The unity.

[socratus]

The unity.
"You cannot shelter theology from science, or science from theology;
nor can you shelter either one from metaphysics, or metaphysics from either one of them.
There is no shortcut to the truth."

– Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making

[sivashanmugam]

Invariantology (at: http://wwf.edula.com) also says the same thing.

[Epsilon=One]

Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156) states unity much clearer:

Science, Theology, and Philosophy
are a single discipline.

[socratus]

The secret of theology hided in the anthropology.
/Leibniz/
But the secret of anthropology hided in the theory of light quanta.
Socratus.

[socratus]

That the conception “God” was not illusory, it is necessary somehow
to convince in His( Its) connection with reality.
We can not be pleased with the simple description and analyse of the usage
of this conception in religious speech.
The statement, that we can know nothing about the God is wrong.
In this case God is practically denied.
The God, about whom (which) I know nothing,
for me is not already the God and any dialogue with It( Him) is impossible.
/M.J.CHARLESWORTH./

[Epsilon=One]

That the conception “God” was not illusory, it is necessary somehow to convince in His( Its) connection with reality. For such a connection, see: Proof of God (www.CQthus.com/PT/PoG).

We can not be pleased with the simple description and analyse of the usage of this conception in religious speech.This statement is absolutely correct. Religion by its very nature must support superstition and ignorance of "truth" to foster a faith that allows for the manipulation of minds, which most often is for the ultimate benefit and sinecure of the manipulators.

The statement, that we can know nothing about the God is wrong.Again your statement is correct. The major religious concepts of god were all developed before there was much knowledge of science. In such eras most all natural knowledge was metaphysical and based upon superstitious bias.

What can be known of god is that because there is creation, there is a creator. And, because that creation is evolutionary, god must have no anthropic qualities.

A word for god that has fewer deceptive connotations, that many persons can relate to might be "Oneness (www.CQthus.com/PT/One)"; a better description is Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I), which connotes that which is beyond Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R).

[socratus]

In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
of a word “infinity”.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line,
never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely
(atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) a сonnection between the infinite and the concrete,
2) a сonnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,
3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.
But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.
======================
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
(method of renormalization) .
.However, R. Feynman said, that:
«The method of renormalizations is a way
to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? »
================
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
The Universe is Nothing: T=0K.
The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K.
Absolute God can exist only behind this
Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.
=====================
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".
What a geometrical and physical parameters can
the “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?
==============
Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".
And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light
is a privileged particle.
Only the light quantum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?
No.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest
its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse.
1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse
(Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2pi)
a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter
and is known as electron.
A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.
It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs.
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2π.
So it can work only with particle that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.
His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes
" from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.
====================
On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles,
only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
================
All of us have the personal God and it is Quantum of light.
============

[Epsilon=One]

Do not enter duplicate posts; or, they will be deleted in the future. This post was also initially posted in the "Philosophy General" section, in the thread "Edgar Allan Poe: On "Infinity" or "God,"" where it was posted yesterday.

You have posted the same information for about eighteen months. Every time it has been refuted without any rebuttal of consequence.

Before you again re-post. Please respond to the replies to your sophistry. As it stands, you are wasting the Viewers time with your unresponsiveness and repetition.

That said I will, below, repeat my unanswered reply to your original post.

In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
of a word “infinity”.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness. You are confusing Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I) with the infinite.

One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line, never encountering any barrier.You understand Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I) . . . poorly.

The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely (atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete. Hegel at least differentiated, which you seem not to have.

At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) a сonnection between the infinite and the concrete,
2) a сonnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,
3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness. If you interpret Hegel correctly, Hegel was mistaken.

For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.Certainly such an interpretation is no worse than that of many mathematicians.

But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.If this is so Hegel was wise.

And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".This is most likely a correct assessment of the situation.

They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
to a word infinity or eternity.More than likely, you are correct.

The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.Of course, if you are correct, I contend scientists are mistaken . . . which is most likely.

Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
(method of renormalization) .”They” are making a big mistake.

However, R. Feynman said, that:
«The method of renormalizations is a way
to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? »R.P. Feynman was a wise man.

Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
The Universe is Nothing: T=0K.
The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K.Some of this logic is good. That “Physics” is a “Vacuum” is lousy logic..
Absolute God can exist only behind this
Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.”God” cannot be found with lousy logic.

The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".Nuts!

What a geometrical and physical parameters can
the “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?See: Pulsoid Theory’s (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) radius of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/ROI) (ROI).

Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".
And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light
is a privileged particle.This is nonsense. In the beginning “particles” of ma ss manifest that are the source of photons.

Only the light quantum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.This is much confusion of several fundamental phenomena.

No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?
No.Can not understand what you are implying.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest
its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.What is your definition of “In Vacuum”?

But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse.
1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).What do you consider the lateral speed of a light wave?

A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse
(Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2pi)
a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter
and is known as electron.This is absolute nonsense.

A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.
It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs.
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2π.
So it can work only with particle that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.Metaphysical nonsense.

His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes
" from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".Ludicrous, metaphysical nonsense.

This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.This is an estimate well beyond Standard Model theory depending upon the conflicting definition of “billion”; however, it is still exponentially low.

On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles,
only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.[QUOTE]The usual connotations for “Soul” are not adequate for inclusion in such an argument.

All of us have the personal God and it is Quantum of light.There is no “personal God”; god has no anthropoidal qualities.