Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Well, I Make A Number Of Assertions About Divine Order

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on August 29, 2001 16:21:59 UTC


I have compared divine order to a monad that is undefined (or if you prefer, a mystery). That is, every element of the natural world is built on this mystery. The concept of a monad is used throughout the Cosmos, but the base monad of reality happens to be undefined. Other monads in the Cosmos are defined with particular structure.

A monad is a structure in the universe that has particular attributes. For example, an atom is a monad. It has a particular structure and it forms the basis for atomic physics. Molecules is another monad that forms the basis for chemistry, etc.

If we are to trace the properties of any physical structure back far enough, eventually (I believe) we will see that their properties become purely mathematical. That is, the most basic material monad (whatever that turns out to be, a string - perhaps), will have pure mathematical properties. Those properties will exist because of mathematical axioms, which are 'true' because of this undefined monad (or divine order) to the universe. All the monads of the universe are approximating this undefined monad and the evolution of the universe is in some way limited by this approximating action.

Now, here's the twist. I don't think this base monad isn't just an undefined condition (i.e., an initial condition), it is also an undefined process (i.e., transformation), and an undefined state (i.e., set). If you see what I am setting up here, it is suggesting that divine order is a condition (logical), process (category of change), and state (set or field). I obtain this by stating that the competing foundations for logic and mathematics (logic, set theory, category theory) are all correct. All three are all correct foundations - they simply are different formulations of the same undefined monad. This doesn't mean there can't be more formulations, but I am not aware of any others.

This principle, I believe, carries forward into the different formulations of physics. Physical equations have three different formulations. There is the minimum principle (i.e., a formulation based on process), dynamical equations (i.e., a formulation based on initial conditions), and field theory (i.e., a formulation based on field or sets).

Whether this is all correct or not is an assumption. I wouldn't say I have 'faith' in this idea, but I consider this approach - if correct - to be the most fundamental aspect of creation.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins