I ‘ve Newly Adopted a View Known as Hendiadic Polytheism

My view of the divine is best described as:

  1. Transcendent – The gods existed before, and do now exist “underneath” (at lower levels of scale) the creation. It is proper to say that they were born with the universe (Einstein), meaning in in their present (hendiadic) and 8-fold form, which is permanent and represents an extraordinary kind of progress in the development of both our supremely wise and benevolent Parents.
  2. Finite – Both of our (first two) divine parents, Father (the God) and Mother (the Goddess) are finite, but supreme, divine Persons. Others came later from them as by a kind of necessity (birth).
  3. Hen (One) – Diadic (two-) fold = Hendiadic.  The eight individual, divine, Persons, united into pairs at the Origin of the cosmos, causing the “Big Bang” — divine unity created our cosmos.
  4. The eight divine Parents we have think and live as one, in mindset (Wisdom and understanding), love, volition and purpose.  But they maintain their clear and distinct individuality as real persons. They grow and change together — their relationship is like unto a perfect (ideal) marriage, and community (family).  They complete each other (are complements One of Another).
  5. Eight-fold Theism.  All our divine parents are divine, necessary (Life cannot “not exist”) and transcendent — real Persons. They grow in understanding with the cosmos, and with us, but remain sufficient, inerrant and infallible in their governance of the cosmos.
  6. The divinities are quite free and optimal in every way, and our freedom depends upon Theirs (is derived from Theirs), so that it is quite real, and this limits our divine Parents’ knowledge of the future (which is considerable, but not total by any means).  Our divine parents love us in the extreme, and desire everything most excellent for all of us, especially wisdom and understanding, that causes us to thrive.
Advertisements

“Complementarity?” Yeah. Here, Spooky Quantum Pairs Throw Physicists A (DT like) Curve Ball

Spooky Quantum Particle Pairs Fly Like Weird Curveballs

Date:
June 4, 2018
Source:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Summary:
Some particles that can be in two places at the same time and are not just particles but also waves, in this case, fermions, appear to move in even weirder ways than previously thought. Theoretical physicists applied extreme computing power for a week to predict the movements of fermions by including quantum optics, or light-like, ideas in their mathematical, theoretical modeling.
This is an artist’s depiction of what a group of atoms looks like when they merge to a wave-like state. This occurs under ultra-cooling that drops atoms’ temperature to near absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature in the universe. This is not an image of something done in this Georgia Tech study but is intended to help readers picture the particle-wave duality the study considers along with other factors.
Credit: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Curvy baseball pitches have surprising things in common with quantum particles described in a new physics study, though the latter fly much more weirdly.


In fact, ultracold paired particles called fermions must behave even weirder than physicists previously thought, according to theoretical physicists from the Georgia Institute of Technology, who mathematically studied their flight patterns. Already, flying quantum particles were renowned for their weirdness.

To understand why, start with similarities to a baseball then add significant differences.

A pitcher imparts spin, momentum, and energy to a baseball when throwing a curveball, a change-up, or a slider. Fermions’ funny flights are likewise carved by spins, momenta, and energies, but also by powerful quantum eccentricities like entanglement, which Albert Einstein once called “spooky action at a distance” between quantum particles.

In the new study, the researchers even predicted that the particles can act like different quantum balls called bosons to mimic the manner that photons, or [wave/] particles of light, fly.  A simplified explanation of these ultracold paired particles and their odd flights is below.

Read Complete Article? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180604124908.htm

Comment Summary: Fermions are strange pilots. They fly their “paired particles” in strange ways that imitate a baseball pitcher’s curve-balls and sliders — adding spin and other kinds of “angular momentum,” which, although it may be “conserved,” can still do strange things to one’s flight patterns.  Here, they’ve been caught on cam — in technicolor.

Our Beloved Creators, The Double Torus and the Ideal Language

    We properly refer to our supremely wise Creators as the Cosmarchs (Titans?) of Wisdom and Love.  The double or dual nature of the Creator has the testimony of nature’s light in the form of a concept the world of physics calls “Complementarity,” (Where one kind of thing COMPLETES another, the way two halves of a thing form a whole) following the ideas of the Danish physicist, Niels Bohr.   Divine duality has another very interesting testimony in (receives support from) a kind of shape (that emerges over time), carved out by the ideal pathways for energy to travel that ensures a maximal balance called “equilibrium.”  It is a kind of donut-shape (torus).  This form, like one sock that needs another, has a “symmetrical counterpart” (mate) in the double torus.

The DT is a bit like the game of checkers — as with the making of a king (“crowning” your red or black pieces), since this requires a kind of “doubling” or symmetry of 2 stacked layers.  But these tori (toruses) “feed into one another” in a kind of energy flow “symbiosis.”  Each more or less supports, and flows into, the other — at the ends or poles.

So what does nature testify about our Creators through the ideal process?  It would seem that they have both a kind of uniformity (nature forms a unified field of “something”) and a duality (two-ness) about them. I have already given my explanation of this (see previous posts). Why four “divine pairs” and not 3, or 7?  DNA provides the answer, and so does the binary character of particles (quanta). Science geeks think of these as more like “energy packets,” than say like “tiny billiard balls.”

