All Spirit is Matter

[volgadon]

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

-Doctrine & Covenants 131:7-8.

We are probably all familiar with the above teaching by Joseph Smith. Yesterday I came across something similar in the 2nd chapter of Joseph Gikatilla's "Shaarei Orah" (Gates of Light). This is a Spanish kabbalistic text from the end of the 13th century, dealing with the various sefirot. The chapter in question is about the 9th sefirah.

Let not the philosophers rail against me and say that an angel has no soul; for there is nothing created in the world that has no soul according to its kind, and this is proper. And as the material is, so is the soul: if an upper [being], then an upper [soul], if a lower [being], then a lower [soul].

Joseph Gikatilla, Shaarei Orah, Ha-shaar Ha-sheni - Ha-sefirah Ha-teshiit.

I am not positing any relationship between the texts. It is interesting that Joseph was not the only one holding that spirit was a form of matter.

[Tarski]

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

-Doctrine & Covenants 131:7-8.

We are probably all familiar with the above teaching by Joseph Smith. Yesterday I came across something similar in the 2nd chapter of Joseph Gikatilla's "Shaarei Orah" (Gates of Light). This is a Spanish kabbalistic text from the end of the 13th century, dealing with the various sefirot. The chapter in question is about the 9th sefirah.

I am not positing any relationship between the texts. It is interesting that Joseph was not the only one holding that spirit was a form of matter.

Don't forget Emanuel Swedenborg's ideas.

[volgadon]

Don't forget Emanuel Swedenborg's ideas.

Thanks. I had actually forgotten him, but as Moshe Idel noted, Swedenborg was influenced by kabbalistic thought. Joseph could very well have been introduced to the concept via Swedenborgians.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, these kinds of discussions were very common in the Middle Ages in the debates we now somewhat ignorantly characterize as debating "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". We usually see that question as a perfect example of how ridiculous philosophy is or was.

What those discussions were about actually was the nature of what was known as Substance- the underlying stuff of the universe and whether or not two spirits could occupy the same space. At the core of that issue, is what kind of "matter" spirit consists of.

So those discussions have reverberations even on this forum today.

[Ahab]

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

-Doctrine & Covenants 131:7-8.

We are probably all familiar with the above teaching by Joseph Smith. Yesterday I came across something similar in the 2nd chapter of Joseph Gikatilla's "Shaarei Orah" (Gates of Light). This is a Spanish kabbalistic text from the end of the 13th century, dealing with the various sefirot. The chapter in question is about the 9th sefirah.

I am not positing any relationship between the texts. It is interesting that Joseph was not the only one holding that spirit was a form of matter.

I'm sure MANY people before Joseph also had that idea, too.

The alternative would be... what?

The idea that "spirit" is nothing at all. What intelligent person would accept an idea like that?

[volgadon]

The idea that "spirit" is nothing at all. What intelligent person would accept an idea like that?

Plenty. The Jewish philosophers were certainly intelligent, yet they did not hold that angels consisted of matter.

[Ahab]

Plenty. The Jewish philosophers were certainly intelligent, yet they did not hold that angels consisted of matter.

Well, okay, yes, they did have some intelligence, but it doesn't really take a whole lot to realize that idea is just plain silly.

If "spirit" is not some form of matter, however small the matter may be, then the only alternative is that it is nothing at all, as in: "It doesn't exist."

The fact that "spirit" is matter can easily be seen in seeing that a spirit is something that is real, and if real, then it consists of something, rather than not existing.

Even "light" is made out of something, called light "particles". And so is gas, as well as everything else that exists.

It's all real, hence, it's all matter.

[semlogo]

How do we understand spirit in this context? Something physical that exists in a parallel dimension? I'm just thinking of the spirit and physical bodies occupying the same space at the same time.

[thorleym]

I have a theory. As we know, matter is composed of atoms, which in turn are composed of sub atomic particles. My theory is that sub atomic particles = spirit. If that were true, it might help explain how prayer works (entanglement). It might also explain the 4th chapter of Abraham where it states in several places that during creation the Gods watched (observed) what they had ordered until it obeyed. Quantum mechanics makes persuasive arguments that conscious perception of intelligent beings is integral to the physical workings of the universe. It might also help explain the 88th section of the D&C which explains that the Light of Christ which permeates the universe is the reason matter even exists.

[Ahab]

I have a theory. As we know, matter is composed of atoms, which in turn are composed of sub atomic particles. My theory is that sub atomic particles = spirit.

