Hi All,
I thought that, as we hadn’t discussed it in length lately, we
might re-touch the subject of ‘Creation-Ex-Nihilo’. Especially as
Simon Ewins (by name, potentially a distant cousin of mine through my
mother’s [McEwen] side) has pointed out, in another thread, that he
takes some exception to my belief that (an omnipotent) God is subject
to certain constraints, in particular: logic. As some of you might
remember, I derive my view of it (creation-ex-nihilo) from hints in
Genesis 1:1 and the Gospel of St. John 1:1, as well as my own
understanding as described below. Genesis 1:1 is simply stating,
grossly, that ‘it all started’, just take it for granted (although, if
analysed kabbalistically from the original Hebrew, it will reveal many
more details, but that’s outside the scope of this particular
exegesis). John 1:1, though, takes us through a very Gnostic and
logical means of deducing the process of creation from nothing, to
which I’ll return near the end.
Firstly, I’d like to apologise for the length (some 2500 words)
but, in order to get the concepts out, it takes a few words. So, (and
I’m going to go a bit Spinoza-like, but it seems the most sensible and
sane way to present it) we need to make some assumptions (axioms) and
derivations (postulates):
Definition 1) By ‘thing’ I mean that which can be expressed by a
noun, that is, a person, place, thing (in its usual sense as opposed
to the other three) or idea. Things that are ideas—abstracts, if you
will—do not require a physical, tangible presence in order to exist
whereas the other three types are all tangibles—concretes, if you
will. Whereas some may refute this and think that an idea requires a
conceiver, I will demonstrate that only ‘the possibility of its
conception’, abstract in itself, is required in order for it to exist
as a potential. Genesis 1:1 hints (a ‘remez’ for those
kabbalistically attuned) at this through its reference of that which
was created being ‘the heavens and Earth’: ‘the heavens’ representing
abstract existence and ‘Earth’ representing concrete existence.
Definition 2) By ‘energy’ I mean any of its various forms from
potential extending throughout all forms of kinetic energy—including
gravitational, weak and strong atomic and electro-magnetic forces—and
its/their transformations and means of transference.
Axiom 1) Energy exists.
Explanation 1)
The refutation of the existence of energy is patently
absurd in a blatantly Cartesian manner. All things consist either as
some form of energy or of some combined form(s) of energy. Most
concrete things are comprised of complex forms of varying organisation
in a state of constant flux with their equally concrete environment.
Axiom 2) Energy can exist in a state of potential.
Explanation 2)
I mean this as we normally consider potential energy in modern
parlance. That is, for example, the kind of energy that is added to
an object when lifted off the ground. The object now has the
potential to return to the ground at, potentially, varying forces
depending on any outside forces impinging thereon, especially gravity
in this example. Potential energy has no ‘appearance’, that is, it
cannot be perceived visually. The object lifted from the ground looks
the same as it did when it was on the ground, but it has gained
potential energy by bring lifted above a centre of gravity, if not
then thrown or otherwise somehow projected adding even more energy.
So, potential energy doesn’t look like anything but that doesn’t mean
it’s not there. (Kabbalistically, this is referred to through the
property of air, because it surely exists, as it can be felt as wind
when forced, but cannot be seen. Thus, in Hebrew, the terms for
breath, which is air brought through the body, and spirit [RVCh or
Ruach] are the same, as it is felt that one’s Ruach, one’s sense of
self, surely exists but cannot be seen. In this respect, the Jewish
faith has been Cartesian millennia before Descartes!)
Axiom 3) Energy can exist kinetically.
Explanation 3)
I mean this as we normally think of energy in a state of motion.
For example, photons emitted by stars that travel through space and
enter our atmosphere and reflect and refract and are finally absorbed,
perhaps by one of our own retinae, as we view the distant star.
Axiom 4) Energy can exist in a number of transformation and
transference states.
