Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Holy Spirit, Trinity, angels and cosmology: ANSWER PART I
Message-ID: <260@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 04:05:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: promethe.260
Posted: Thu Sep 25 04:05:39 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:19:54 EDT
References: <7568@tekecs.UUCP> <1503@mtx5a.UUCP> <7616@tekecs.UUCP> <257@prometheus.UUCP> <1272@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Super User)
Distribution: net
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222
Lines: 120
Keywords: Trinity, Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Substance
Xref: linus net.religion.christian:4722 talk.religion.misc:243

>> ... 
In article <1272@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - 
>in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of 
>angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum.
>
>In article <257@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>> Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look 
>> around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. 

Scanning quickly ahead  I notice that Padraig has probed the
cracks and crevices quite well so this could get a little long
and it probably isn't the kind of thing that would interest the
casual or strictly "classical religious" types with rather fixed
and already personally satisfying or complete answers to theological 
and human concepts.  The response has been split in 2 long articles.
A word to the wise--- 

One of the common difficulties noted relates to a tangle of different 
meanings of concepts when they are visualized in a mathematical space 
or a real physical space.  Real here means one that is NOT idealized.  

Now let's get on with it.  Before the angels and souls got in the
picture, the hypothesis was constructed for other reasons.

To be a viable hypothesis and be able to provide the "energy/information"
source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain 
requirements.  First the source had to logically predate the big
bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than 
that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical 
universe.  The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been 
able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open" 
within physical space that could do the trick.

>
>> ...  The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of 
>> our space and two space is not.  Also only one object can exist in one 
>> space.  That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges";  and 
>> since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided" 
>> into segments like lines in two space can.  Consequently, only a single 
>> entity can occupy one dimensional space.  Incidentally, zero dimension is 
>> a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because 
>> lines can "intersect"). 

>This is garbage for the following reasons:


>   - You are confusing mathematical constructs - lines, surfaces, volumes
>     which are used to MODEL the physical world, with the physical world.

It is true that such constructs do model the "physical three-space world"
and I am using them also to model the three manifolds of one, two and 
three dimensional space, of which the physical world is just one (latter). 

>   - Mathematically, a line perhaps may be treated as being infinitely
>     thin, however in physics no substance is known to be infinitely thin.
>     Physicists are limited in their ability to resolve detail by the
>     famous Uncertainty Principle. The nearest physical construct you
>     could construct would be to refer to a line of particles, however
>     there are no infinitely small particles that I'm aware of.

Yes, that is very true in physical three space.  Because our space
contains a limited amount of information, a location can not be 
infinitely precise.  Our space is in fact "grainy".  This is why
particles have "width" to "smooth" out the otherwise discontinuous
space.  I can hear the "mathematical physicists' screams" already
but we'll just ignore them for the time being.  So our space is 
"quasi continuous" "particle-wise".  

This isn't the case with G.. .  oops  let's back up and get out
of the trap of physical world. 

We are used to being a little arrogant with our point of view,
which currently is the "3 space" and the physical world is the
the only one.  Used to be the world was flat and the earth was
the center.. we've been making progress but we're not There yet.

The problem with the next set of observations is they don't apply
to a one dimensional space, they apply to a one dimensional line
embedded in a three dimensional space.  There's a great difference.  

We know that gradients exist in three space, and a line can be
considered to be a cut through the gradient so that gradients can
exist along lines.   Of course such lines get their properties
from the three space, and not one space. 

If I have a scissors, I can cut a thread pulled taut by a friend. 
Also, two straight lines can be drawn to intersect in a plane.  
That means that points and zones can be identified along lines
because of "externally originating cuts" or "coordinates".  

But in one dimensional space cuts can NOT occur, simply because 
there are no intersecting lines.  

>   - A 1-dimensional system can have gradients along it.

An embedded one can, that BTW does NOT have an infinite density. 

>   - A 1-dimensional system can have edges i.e. {x| 0.0 <= x <= 1.0} has
>     edges at 0.0 and 1.0.
>
>   - A 1-dimensional system can be cut and divided ie the previous set
>     can be partitioned into {x | 0.0 <= x <= 0.5} and {x| 0.5 < x <= 1.0}.

At this point, Part I is finished; this is continued in Part II.

             Then we knew we're here, and
               now we know we're there 'n TWO;
             So what does it take to switch
               our precious physical point of view? 
W. pooh
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+