The Kolob Theorem

[SamIam]

Hawking radiation..

Ahh yes, the creator subject to the created. Unless this is another case of my myopia, I don't think you are really wanting to develop the topic in any serious way. That's fine, I'll just back away slowly...

Edited September 24, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

You keep using that word. . . .

I presume you are pointing out my misspelling...I was in a hurry as I had to get to an appointment so I was irresponsible and ignorant. Inconceivable as it may seem, it happens from time to time.

[SamIam]

That's the only one anyone has to worry about. Get the definitions in a row and all the other alleged problems go away.

I get the impression that you see this crisis of nomenclature as insurmountable and so that breeds and sustains the divide between science and theology. Is that what you are implying?

[shalamabobbi]

You have already passed by one quote without considering its implications on the Bruce R. McConkie visions of the eternities. Does that not hold something worth a thought on this subject?

This quote?

Those who receive the Second Comforter see the visions of eternity and have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom. "And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old," saith the Lord, "and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught. For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man." (D&C 76:7-10.) (B R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: 1982, 680.)

"those things which eye has not seen" hmmm, I guess that eliminates the visible universe

[SamIam]

Baloney.

Anyone who thinks religion is about science understands neither.

I'm rereading all your posts to see if I can get caught up...This is such a broad statement that I cannot conceive that that you really mean "and never the twain shall meet" as this sounds. Please expand for me.

[pmccombs1]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, black holes are simply a theory to come up with an explanation for the insurmountable amount of energy that's located in the center of our milky way

You're wrong. The phrase, "simply a theory," gives you away as something of a layperson when it comes to physics--or science in general, for that matter.

When Einstein proposed general relativity through his corpus of differential equations, it was a hypothesis. These educated guesses, called hypotheses, are what the lay person calls "simply a theory." A good hypothesis is a coherent explanation for phenomena that haven't been well-researched, and it will provide a direction for inquiry by proposing some definite points that can be tested and potentially refuted. If falsified, the hypothesis must be refined (if any unfalsified claims remain) or abandoned.

When a phenomenon is directly observed and measured and found not to falsify the claims of the hypothesis, but to support them, then we have a theory. Or perhaps, more correctly, we have theory. General relativity is theory, and it provides a number of equations that deal with black holes. While it is difficult to directly observe a black hole (meaning that our theory and experience both tell us that our chances of seeing one are slim), the epiphenomena are abundant and observable. This doesn't mean there are no questions regarding the nature of black holes, but it does mean that the chances that we find ourselves completely wrong about them are probably quite slim.

[cdowis]

There is no way out of the literalism trap.

If religion is about science, the earth was created in 6 days. The problem with that is that science doesn't say that. So take your pick- if you want to be literal, it's religion OR science, not some mix that sounds like fun.

Hmmm..... ok, but can I assume that you are aware that you not talking about my religion. JS made the statement that "this system" is several billion years old. Also, using a little bit of logic, how can the first "day" exist prior to the sun (Gen 1:3?

May I suggest that when talking about "religion" in this forum, do not confuse revealed religion with man-made.

Edited September 24, 2012 by cdowis

[USU78]

I presume you are pointing out my misspelling...I was in a hurry as I had to get to an appointment so I was irresponsible and ignorant. Inconceivable as it may seem, it happens from time to time.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[SamIam]

When a phenomenon is directly observed and measured and found not to falsify the claims of the hypothesis, but to support them, then we have a theory. Or perhaps, more correctly, we have theory. General relativity is theory, and it provides a number of equations that deal with black holes. While it is difficult to directly observe a black hole (meaning that our theory and experience both tell us that our chances of seeing one are slim), the epiphenomena are abundant and observable. This doesn't mean there are no questions regarding the nature of black holes, but it does mean that the chances that we find ourselves completely wrong about them are probably quite slim.

While certainly this is the standard model and fits for the majority of scientific endeavor, it has always intrigued me that from time to time we note that science actually completely paints itself into a corner by asserting a theory which at its core has a premise that refutes all scientifically known potential. The Big Bang theory is one such example.

