The End Of Matter?

[sethpayne]

A fellow Mormon buddy of mine recently posed an interesting question.  One that I'm curious to see what others think. It has to do with whether Joseph Smith's cosmology proposes matter that is infinite in time, volume, or both?

 

Let's just get it out of the way up front that all of this is speculation and may or may not represent Church doctrine.  A few things from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism -- a source that I find offers some great summaries and references.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

 

It is significant that the teachings of the restored gospel on the eternal nature of physical matter, along with a parallel in the spiritual realm, embody these conservation principles. These are key statements: "The elements are eternal" (D&C 93:33). "The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity" (Joseph Smith, in HC 3:387).

 

 

For now we'll just set aside my developing theory that Joseph Smith was actually a great scholar of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

 

Addressing the issue of creation ex nihilo, Joseph Smith asserted in one of his final sermons: "Now, the word create…does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end" (HC 6:308-309).

 

 

Ok.  So if I'm reading Joseph Smith correctly, matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

 

I'm not sure what Joseph Smith meant by "the pure principles of element."  Is he referring to something akin to the Forms?  

 

Also, when he says "they had no beginning and can have no end" is that a reference to time, volume, or both?  

 

I have always *assumed* that Joseph Smith's view was that matter's existence in time was infinite  but that its volume was finite.  But if I dig into that I find I don't really have a good reason for making that assumption.  My buddy who posed the question was working from a similar assumption.  

 

And I suppose that for Joseph's theology to be consistent matter must be both infinite in both time and volume.  Otherwise, there would come a point where exaltation must halt because all of the matter would simply be used up.  

 

[Nofear]

Matter being eternal would better be understood as matter/energy being eternal.

While we don't know much about the universe from our limited mortal perspectives, observations we do have are consistent with an infinitely expansive universe. We won't be able to prove that infinitude ever though (not yet).

[sethpayne]

Matter being eternal would better be understood as matter/energy being eternal.

 

 

Of course.  But eternal in what sense?  

[filovirus]

I was thinking of that same question just earlier today. If one person can have infinite posterity, any many of them can have infinite posterity, and so on forever, will matter ever run out? I'm interested to see what others think.

[Nofear]

From a physics perspective: http://quarknet.fnal.gov/toolkits/new/conservation.html

No process we know of violates these. So, eternal = conserved? Though I doubt Joseph Smith was trying to teach or even in a position to understand that level of physics.

[Gray]

If You Could Hie To Kolob

 

Verse 3

 

The works of God continue,
And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter;
There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit;
There is no end to race.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Gray

[Nofear]

I was thinking of that same question just earlier today. If one person can have infinite posterity, any many of them can have infinite posterity, and so on forever, will matter ever run out? I'm interested to see what others think.

If you can tell me if there are more odd numbers than even or odd numbers that is a start to understanding the confusing realm of infinities.

[filovirus]

If You Could Hie To Kolob

 

Verse 3

 

The works of God continue,And worlds and lives abound;Improvement and progressionHave one eternal round.There is no end to matter;There is no end to space;There is no end to spirit;There is no end to race.

That phrase can be taken in two ways:

1) I can change matter from one form to another and so on for eternity

Or

2) There is an infinite amount of matter

Possibly if could be the 1 and 2 together. I've never accepted that hymn as scripture, but more a poem set to music that is quasi-scripture.

[Ahab]

Ok. So if I'm reading Joseph Smith correctly, matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

No, you're not reading him right. Matter can be organized, and he was saying to create is to organize. And it can also be destroyed, just not annihilated. Like how I am currently in the process of destroying a part of my home to remodel it, with some pieces being turned into ashes.

I'm not sure what Joseph Smith meant by "the pure principles of element." Is he referring to something akin to the Forms?

I think he meant the most basic forms of what the elements are. The tiniest particles, whatever those are. Parts smaller than atoms.

Also, when he says "they had no beginning and can have no end" is that a reference to time, volume, or both?

Both, I think. Like how we come from others like us, with no ultimate beginning or end. No first person who is/was the first of our kind of being, and no ultimately last one either.

I have always *assumed* that Joseph Smith's view was that matter's existence in time was infinite but that its volume was finite. But if I dig into that I find I don't really have a good reason for making that assumption. My buddy who posed the question was working from a similar assumption.

I think of each particle of matter as being infinite in duration while each particle is also a particular, finite size. And a particular collection of particles is a finite size too, but with no end to the number of particles there are or can be. Like how star stuff and planet stuff just goes on forever and ever in the eternal space of the universe while each star and planet is a particular size.

And I suppose that for Joseph's theology to be consistent matter must be both infinite in both time and volume. Otherwise, there would come a point where exaltation must halt because all of the matter would simply be used up.

Good point.

[CV75]

Also, when he says "they had no beginning and can have no end" is that a reference to time, volume, or both? 