I agree that spirit consists of sub-atomic particles, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily the same thing.

Consider all the atoms that make up your mortal body, and then consider what will happen when your spirit separates from your mortal body, at death.

Will some of the sub-atomic particles in your mortal body be separating from the atoms in your mortal body, at that time, or will your spirit atoms be separating from your mortal atoms, with both having their own sub-atomic particles independent of each other?

I'm looking forward to receiving the true answer to that.

[mfbukowski]

I have a theory. As we know, matter is composed of atoms, which in turn are composed of sub atomic particles. My theory is that sub atomic particles = spirit. If that were true, it might help explain how prayer works (entanglement). It might also explain the 4th chapter of Abraham where it states in several places that during creation the Gods watched (observed) what they had ordered until it obeyed. Quantum mechanics makes persuasive arguments that conscious perception of intelligent beings is integral to the physical workings of the universe. It might also help explain the 88th section of the D&C which explains that the Light of Christ which permeates the universe is the reason matter even exists.

Yup. You got it.

I think it is a lot more complicated than just "subatomic particles= spirit"- it is probably more like some yet undiscovered force, some harmonic wave or something in electromagnetism- who knows?

But I think you got the last part pretty much on the money.

We participate in creation of our own little "worlds" every time light rays project on our retinas and we create and interpret a picture of what we call "reality", until we get to grow up and create big worlds instead. Humans are in the world-organization business. It is through observation that the world is created and organized.

Notice that Abraham 4, which you cited, talks multiple multiple times about the gods "calling" something in language- "And they called it the third day". Giving something a linguistic name creates it in culture so we can talk about the observation- it turns a picture or idea into a "day", and the "third" one at that. That is how our shared reality is built up into something "objective" we can talk about.

Welcome. I think we will have some good discussions!

[mfbukowski]

How do we understand spirit in this context? Something physical that exists in a parallel dimension? I'm just thinking of the spirit and physical bodies occupying the same space at the same time.

Can't help you on that one, not being a physicist. But I do know a little about radio waves and I think of it sometimes as a kind of "harmonic" frequency or "sideband" wave that co-exists with what we can now know, but just outside the edges. So it is a kind of energy and of course matter and energy are inter-changeable in ways I don't pretend to understand, just that light's behavior sometimes is described better as a wave and sometimes as a particle, and I am presuming that for all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but what do I know?.

"It's lights illusions I recall, we really don't know light at all" (Or something like that!)

[Tarski]

I'm sure MANY people before Joseph also had that idea, too.

The alternative would be... what?

The idea that "spirit" is nothing at all. What intelligent person would accept an idea like that?

There are plenty of ways we can talk about something existing without it being material.

Is democracy material? Is intelligence material? Is information material? Is mathematics material?

What if spirit=information?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are plenty of ways we can talk about something existing without it being material.

Is democracy material? Is intelligence material? Is information material? Is mathematics material?

What if spirit=information?

Not that I mind the ideas that your present. But I am some what perplexed. You don't even beleive that we have a spirit.

Anyway glad to see you in a more thought provoking (I am speaking only for my self here and not generally)discussion.

[mfbukowski]

There are plenty of ways we can talk about something existing without it being material.

Is democracy material? Is intelligence material? Is information material? Is mathematics material?

And then we have unicorns and hobbits. We know an awful lot about them for them not "existing" in some sense or other.

What if spirit=information?

Definitely works for me.

[Ahab]

There are plenty of ways we can talk about something existing without it being material.

Sure there are, but something is either real or it isn't real, and if it is real, then it is material.

Is democracy material?

Yes. (If democracy exists, it exists as something material, otherwise it doesn't really exist in reality.)

Is intelligence material?

Yes. (although not everybody can see all of it)

Is information material?

Yes. (Do you see this information I am giving you?).

Is mathematics material?

Yes. (or at least the real stuff is. Some of it is only imaginary.)

What if spirit=information?

Either way, it is something real, consisting of some form of substance.

[mfbukowski]

Golly, who could argue with that?

[asbestosman]

Is mathematics material?

Yes. (or at least the real stuff is. Some of it is only imaginary.)

Please explain. How can we tell which parts of mathematics are imaginary?

[Nathair/|\]

Please explain. How can we tell which parts of mathematics are imaginary?

When you introduce the square root of negative one.

Sorry, I am too tired to be any funnier than that.

Yours under the sleepy oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Ahab]

Please explain. How can we tell which parts of mathematics are imaginary?

Ask a mathematician, and he'll tell you.

[asbestosman]

What if spirit=information?

It might be copied or spread like a virus. It might become corrupted or destroyed. As information, it could be stored or transmitted in countless ways, but with limits on how fast it could be transmitted and how small a apace it needs for storage.

As information, it might be responsible for our knowledge and memories and thus greatly influence our choices, but it would not be responsible for the execution of those choices--or would it? A CPU in a computer contains both memory elements (registers) and execution elements. Information was used to build the CPU, but information can also be obtained by examining this layout. In that sense information is encoded in the CPU itself, but the CPU generally does not directly process this information about itself. Rather it processes the information fed to it from various input devices such as the network card, keyboard, mouse, and disk drives. Could computers have spirits? Would they have agency or accountability? How is a CPU different than a human brain? How about a brain with a spirit?

If spirit=information, how does one hold information accountable? Can it have agency? Can there even be proper ownership of information in the way that one speaks about one's own opinions, thoughts, and actions?

[asbestosman]

Ask a mathematician, and he'll tell you.

Alright.

One of my math professors at BYU said that all numbers are imaginary, including the numbers, one, and two. I agree with him. In fact, I go furhter--possibly further than Tarski. I don't believe that math has to be about the observable universe at all. It can be an imaginary world where we create the rules as we please. That some of these rules and models happen to help us organize our thinking and experiences about the observable universe including the ability to make predictions about what we observe the universe is nice, but not a necessary attribute of mathematics.

To me, the rules of math can be as arbitrary as the rules of chess, or the universe of Harry Potter so long as they are consistent. I also want those rules to have interesting results.

[Tarski]

It might be copied or spread like a virus. It might become corrupted or destroyed. As information, it could be stored or transmitted in countless ways, but with limits on how fast it could be transmitted and how small a apace it needs for storage.

As information, it might be responsible for our knowledge and memories and thus greatly influence our choices, but it would not be responsible for the execution of those choices--or would it? A CPU in a computer contains both memory elements (registers) and execution elements. Information was used to build the CPU, but information can also be obtained by examining this layout. In that sense information is encoded in the CPU itself, but the CPU generally does not directly process this information about itself. Rather it processes the information fed to it from various input devices such as the network card, keyboard, mouse, and disk drives. Could computers have spirits? Would they have agency or accountability? How is a CPU different than a human brain? How about a brain with a spirit?

If spirit=information, how does one hold information accountable? Can it have agency? Can there even be proper ownership of information in the way that one speaks about one's own opinions, thoughts, and actions?

Good questions. But I am using information in a quite open ended sense. For example, I suppose that if the information needed to copy my brain, memories and body where actually used to make a copy of me in case I were to meet with an accident, then the new me would still have the same personality, moral failings and strengths, same freedoms and moral responsibility. It would be me (according to a closest continuer theory of identity).

The other thing I had in mind was "ideas" of the kind that can be transmitted in newspapers, books, music and poetry.

What is transmitted? Not matter I suppose.

[Tarski]

so long as they are consistent.

...and therein lies the rub. What follows from a given set of axioms and consistent rules is not determined by our whims.

We must live with whatever the "structure of logical possibilities" really is. We can pick the axioms and rules but after that it is a matter of exploration of the terrain opened as much as it is for biology.

[Ahab]

Alright.

One of my math professors at BYU said that all numbers are imaginary, including the numbers, one, and two. I agree with him.

Uh. I was referring to what are called "real" numbers in mathematics, as opposed to what are called "imaginary" numbers in mathematics.

Please let me know if you see this number: 1

... and this one, too, in reality: 2

Now please tell me what is real (or what isn't real) concerning those numbers.

In fact, I go further--possibly further than Tarski. I don't believe that math has to be about the observable universe at all. It can be an imaginary world where we create the rules as we please.

Yep. Just as some writers write fiction, some mathematicians write about what is only in their imaginations.

... speaking in terms of "what if?" as if it is what really is.

That some of these rules and models happen to help us organize our thinking and experiences about the observable universe including the ability to make predictions about what we observe the universe is nice, but not a necessary attribute of mathematics.

To me, the rules of math can be as arbitrary as the rules of chess, or the universe of Harry Potter so long as they are consistent. I also want those rules to have interesting results.

I like an interesting story of fiction too, now and then, but I prefer the very best of reality while knowing the difference between what is real and what isn't real.