Astronomer, Robert Jastrow says it better than I in the following:

In the evolutionary view of nature, the origin of life stems from the same physical laws which supposedly brought into being the universe of time, space, matter and energy from a primeval explosion. But the origin of the fantastically complex system represented by those physical laws is taken for granted. Even granting the evolutionary development theories, the question of ultimate origins is ignored and left unanswered. The well-known astronomer, Robert Jastrow, has chided his colleagues on this point in his popular book, God and the Astronomers, but not many of them seem to be listening. Jastrow, certainly not a Bible-believing Christian, accepts both cosmic and biological evolution, but he emphasizes that the Big Bang scenario accepted by practically all the secularists postulates a beginning.

Since their science cannot explain this beginning of something from nothing,

they are left with a question mark which Jastrow implies must be God. Nevertheless, Jastrow's Big Bang is purely secular, an evolutionary process which brought the universe to its present condition, and he includes biological evolution as a part of the cosmic evolutionary process.

Thus a complete explanation of the universe is only possible if one includes the concept of creation by a Creator. Science cannot explain everything after all. And one is not being "unscientific" to include this concept of a Creator in his view of the world, whether his particular area of interest be in astronomy, the earth sciences, or the life science. Indeed, most of the major traditional areas of scientific research were initiated by intelligent, inquisitive people who believed in the God of creation.70

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx6i.htm

One wonders in light of the rules of scientific hypothesis, and as LDS, how one casts the blind eye to overlook the weaknesses of the Big Bang theory's ex nihilo mandate while in the same breath condemning the traditional theological concept of creation ex-nihilo when the two theories originate with the same postulate – something from nothing.

[SamIam]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

in·con·ceiv·a·ble/ˌinkənˈsēvəbəl/Adjective: Not capable of being imagined or grasped mentally; unbelievable: "inconceivable cruelty".

Synonyms: unthinkable - incomprehensible - unimaginable

Above is from the great google...this is what it means to me...What does it mean to you?

[mfbukowski]

I'm rereading all your posts to see if I can get caught up...This is such a broad statement that I cannot conceive that that you really mean "and never the twain shall meet" as this sounds. Please expand for me.

I am sorry I just don't feel like it. I have done it so many times. I guess I need to take some time off the board.

The short answer is that I believe in a Wittgensteinian philosophy of language, meaning that science and religion are different language games and are talking about different things.

Religion speaks of what gives meaning to our lives and understanding the significance of ideas and morality, whereas science presents explanations of why things work and why.

Science is about mechanics, religion is about significance and meaning. As an analogy, science will show you how to build a sports car or a space vehicle, but will not answer questions about why you would want a sports car as opposed to a minivan or whether or not it is "good" social policy to spend money which might go to social problems on space exploration.

All science is about is how things work. Religion and ethics are about the way things should be, or why they are the way they are.

Science cannot tell us why abortion is wrong or even that it is wrong.

Religion cannot tell us how to do an abortion in the first place.

Genesis says the world was made in 6 days- if you read that as science, you will think there is a conflict between science and religion. But what it is really telling us is the human significance of the universe- that if we understand that there is a God who organized this universe we will realize that humans are an important part of all we see and can know.

The scientist will be able to tell you to the smallest detail about the latest explanation of how the universe came to be, but he will not be able to tell you the significance of mankind or why we are here, or the purpose of life- in fact he will deliberately avoid using the very word "purpose" at all. Seeing purpose is not in the description of what science is supposed to do, on the other hand, seeing purpose is EXACTLY what religion is supposed to do.

So it is not as if science and religion are in conflict- again it is more like they speak passed each other. How to build a sports car is an entirely different question than whether or not you should buy one. One is about values and the other is about mechanics.

So how will all truth fit into one whole? Simply by recognizing that there are different kinds of truths. Truths about internal combustion engines do not have much to do with truths about the composition and structure of Pluto, nor do such truths have much to do about whether or not murder is wrong or whether or not gays should marry.