This fascinating DT fractal (i.e. an unusual 3-d geometric shape that looks a bit like two donuts stacked together) shape unfolds over time in a way we could call “stochastic” — (seemingly random) distributions — now a little here, now a little there, now a bit WAY over there — until a whole “picture” or pattern emerges (somewhat oddly) from this host of “randomized” events.

Firecracker-painting does this — er, sometimes.  But it won’t give you exactly a DT image.  Interestingly, there is a galaxy (just one so far) that displays this shape — in addition to the earth’s wind patterns, and the energy flow of trees.

http://www.cosmometry.net has an interesting explanation for those interested in the dynamics of energy flow (thermodynamics) that reads:  “Whereas the vector equilibrium represents the ultimate stillness of energy, the torus shows us how energy moves in its most balanced, dynamic flow process.  The important thing to understand about the Torus is that it represents a PROCESS, not just a particular form.” [emphasis added].

It continues its explanation then of the double torus: “Another fundamental aspect of this ubiquitous flow process is what’s called the Double Torus dynamic.  This is, simply put, the torus forms stacked together and rotating in opposite directions. In this way, energy flow, either inward or outward at both poles of a system, rather than IN one pole and OUT the other — as in a single torus.”

“This double torus dynamic appears to be quite common in the cosmos as well (as the single torus), appearing in the energy flow of trees, in the weather patterns of the earth and other planets, in solar dynamics and even galaxies.”

This brings me to the question I have been pondering for some time now.  If the double torus (hereafter, DT), represents an ideal trajectory for the flow of energy over time, then it merits our attention, given that this blog aims to discover the ideal, as the foundation of the light of nature.

Here are a few of my current thoughts:

Along with complementarity, the DT seems to reveal the dual and symmetrical character of the divine, that we also see in the double helix of DNA, and its consequent imprint on all the phenotypical (outward) traits of life, meaning here life that reproduces sexually (not plant life — trees do not display symmetry). But note that if one draws a line down the middle of a human, that (just like a fish) the right side mirrors the left as a perfect counterpart. With us humans, the symmetrical “double helix” (at the microscopic level) is reflected (again, with symmetry) at the macroscopic level.

The same could be true of the DT, now at the quantum level, and perhaps at progressively larger scales, up to that of a galaxy, or even the cosmos.  This is the nature of a “self-similar” (at descending or ascending levels) fractals.  Is the cosmos a DT?  And is it fractal?

Clearly the imprint of the light of nature shows us that our beloved Creator undoubtedly bears both a dual and a unified character (as the uniformity of nature testifies).  This is what fooled traditional monotheisms, which focused overmuch on nature’s uniformity, but missed its basic duality.  Both (uniformity and duality) together resolve one of philosophy’s most famous problems, called the “problem of the one and the many.”

The uniformity of nature notoriously forms a founding element for logic, science and morality.  And a strict dualism  — if taken by itself — just breeds the problem of the “evil imposter” of Zoroastrianism.  Here, the liar’s paradox has no resolution.  The unity of nature provides the background against which the idea of duality makes sense.  Some will say, however, that one cannot really derive the concept of “the many” (or even “the few”) particularly well from the idea of “two.”  But if we double it (twice), 8 seems enough to count as “many.”

Here is something well worth considering: it may well be that in considering the DT as fundamental and ideal as the “Duality dynamic,” that we are in fact studying that which most closely represents the actual divine Person (s) by nature’s light, so that we should also bear this in mind:

Space falls out as longitude, latitude and altitude (H x W x L) and time as Past, Present and Future.  These are each transcendental categories, meaning ways in which we humans must think in order to render our experience intelligible to us (set it in order in the right categories).  But each of these remains static, like snapshots, whereas the real world unfolds over time AS PROCESS.  This means we must add to our categories, to set life’s events in proper order,  the relations that obtain BETWEEN space (3d) and time (3d).

Distance and Time are related by RATE (a measurement of change) — distance = rate x time.  Rate of change comes in different packages, but here “velocity” will do well enough.  And then a change in the rate of velocity is known as “acceleration.”

Adding these two categories to describe the flow of energy and its effects in the real world would make the real world 8-dimensional.  Recall that the double torus often takes a great deal of time to unfold AT A GIVEN RATE of energy flow.

The DT might describe (I am here suggesting) the ideal flow of energy as a kind of process in equilibrium as a 8-dimensional “picture,” one that most closely represents our divine Parent(s) — a kind of divinely-appointed fractal of a certain and unique kind.  It is a fractal IN PROCESS that takes shape over time, apparently throughout space.  It seems somehow to transcend both to some extent, and it seems ideal, both in terms of process and balance (permanence [stability] and change [process]).

I shall continue thinking and posting on this subject, divine providence (mercifully) forbearing.

Complementarity, Physics and life as a Gestalt.

As one might infer from reading the heading above, this post concerns life as a “Gestalt.”  These were the old cards containing dual pictures of dots, connected either one way — now yielding the portrait of an old hag, or now that way, showing a dot-portrait of a beautiful, young woman.  Then there is the rabbit that could have been a duck (or vice versa).

Physics shows us a gestalt kind of (dual) world, where matter (or else energy), bears a similar kind of duality (in many ways and at various times) especially on the Copenhagen read.

Here, I intend to show that light of nature, understood well by excellent science, has always been telling us the divine story of (finite) duo-monotheism.  We just weren’t particular good at listening to the story, with a few exceptions.

More about this topic later.