Explanation 4)
By this I intend all the various ways energy can transform from
one form to another. Heat, for example—a form of electro-magnetic
energy in the infra-red wavelength range—is transferred by conduction,
radiation and/or convection. In any of these cases, electro-magnetic
energy is moved (kineticised, if you will) from one area to another by
transferring through a medium in one of these ways. Air, can be moved
by sound waves, so, yes, the tree that falls in the woods with no one
to hear it, does, indeed, make the same sound it would irrespective of
the presence of an audience. At a more atomic/molecular level, energy
can be moved by the passing of electrons or, in the process referred
to as ‘annihilation’, energy that is particulate of opposite charge
(e.g., an electron and a positron) is transferred into varying
wavelengths of electro-magnetic energy (i.e., perhaps smaller
particles, gamma rays, x-rays, microwaves, light and heat, but also
sound, if there’s a sufficient medium for that—space-time itself is
the medium for electro-magnetic energy, but that’s beyond the scope of
this matter as well as being generally irrelevant to the point).
Axiom 5) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it
can only be transferred or transformed.
Explanation 5)
This has been a cornerstone of modern science—the conservation of
energy—and has never, to date, been shown to be false. And, with the
advent of string theory, if it is ever demonstrated that energy can be
‘lost’ from our 4-D space-time, that’s no ‘proof’ that it has not been
conserved in one or more of the other dimensions afforded by the
theory. Equally it could be said that if it is ever demonstrated that
energy can be ‘found’, that’s no proof that it wasn’t ‘borrowed’ or
‘escaped’ from one or more of the other dimensions afforded by the
theory. It would, however, be an indication that energy may be able
to exist elsewhere, other than our 4-D space-time, which would lend
credence to string theory as an explanation FOR that gain-or-loss, as
no other theory has any other places (dimensions) from which energy
can come or to which energy can go. Exactly what energy can do when
it is in those other dimensions is, again, out of scope here, but, I
believe, it is in those ‘non-4-D, space-time’ dimensions that
currently contain (or, more likely, have always contained) the
‘timeless’ abstracts in my overall theory.
Postulate 1) The universe, as we know it today and including
all that has come before, must have been, at some point, potentially
possible.
Scholion 1) To think that the universe, as it exists now, was
never potentially possible is patently absurd, if not simply by A1-
A5. Rather, it must have ALWAYS been a potential possibility. So, we
can safely assume that the entire actual (and by actual, I mean the
real history—complete with all the concretes in existence up to this
point in time, not history as we may have heard or discovered about
it, which may or may not be entirely accurate) history of the universe
has always been potentially possible. And, given that the state has
occurred, the universe, as it exists now, was not only possible but
very likely.
Postulate 2) All abstract things are always potential.
Scholion 2) Since it is obvious that one can imagine a container
without one actually being present, it stands to reason that the
concept of a container does not require concrete existence; rather, it
only requires the possibility that it can be conceived, which can be
derived from P1, as a subset.
Corollary 1) As a subset of the things that currently exist,
all abstracts, as they require no concrete existence, can exert their
influence whilst only potential.
Example: This can be demonstrated by the countless experiences
of people having dreams of things and, then, inventing them; for
example, many of Stephen King’s novels and subsequent films were
inspired by dreams and they have, in turn, inspired some of us to
spend time and/or money reading or watching them. Alternatively,
concepts that ‘arise’ or ‘occur’ to us that, then, allow us to
understand something new, like the kind of intellectual epiphanies of
Newton and Einstein also stand as examples of this. These abstracts
had no physical form, yet they have had profound influence on, at
least, our planet. So, too, there is no evidence that this influence
would be absent in energy that had the potential for it, as well as
the potential for its conception, which are both derivable subsets of
P1.
Postulate 3) All concretes require their corresponding
abstracts to also exist.
Scholion 3) For example, to think that an individual can exist
without the concept of that individual also existing is absurd, if for
no other reasoning but Cartesian reasoning. Similarly, the concrete
existence of a bottle of beer implies the potential existence of the
concepts of beer and bottle, which, in turn, are forms of the
categories of liquid and container, as well as they are representative
of all their component ingredients and skill in composition and the
potentials involved in them. Of course, if the basic forms of energy
to make beer or bottles did not exist, as was the case some 0.1
seconds after the Big Bang, no actual bottles of beer could exist, but
the potential for their existence existed, as can be derived from P1.
Corollary 2) Actual (concrete) awareness would only be
possible if it were, first, an abstract possibility.