The classification of animals into species does not have anything to do with dark matter, and neither of those have anything to do with my testimony of the Book of Mormon. I can say that and it is perfectly obvious, but if one says that science and religion have nothing to do with each other, people have a fit because after all, "all truth can be circumscribed into one whole".

What does that have to do with anything?

Do we really think that Genesis is a science text? Come on people! That's like criticizing the parable of the prodigal son for promoting deficient child rearing practices, or like saying that the parable of the sower would have turned out differently if he had just used fertilizer.

It misses the point.

Edit: If that is the short answer, you should see the long one!

Edited September 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

in·con·ceiv·a·ble/ˌinkənˈsēvəbəl/Adjective: Not capable of being imagined or grasped mentally; unbelievable: "inconceivable cruelty".

Synonyms: unthinkable - incomprehensible - unimaginable

Above is from the great google...this is what it means to me...What does it mean to you?

[mfbukowski]

I believe it was in part preparation for the advances to be made in scientific discovery and to give a stronger ideology that would excel beyond pending scientific explanations but would give the faithful a place to focus their faith. In other words instead of keeping science and religion as two separate perspectives, God revealed science based theology. The two topics could have been left alone to go their separate ways but instead God provided D & C 88, the Book of Abraham, and dozens more quotes from prophets which in point of fact require the Saints to ponder upon light, celestial orbs, gender in planets, the passage of time etc. In hindsight, the passage of time concepts of the theory of relativity could be deduced from Abraham 3’s descriptions of the nature of the passage of time and how it is reckoned. All of these things were God speaking in his way concerning scientific issues that must have some significance in our salvational progress or why the point of expanding in this area of instruction? ....................

Do you actually think that a scientist would not see this as jibberish?

If you want to actually convince a scientist of what you are saying, you will have to take another tack- and I would suggest one which takes into account the philosophy of science would be a wise choice.

Look I am on your side- I am a TBM, but this kind of talk is not going to convert scientists.

Ask our buddy shalamabobbi if his buddies would understand what you just wrote. He is the real deal and he is LDS and he understands both sides.

I will defer to his judgement on whether or not what you said would convince them.

The key is what you said about "God speaking things in his way". THAT is the key. The key is understanding the BOA as a PARABLE not as literal science

But the super-duper key is understanding science itself as a parable- as a model- as a description which speaks of other descriptions.

The one meta theory which puts it all together is understanding that science and religion are not talking about the same things, but both are metaphors in their own ways, and THAT is the way all truth is circumscribed into one whole.

THIS is what puts it together:

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say

that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are

elements of human languages, and that human languages are human

creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human

mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is

out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the

world can be true or false. The world on its own - unaided by the

describing activities of human beings - cannot.

Rorty, Contingency Irony and Solidarity

See this as describing God as a human and suddenly it takes on huge theological importance.

God organized the world through language, and God is a man and organizes reality just as we do - through language. For me THAT is the truth that circumscribes science and religion into one whole. But I have a devil of a time explaining it to my fellow LDS, and I really don't know why.

Edited September 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm..... ok, but can I assume that you are aware that you not talking about my religion. JS made the statement that "this system" is several billion years old. Also, using a little bit of logic, how can the first "day" exist prior to the sun (Gen 1:3?

May I suggest that when talking about "religion" in this forum, do not confuse revealed religion with man-made.

Huh? I am LDS.

[mfbukowski]

You speak in riddles and call it poetry

It's no wonder I'm confused

A half thought here, a half thought there

Im feeling quite abused

If you're not myopic, then I must conceed

I've the symptoms that comply

I've read it twice and my brain's complaint

I still can't see it though I try.

Yet there is a glimmer in my mind

of conversations long ago

do you refer to symboled words

perceived according to what we know?

Dang dude, I AM SERIOUSLY IMPRESSED!

Yes of course- all word are symbols and meta-4's. In a sense everything we write or say is poetry.

We're talkin seriously impressed and I am sorry I was a jerk. I just have been over this 19 million times and sometimes have enough ego to assume that people actually remember what I have said in other threads = bad presumption.

[ed2276]

You keep using that word. . . .