Assuming that both space and the “things” which occupy it are material, I think matter can be indeterminately greater or lesser in size (and also in influence and other attributes) than the kingdom (including its occupants) from which it is observed (D&C 88:37). The degree of observance depends on how much intelligence and agency an occupant possesses, for some things act and some are acted upon. (2 Nephi 2:14).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

A fellow Mormon buddy of mine recently posed an interesting question.  One that I'm curious to see what others think. It has to do with whether Joseph Smith's cosmology proposes matter that is infinite in time, volume, or both?

 

Let's just get it out of the way up front that all of this is speculation and may or may not represent Church doctrine.  A few things from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism -- a source that I find offers some great summaries and references.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

 

 

For now we'll just set aside my developing theory that Joseph Smith was actually a great scholar of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

 

 

Ok.  So if I'm reading Joseph Smith correctly, matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

 

I'm not sure what Joseph Smith meant by "the pure principles of element."  Is he referring to something akin to the Forms?  

 

Also, when he says "they had no beginning and can have no end" is that a reference to time, volume, or both?  

 

I have always *assumed* that Joseph Smith's view was that matter's existence in time was infinite  but that its volume was finite.  But if I dig into that I find I don't really have a good reason for making that assumption.  My buddy who posed the question was working from a similar assumption.  

 

And I suppose that for Joseph's theology to be consistent matter must be both infinite in both time and volume.  Otherwise, there would come a point where exaltation must halt because all of the matter would simply be used up.  

Don't set it aside for too long. I be interested in seeing more.

[sethpayne]

No, you're not reading him right. Matter can be organized, and he was saying to create is to organize. And it can also be destroyed, just not annihilated. Like how I am currently in the process of destroying a part of my home to remodel it, with some pieces being turned into ashes.

 

But aren't you really saying that matter cannot be destroyed?  Only that it can, and does, change form/shape/function?  You could just as easily say you are reorganizing the matter of part of your home. 

Edited July 21, 2015 by sethpayne

[Mormonmaniac]

A fellow Mormon buddy of mine recently posed an interesting question.  One that I'm curious to see what others think. It has to do with whether Joseph Smith's cosmology proposes matter that is infinite in time, volume, or both?

 

Let's just get it out of the way up front that all of this is speculation and may or may not represent Church doctrine.  A few things from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism -- a source that I find offers some great summaries and references.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

 

 

For now we'll just set aside my developing theory that Joseph Smith was actually a great scholar of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

 

 

Ok.  So if I'm reading Joseph Smith correctly, matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

 

I'm not sure what Joseph Smith meant by "the pure principles of element."  Is he referring to something akin to the Forms?  

 

Also, when he says "they had no beginning and can have no end" is that a reference to time, volume, or both?  

 

I have always *assumed* that Joseph Smith's view was that matter's existence in time was infinite  but that its volume was finite.  But if I dig into that I find I don't really have a good reason for making that assumption.  My buddy who posed the question was working from a similar assumption.  

 

And I suppose that for Joseph's theology to be consistent matter must be both infinite in both time and volume.  Otherwise, there would come a point where exaltation must halt because all of the matter would simply be used up.

When you say "all of the matter" you would have to prove there is an end to matter. We can only make assumptions but it stands to reason that if the elements are eternal then perhaps eternity (distance wise) is eternal also and goes on forever with no end to matter.

[sethpayne]

Assuming that both space and the “things” which occupy it are material, I think matter can be indeterminately greater or lesser in size (and also in influence and other attributes) than the kingdom (including its occupants) from which it is observed (D&C 88:37). The degree of observance depends on how much intelligence and agency an occupant possesses, for some things act and some are acted upon. (2 Nephi 2:14).

 

 That's an interesting phrase, "degree of observance."   So in your thinking would this be something like beings living on a 2D plane somehow being made able to see a third dimension?

[mfbukowski]

So you are trying to figure out what's the matter, with us?

Edited July 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[sethpayne]

So you are trying to figure out what's the matter with us?

 

mfbukowsi -- I honestly made my best effort to laugh at this.  I really did.  But this is weak sauce, man.  Weak..... 

 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowsi -- I honestly made my best effort to laugh at this.  I really did.  But this is weak sauce, man.  Weak..... 

 

Well I added a comma, that helps a little bit.

 

After all it IS "with us" and we are it.   So we ARE what is the matter, with us.

 

Still weak. 

 

sigh. 

[halconero]

Here's an idea I'll throw out there, and one that I personally feel is supported by scripture:

 

The Multiverse theory:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

This is the idea of parallel, multiple and infinite universes. Within a Gospel context in my journal or in discussion with others I usually refer to it as the "Plurality of Eternities." In scripture those who are exalted within the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, those who become gods and goddesses, will...

 

...have a continuation of seeds

 

...shall exist from everlasting to everlasting (or as the Spanish, French, and Japanese scriptures render it "from eternity to eternity.")

