how many pixels you could assign, each is a finite number and never reaches true infinity. In computability theory this is known as the register problem.
19 Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, HyperPhysics Lab at Georgia State University
20 Why is the Hilbert Space useful in quantum mechanics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why _is_the _Hilberts_space_useful_in_quantum_mechanics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why _is_the _Hilberts_space_useful_in_quantum_mechanics
21 Vectors involve calculation that involve values across multiple dimension. They are used commonly to calculate motions and change across multidimensional spaces.
22 Matrices are numbers arranged in dimensional arrays that can be summed to a unique product. Matrix mathematics are commonly used in cryptography and in other settings where having a unique identifier is important. Matrices and vector are not identical, but they do overlap and are often closely related.
23 A cryptographic signature is a unique string or combination of inputs that is necessary to decode or decrypt communications. The fact that the manifestation of physical reality involves encoding and decoding of information in a fine-tuned system means that this process involves a hard-set cryptographic signature. This would prevent created conscious agents from creating their own universe and fooling others into thinking they were the Creator. This would NOT, however, prevent entities like the Antichrist from modifying the existing universe on a quantum level for deceptive purposes. This problem will be the subject of a future installment Titled “Escaping the Quantum Antichrist.”
24 This would NOT, however, prevent entities like the Antichrist from modifying the existing universe on a quantum level for deceptive purposes. This problem will be the subject of a future installment Titled “Escaping the Quantum Antichrist.”