Well, at least he doesn't keep saying, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.", over and over and over...lol

[SamIam]

So how will all truth fit into one whole? Simply by recognizing that there are different kinds of truths. Truths about internal combustion engines do not have much to do with truths about the composition and structure of Pluto, nor do such truths have much to do about whether or not murder is wrong or whether or not gays should marry.

Edit: If that is the short answer, you should see the long one!

While I recall many of your discussions on this principle it seems to have become an overwhelming burden for you that stifles the process of creatively exploring far too many possibilities. As well, while I thought I agreed with the essence of your earlier thoughts, as I have had similar ponderings, I can see now that the ends of our pondering are polar opposites. It appears that for you that the boundaries that separate these differing types of truth have become the boundaries of your willingness to explore the potential common grounds that exist. Sort of an "I can't understand, so I won't even try" I realize that may be an over simplification but several times in this thread alone you have made statements that seem to stifle to possibilites of joint understanding.

For me it has become the foundation of the reality that though I may understand something according to my potential and definition it is meaningless unless I understand something as God understands it. So I make every effort to seek what is his meaning and then make that my own. This then becomes the truth. If that meaning can be said to embrace some scientific conclusions then science is permitted to stand in the circle with God's truth, if it cannot it is cast away as dross.

Where you state, "The classification of animals into species does not have anything to do with dark matter, and neither of those have anything to do with my testimony of the Book of Mormon. I can say that and it is perfectly obvious, but if one says that science and religion have nothing to do with each other, people have a fit because after all, "all truth can be circumscribed into one whole", I must whole heartedly disagree from my perspective. Where you have built silo's of separation, I can only see layers of support. Most of my thoughts on this simply come from an understanding of the Hebrew language.

Where you see just words that may have one meaning to one and another to someone else, the brilliance behind Hebrew, as a language of communication, causes one to consider differently. Every stem that forms the letter conveys meaning, finally when all of the various lines are connected, these meanings converge to form the basis of the characteristics and implications of the individual letter. Then letters of individual meaning are combined to create a word. The word may be the word "peace" as in shalom, but the letters that comprise the word shem, lamed, vav, and mem each impart their influence on the word peace. The various definitions of each letter combined can be found to mean "to crush or destroy the power or authority that establishes chaos." That’s just the overlay of the letters. If we were to further that explanation with the influence of the various strokes that make each letter we could literally convey levels of meaning and expectation that would so perfectly define “peace” that there could never be an failure on anyone’s part to fail to grasp what was required to maintain peace. From one word, complete analysis could render 30 pages or more of explanation. When Joseph Smith praises Hebrew as the closest to the Adamic language, and when he speaks of the power of keywords and language, in part he is speaking to the knowledge of perfect understanding upon which faith can operate so that when the Gods speak they can watch until they are obeyed. For whatever meaning you and I might get out of a phrase of 12 words to God they would be possessed of a full knowledge of all that is captured in the symbols of the 12 words. This principle is perhaps why the Egyptologists cannot fathom how a servant of God could translate the papyri and comprehend what Joseph did. Where they see the word peace, he sees 30 pages of material that becomes a religious text. Hebrew then for me becomes a type of the mind of God, his capacity to integrate perfect meaning in names of animals, or difficult choices of religious ethics are all seemlessly woven together upon common principles that interrelate to all things.

So doctrines of tolerating evil as the method by which we will have peace such as is the common theory of today is now corrected intrinsically and never allowed to stray because the meaning is protected and preserved in the very composite of the word itself. When man understands things in this fashion the truth of what something is or is not will be realized exactly the same. This then is the goal of my ponderings, to strive to get as much as God will permit of what it means to him and in that way it becomes apparent that in the great whole all things are far more related than I think you are giving them credit for in the thought “So how will all truth fit into one whole? Simply by recognizing that there are different kinds of truths.” If this is the nutshell that you have concluded from the Wittgensteinian philosophy, then I repeat an earlier thought – the creator bound by the philosophies of the created is not a reasonable thing for me.