 

...be exalted and have a continuation of lives

 

...shall know Christ, and shall have eternal lives

 

That existence from eternity to eternity is something applicable to Godhood is evident in other scriptures as well:

 

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting..." Psalm 106

 

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Psalm 90:2

 

"From eternity to eternity I am God." Isaiah 43

 

"For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting..." Moroni 7

 

"By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting..." D&C 20

 

"Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from everlasting to everlasting..." D&C 61

 

"O Lord God Almighty...thou sittest enthroned, with glory, honor, power, majesty, might, dominion, truth, justice, judgement, mercy and an infinity of fulness, from everlasting to everlasting." D&C 109 (Side note, I had never before noticed the phrase, an "infinity of fulness, though if it's linked to D&C 132, the most explicit explanation of godhood, it should be considered in the part talking about a continuation of seeds)

 

"From eternity to eternity he (God) is the same, and his years never fail." D&C 76

 

Given that these eternal lives are linked with a plurality of thrones, kingdoms, principalities, powers, and keys it stands to reason that an eternity is less a measurement of time and more a measurement of authority, in which the Plan of Salvation is enacted among the Father, his wife (or wives), their Firstborn Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Multiverse theory, or the Plurality of Eternities, means that their is an infinite supply of matter and energy, existing from universe to universe, or eternity to eternity, providing the children of God, when they become Heavenly Parents themselves, opportunities to continue their seeds forever.

[mfbukowski]

Whenever this comes up I usually quote a very old Latin phrase used in the Catholic mass, which is usually translated simply as "forever".

 

The phrase is "per omnia saecula saeculorum" which translated literally is "through all the worlds of the worlds"

 

I think it appears in the Latin Vulgate but someone more scholarly than me would have to verify that.

[CV75]

 That's an interesting phrase, "degree of observance."   So in your thinking would this be something like beings living on a 2D plane somehow being made able to see a third dimension?

In my more simplistic view, something like our natural eyes being quickened so as to be able to see our spiritual dimension, or as in the case of Moses, even see more spiritual dimensions. But I think your suggestion carries the same idea.

 

The greater and lesser kingdoms (and their attendant spaces; in some respects I take the two terms to be synonymous from the way that verse reads) can be comprehended according to the degree of observance given them, both physically and spiritually. For example, to the degree we observe a law of the celestial kingdom, it is possible to observe the elements of that kingdom in operation.

[Ahab]

But aren't you really saying that matter cannot be destroyed? Only that it can, and does, change form/shape/function? You could just as easily say you are reorganizing the matter of part of your home.

Destroyed is not the same thing as annihilated, to my understanding. A crane with a wrecking ball destroys a building but it doesn't annihilate it. The parts are still around somewhere, even if only in itsy bitsy teeny weeny little parts.

So no I'm not saying matter can't be destroyed. It can be. Just not annihilated to nihilo, or nothing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Whenever this comes up I usually quote a very old Latin phrase used in the Catholic mass, which is usually translated simply as "forever".

 

The phrase is "per omnia saecula saeculorum" which translated literally is "through all the worlds of the worlds"

 

I think it appears in the Latin Vulgate but someone more scholarly than me would have to verify that.

You can find this phrase and similar phrases in Hebrew and Greek online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_saecula_saeculorum .  There is also a similar phrase in ancient Egyptian which means "(static) eternity and (dynamic) eternity."  The ancients liked to cover all their bases.

[Robert F. Smith]

Destroyed is not the same thing as annihilated, to my understanding. A crane with a wrecking ball destroys a building but it doesn't annihilate it. The parts are still around somewhere, even if only in itsy bitsy teeny weeny little parts.

So no I'm not saying matter can't be destroyed. It can be. Just not annihilated to nihilo, or nothing.

In physics, this is the law of conservation of mass & energy.  One may convert from mass to energy or vice-versa, but nothing is ever lost.  No exceptions to the law are known.

 

However, we still do not know what dark energy and dark matter are, or what laws apply to them.

 

In still another realm, we have spiritual matter, which is of a different sort than the matter dealt with by physics (natural law).  Our physical bodies enclose a spiritual body.

 

Finally, we must deal with still another form of coeternal stuff, and we don't know what it is:  intelligence(s).  It can not be created or destroyed either.  It is enclosed by our spiritual body.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[carbon dioxide]

Since we will be resurrected with bodies of flesh and bone we better hope that matter does not end.  It it does, our bodies will also end.

[sethpayne]

Since we will be resurrected with bodies of flesh and bone we better hope that matter does not end.  It it does, our bodies will also end.

 

But you mean end in the sense of finite time, correct?  Even if matter were finite in volume, it wouldn't lead to a dissolution of body.  What would do is prevent future formations/organizations of spirit/body/world because we would eventually reach a point where there would be no matter left to organize something new.