Example: By P1, the particular instance of consciousness/
awareness we know currently exists and can derive that, by P3 that our
consciousness/awareness is derived as a subset of the potential for it
to exist by P2.
Postulate 4) Logic, as a very small subset of ‘the things that
are possible’, was, at the same point as P1 via C1, potentially
possible and exerted its influence on the energy that exists.
Scholion 4) Of all the subsets of abstracts that are possible,
logic and the concepts which precede it—for example, categories—are
the most important abstracts in existence, as they govern the rules
with which energy must comply. Even the constants that govern physics
comply with logic, which is why we can rely upon them. Logic rules
and it always has, since there has always been the potential for it.
Postulate 5) All energy was, at some point, completely
potential.
Scholion 5) From A5 and P1, we can derive that there would have
been a point at which all energy would exist in a state of complete
potentiality, simply because the possibility of that existed.
Postulate 6) Logic exerted its effect at the point of P5.
Scholion 6) Logic, as it requires only potential energy to exert
its influence (by C1), did so. There were no concretes to prevent it
from exerting its influence and no other abstracts do (negate the
effects of logic), so it can be assumed that energy conformed to logic
even when all energy is in a completely potential form.
Postulate 7) The logical property of negation transformed the
energy at P5 from being completely potential to begin to actuate
(kineticise) and realise that potential via the means afforded as a
subset of A4.
Scholion 7) The potential energy, which contained the complete
potential for all that energy can do was negated and, it was no longer
potential. From A5, the energy that has always existed must have been
forced from its purely potential form at P5 to an actuated form, this
P7. This is the essence of creation-ex-nihilo. At this point, even
the self-awareness of the existing energy (by C2) began (simply
because, prior to which, it was possible and potential) and, thus, led
to the potential for all concrete awareness that has derived from it.
From A5, we know that energy always exists and we know, from C1
that abstracts require only potential energy in order to be effective;
thus the power of logic alone, in particular, negation, at point P5,
would force the energy to move from a potential form to a kinetic
form, P7 (by A4) and, thus, a Big Bang would appear as energy
‘apparently’ sprang from nowhere, as potential energy has no
‘appearance’, and expanded to produce our current universe according
to the other abstract laws of physics currently defined by several
constants.
“The Gospel of St. John 1:1” hints at this concept of creation-ex-
nihilo in a particularly Gnostic and algebraic way. If, for example,
the ‘Word’ was ‘not’ in its meaning of ‘that which is not’, and, at
the point of P5, the postulate, “all possible concretes do not exist
but are potential”, were both in effect—that can be simplified by
representing ‘the existence of nothing concrete’ by the word ‘not’ (as
in ‘that which was’ was ‘not’). So John 1:1 says, “In the beginning
was the Word”; that particular word is the word ‘not’ in its sense of
representing ‘the potential for all things, yet none of which are
concrete’.
But ‘not’ is also the logical verb of negation and, when applied
to the ‘not’ of that potential existence gives us “and the Word was
with God”; thus, the algebraic equation “not(not)”, applying the
negation process to the potential energy and creating all that is
possible (i.e., “not(not) = all things possible”); thus, lending
credence to the fact that “and the Word was God.” And the Word, in
one sense, became God “The Creator” by virtue of it creating, i.e.,
actuating the potential, the concretes that exist in our 4-D space-
time.
The object of this was, really, to demonstrate my point of view
to Simon (and others if they shared his doubts) that logic applies and
constrains God, as God is (he lightly says) nothing but energy and I
thought that my version of the resolution of creation-ex-nihilo
demonstrated that (the importance of logic constraining energy)
particularly well. I hope that I’ve shown how I’ve come to believe
that logic constrains energy and my reasoning for it. Yes, they (my
reasons) do sound rather Platonic and that’s fine; I tend to think he
was on the right track. ;-)
Whether or not it satisfies anyone else’s criteria is only a
reflection of the beauty of the variance of God’s many views and
certainly doesn’t negate the concepts above, but it should, at least,
serve to present my own. Of course, any and all comments are welcome
as that previous comment should serve to remind you that I don’t
expect everyone to necessarily accept it or agree with me; although, I
would think it hard to find it an impossible line of reasoning.
Cheers,
Pat
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