Therefore, in my mind the classification of animals into species is precisely related to dark matter. In ways I can only barely perceive of, there are principles that qualify more than the words that become the symbol that represents them but also the principles upon which they exist, what place they hold in the eternities, and how the interrelate to each other. While, this may sound like so much gobbly gook imagine if every word in scripture possessed it’s full meaning as God intended it to be understood. It becomes more than understanding it becomes the power of creation and all that pertains to it.

[SamIam]

Alas, shame on me, I took you seriously when I should not have done so. Touché

Edited September 25, 2012 by SamIam

[volgadon]

Nice views I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on point.

I've never understood the point of reaching an agreement on disagreeing with each other. It is not you, it is the English language. There has got to be a better idiom for truces in debates.

[MormonMason]

...

So I guess the earth is male? No mother earth?

...

The Egyptians certainly saw things that way.

[cdowis]

Huh? I am LDS.

I am very much aware of how you label yourself, but I have a very different understanding of religion as reflected in your post.

It appears to me that you are confusing the label with the substance. For example, that the "six days" of creation has a meaning that conflicts with science, if you really were to understand LDS doctrine. You were unclear on how they contradict, leaving it to us to discern your thought process.

Oh yes..... he is talking about 24 hour days, not the billions of years in LDS theology. He claims the label of LDS, but understands it very poorly.

Since you left it up to me to interpret your comment, don't complain if I have it wrong. I would be delighted if you were to clarify.

Reading your post, I was left to wonder == Huh?? Is this guy serious, or just making some joke.

Edited September 25, 2012 by cdowis

[MormonMason]

Someone I know suggested that the book should have been titled: The Kolob Hypothesis.

[volgadon]

He claims the label of LDS, but understands it very poorly.

That comment reveals more about the poster than the subject of the accusation.

[SamIam]

Do you actually think that a scientist would not see this as jibberish?

If you want to actually convince a scientist of what you are saying, you will have to take another tack- and I would suggest one which takes into account the philosophy of science would be a wise choice.

Look I am on your side- I am a TBM, but this kind of talk is not going to convert scientists.

I realize that you are TBM and frankly I can't explain how refreshing that frequently is. I'm just sharing back and forth the viewpoints I have as I try to reconcile yours within a different priority. It has never occurred to me that if I grew in knowledge wisdom and understanding that the measuring standard for such was if it was acceptable to scientists.

It is impossible in one breath to say that I want to understand things the way God does and then restrict that purview of thought to within the realms that s-bobbi would find acceptable from a scientific paradigm. The only paradigm of union is if we both have the same objective to understand the things of God according to the constraints of spirit, priesthood, faith, humility and the dozens of other facets of character that even enable pure understanding. I have no intention of trying to “convert scientists” with this kind of conversation simply because it can’t be done if they are first scientists, second believers. I feel no need to do so, but I am willing to entertain the possibility of one should come along that will engage intelligently on the subject without giving way to the intellectual scorn that illustrates they lack requirements for understanding the things of God. Hence the burden of the ages has been to convince a man that the various virtues and behaviors of Godliness affect the receipt of intelligence.

Ask our buddy shalamabobbi if his buddies would understand what you just wrote. He is the real deal and he is LDS and he understands both sides.

I will defer to his judgement on whether or not what you said would convince them.

As of yet my ignorance of what he knows and does has not been ameliorated by the exchange so far. However, if he does not mind then I would like to make him the focus of the objective analysis of what I perceive the challenge is to bringing science and theology into union.

With no malice but simply for the sake of example, if we use S-bobbi as a point of reference, he has already potentially shown limitations in understanding things from the purview of God if we posit that what I am trying to communicate to him is something that I have received from God. Just for the sake of the discussion let’s make that as the assumption.

You said ask him, he is the real deal. However, and this is just objectively speaking…(I hope he doesn’t mind being the lab rat for the sake of discussion) however objectively speaking his very first response shows something less than excepting of the entire discussion. He states, (smiley and all) “Yes, falling into a black hole is getting celestialized ” Already, from the get go a door is closing and he has turned off his interest and dialogue switch for the preference of what may be disdain or something else along those lines. He has never even thought the thoughts that some have concerning the spiritual implications of a black whole but there is no interest either. We could say that it is because he is right and there is nothing to be gained from such a conversation, but the real point is he doesn’t know what the thoughts even are and he has closed his mind to any potential increase of thoughts that he might ponder on as well.

