Prime numbers. They’re not composites. Imagine if you grew up in a culture that skipped counting and went straight to composing. Imagine their starting point was Harmony — not what led up to it.
A prime number has two factors, one and itself. And yet it is not considered a composite, which only includes numbers with more than two factors. A prime number is the same number in every base; the different bases are just different ways of representing it.
analytic breaks down (what is composed without destroying) and synthetic composes (creating whilst preserving within the whole—aka, without nihilizing/nihilating) — not opposites — mutually productive
something new/singular (within whole—binary??) and something composite (spectrum??)
I’m very likely not going to understand your answer. Please do not get frustrated with me.
Remember that pattern recognition is synthetic and change recognition is analytic. Mutually produced. Not opposites.
Z.N. … question. The torus that could presumably represent/compose the universe &/or physical timeline… Would you say the “placeholder” inside and outside the torus could be occupied by spiritual (just say non-physical if you prefer) material?
It’s fine if you don’t understand what I’m saying. That would make two of us.
If we symbolize (represent) the universe at any single “moment” in time as a filled circle (a slice or chip), then the physical timeline would be a filled cylinder (a sausage). And if time is circular, the cylinder would itself form a ring (a donut). Is this more or less what you’re trying to say?
If so, then I think what you’re asking me is: What’s inside the hole of the donut and outside the donut (same thing, really)? Could it be something non-physical? Well, I think it couldn’t be essentially different from the universe itself (just as the environment of the donut is not essentially different from it). This is one reason why the universe must be infinite and time couldn’t be circular.
And indeed, in my view the universe is infinite at every moment in time. We can still symbolize space as a filled circle, and spacetime as a filled cylinder, but then it makes no sense to ask what’s “outside” it. We are representing something infinite by something finite. And in my view, the cylinder gets ever less “full”, i.e. ever less filled with particles and ever more filled with vacuum.
The torus is not a filled donut. It’s more like only the surface of the donut.
Imagine a clown tied the elongated balloon into a torus & made the beginning/end disappear, so that it is all beginning/end, and when you squeeze (contract) it… its surface (& it is all surface…) …expands.
And when you let go… it’s surface contracts.
But your squeezing/letting go… leaves an imprint on that surface — warps it. OR not.
But why should I do all that. Your posts tend to be so disconnected… Can we just find a starting point and—oh, wait.
Anyway, the same thing applies to your torus as to my donut, or any other shape: what’s outside it cannot be essentially different; and if there’s nothing outside, then it must itself be infinite.
As for this:
I didn’t mean it was filled by itself. I understand it’s only surface. But it’s a 3D representation of a 4(+)D phenomenon. What it’s filled by is the actual 3D stuff that occupies space—particles and vacuum (collapsed and uncollapsed waveforms).
Also that post before it, where you begin by quoting yourself quoting yourself, and then say: “Please bear with me.” Who were you addressing there? And what do prime numbers have to do with anything else in this thread?
Maybe we should start with one interesting subject you recently mentioned here, the “unmoved mover”. That’s from Aristotle, and in Greek it’s ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, romanized hò ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. “that which moves while not being moved”. Are you familiar with Aristotle’s other great formula for his God? Wikipedia continues:
“In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover)
Self-contemplation in the sense of the contemplation of contemplation: the perfect contemplation is itself the undivided contemplation of (the perfect) contemplation…
Now the question is: what, if any, is the necessary connection between the contemplation of contemplation and the moving by the unmoved? Hint: Aristotle’s God does not need to be moved in order to move…
In the meantime I also found a connection between these two things. Prime numbers are basically indivisible divisors (dividing them by one and dividing them by themselves don’t count!); and the prime mover can be said to be the numb unnumber…
They’re different according to the history of Western theology. What you’re suggesting is an emanationist position as is mine. That’s considered heterodox. Creation ex nihilo has been the dominant position for centuries. God creates out of nothing by fiat. I think it’s a mistake that has real negative consequences.
There was never nothing. And yet there is a beginning. I think people label things heterodox that they don’t (correctly) understand. Like panentheism… click the down arrow:
The creation ex nihilo argument doesn’t assert that there was ever nothing since it maintains that God has always existed.
The first articulation of the notion of creation ex nihilo is found in the late 2nd century writing To Autolycusauthored by Theophilus of Antioch.
In his letter to Autolycus, Theophilus writes, (II, 4) “As, therefore, in all these respects God is more powerful than man, so also in this; that out of things that are not He creates and has created things that are”[15] This is almost a verbatim quote of St. Paul as recounted in the Douay–Rheims Bible, (Romans 4:17) “…before God, whom he believed, who quickeneth the dead; and calleth those things that are not [Gr: μὴ ὄντα; L: non sunt], as those that are”.[16]
Not only orthodox Christian but Jewish theologians like Mamonides have accepted this doctrine. I see now it is compatible with Advaita Vedanta. From the absolute standpoint, everything is not; only God is.
I’m saying there is one reality. Talking about God and the universe entails two. Even according to standard Western theology early instances of which I cited above, one of the two is basically nothing. That is, it does not exist in and of itself. That would be the phenomena of the material universe.The way it is conventionally perceived is an illusion based on mental projections of time, space and causality. Is that what you’re saying?
The one reality is a whole. The universe — including us — is from/in God — in him we live and move and have our being (spiritual and physical…which is subject to change) — everything is internal to God. He sustains it all (blended/changing timeline) complete and whole (unchanging).
Love/essence is not love without demonstration/existence (mutual production — one does not precede the other). That which they sustain whole is a demonstration of — revelation of — the actuality of — the projection/emanation of — who God is. So it is far from nothing as long as it aligns with him. Even the misaligned points back to the properly aligned—rather than nothing, it is a privation that is not able to sustain itself, like rust needs iron, and blindness needs the mechanism of sight.
We are allowed to be out of alignment because if we weren’t permitted, we could never willfully come to know him (which is to live the truth he lives) and he could never come to demonstrate (live) who he is—which is always already subsumed whole from the (to us) beginning. Self=Other is willful … consent recognition. The whole.
There is a good nihilization/reification that creates in alignment with the eternal—is subsumed in the eternal (like a tessellating fractal). The bad/evil nihilization/reification destroys/creates nothing eternal…self-destructs (nihil for the fire — all will reconcile).