His second response is to me about a question I asked and it is not engaging in the least and he states “Hawking radiation.” Next after trying to give a little in the way of explanation, he does not even try to see the point being made and instead we see cynical offers for book deals etc. Now again this is purely objective observation so let’s put the lab rat back in his cage for the reminder of the discussion.

As sweet as all of this exchange has been what we have is an inability to understand any principle not in accordance with the paradigm of choice. If God was going to come down incognito and share something from the scriptures of how Abraham 3 has the principles of relativity somewhere between verse 4 and verse 9 and then propose to expand on the idea, most of the “real deals” are going to sit in the seminar chairs and whisper trite little barbs and critiques and miss the expansion and elaboration because they stopped listening at the Mention of Abraham 3. They won’t even listen and thus make an actual decision on the material because they can’t hear it. This is why the warning of “when they are learned they think they are wise.”

Thus in Isaiah when he says “for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid” a true scientist that was willing to acknowledge the superiority of scriptural council would recognize the heavy potential that the Lord is describing particular generalities of behavior that might apply to those who could be classed as wise or prudent in the eyes of the world as these are the ones at greatest risk for the burden described in Isaiah. In wisdom then, they would work very diligently to make sure that they over achieved in the arena of scriptural wisdom so that they did not fall prey to the natural tendencies of men.

Edited September 25, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

The key is what you said about "God speaking things in his way". THAT is the key. The key is understanding the BOA as a PARABLE not as literal science.

But the super-duper key is understanding science itself as a parable- as a model- as a description which speaks of other descriptions.

The one meta theory which puts it all together is understanding that science and religion are not talking about the same things, but both are metaphors in their own ways, and THAT is the way all truth is circumscribed into one whole.

THIS is what puts it together:

There of course is some agreement here between us. However, literal and figurative are never so cut and dry as to carte blanche as literal and figurative. There is some very precise literal couched in scripture speak in the BOA. There is a place called Kolob. The rules of time as mentioned about planets are speaking about actual conditions and realities that can embrace any truths that science has discerned that are relative to the points mentioned.

If your personal requirement then is to ponder and search and seek the spiritual insight that might unite principles of science and theology in such a way as to convert the typical of the scientific community then it seems you are ignoring the prerequisites for receipt of spiritual understandings and I can understand the sense of futility you feel in the process. However, it is not about getting science to accept religion but about us believing that we can ask of God and our understanding can be expanded beyond the answers that men can derive. Joseph Smith was certainly far from a scientist by the worlds expectations but true believing scientists the world over must concede that he spoke to scientific things with apparent understandings beyond our current scientific wisdom. As stated by John A. Widstoe:

Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, did not use the language of science; which is evidence that he did not know the science of his day. Yet…the teachings of Joseph were in full harmony with the most advanced scientific thought, and…he anticipated the world of science in the statement of fundamental facts and theories of physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology. (John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy, 1964], introduction.)

For this cause I cannot accept that it is a requirement that spiritual insights are only of value if accepted by science. That is not my goal nor my constraint.

Otherwise, it seems that you have put a lot of effort and have found some philosophies that resonate with acceptable meaning to you. However the essence of your conclusion does not seem to support the ideas of revelation to expand the mind but seems to constrain them in the philosophies of men that would deny such...I'm being brief and may not be doing this observation justice but it will have to do for now.

God organized the world through language, and God is a man and organizes reality just as we do - through language. For me THAT is the truth that circumscribes science and religion into one whole. But I have a devil of a time explaining it to my fellow LDS, and I really don't know why.

It is so much more than this implies but again it is the short answer, I don't know if the discourse on Hebrew conveyed the magnitude of imbuing a language with more than meaning but also with power. But we can leave that for now...