Mammuthus writes:
Two things you said in this part of your post seem contradictory to me. First, you equate love with a "substance" and claim that there is a "tangible" existence beyond the material world.
I suppose in doing this I'm making an appeal to the Scriptures as follows:
Hebrews 11:1 writes:
Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things now seen.
This passage of Scripture, perhaps more than any other one, seems to illustrate a basic starting point of my own perspective. The word for "substance" is the Greek word "hupostasis".
It comes from two words which mean "under" and "standing, stable resting, foundation." The word is perhaps more accurately translated in this instance as "the reality which rests under and acts as a foundation for"
It seems to be true to say that faith is somewhat without foundation. However, this is because faith is the foundation itself.
Admittedly, this seems to be circular reasoning. But the main point of my noting this is that it is not believed (even by many Christians) that it is our "human faith" that keeps the universe holding together. It seems more accurate, at least from my own Judeo-Christian perspective, to say that it is God's faith that sustains all things.
Hebrews 11:3 writes:
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
I admit that this may appear as a mere issue of semantics, but I think it is relevant to the points that I'm trying to express. God as a hypothetically living Spirit is conjectured to be sustaining our existence by believing in us -- not the other way around.
Mammuthus writes:
However, something without physical properties or something outside the material world is niether tangible nor has a substance.
This may be true.
However, even with God conceived as Spirit (with spirit implying mostly "inspiration" in this context), we can see that an inspiration within a real person's mind can lead to tangible actions.
In a similar way, at least hypothetically, the universe itself seems to have been inspired into existance by God alone. In other words, just as real people can think about intangible thoughts which nonetheless manifest as tangible actions -- God can think of the universe (which would be intangible to him) in order to manifest tangible actions (such as his incarnation within his own creation).
At the most basic level, hopefully we can discern the difference between that which is concrete reality and that which is our intangible thoughts. Failure to do so could even result in insanity.
What we don't like thinking of, however, is the possibility that our own "concrete reality" may only be something akin to the "intangible thoughts" of an omnibenevolent divine being trying very hard to bring us into his "concrete reality".
This thought too could lead to insanity if left unchecked and one tries too hard to grasp it. And this is only one hypothetical philosophical possibility.
Mammuthus writes:
If they did, you would be able to characterize it more precisely. could you elaborate a bit on what you mean?
I will try. But again, I may fail.
However, if we're looking past purely philosophical discusions and trying to ascertain an example of this "intangible reality" in scientific terms, one may well be able to point toward various string theorists and find a scientific metaphor there.
Before I proceed further, it is important to realize that no string theory has yet made firm predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested.
However, on a more concrete level, string theory has led to advances in the mathematics of knots, Calabi-Yau spaces and many other fields. Much exciting new mathematics in recent years has its origin in string theory. String theory has also led to much insight into supersymmetric gauge theories, a subject which includes possible extensions of the standard model.
Most of this material as been gathered from the Dictionary.LaborLawTalk.com article regarding string theory.
While understanding the details of string and superstring theories requires considerable mathematical sophistication, some qualitative properties of quantum strings can be understood in a fairly intuitive fashion.
For example, quantum strings have tension, much like regular strings made of twine; this tension is considered a fundamental parameter of the theory. The tension of a quantum string is closely related to its size.
Consider a closed loop of string, left to move through space without external forces. Its tension will tend to contract it into a smaller and smaller loop. Classical intuition suggests that it might shrink to a single point, but this would violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The characteristic size of the string loop will be a balance between the tension force, acting to make it small, and the uncertainty effect, which keeps it "stretched". Consequently, the minimum size of a string must be related to the string tension.
One intriguing feature of string theory is that it predicts the number of dimensions which the universe should possess. Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by hand".
Instead, string theory allows one to compute the number of spacetime dimensions from first principles. Technically, this happens because Lorentz invariance can only be satisfied in a certain number of dimensions.
This is roughly like saying that if we measure the distance between two points, then rotate our observer by some angle and measure again, the observed distance only stays the same if the universe has a particular number of dimensions.
The only problem is that when the calculation is done, the universe's dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time), but twenty-six. More precisely, bosonic string theories are 26-dimensional, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions.
However, these models appear to contradict observed phenomena.
Physicists usually solve this problem in one of two different ways. The first is to compactify the extra dimensions; i.e., the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable in our phenomenal experience. We achieve the 6-dimensional model's resolution with Calabi-Yau spaces. In 7 dimensions, they are termed G2 manifolds. Essentially these extra dimensions are "compactified" by causing them to loop back upon themselves.
A standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If we view the hose from a sufficient distance, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. This is akin to the 4 macroscopic dimensions we are accustomed to dealing with every day.
If, however, one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, just as the extra dimensions of the Calabi-Yau space are only visible at extremely small distances, and thus are not easily detected.
An article by the Official String Theory website notes the following:
String theories are classified according to whether or not the strings are required to be closed loops, and whether or not the particle spectrum includes fermions. In order to include fermions in string theory, there must be a special kind of symmetry called supersymmetry, which means for every boson (particle that transmits a force) there is a corresponding fermion (particle that makes up matter). So supersymmetry relates the particles that transmit forces to the particles that make up matter.
I suppose in trying to define a "spirit" in scientific terms, I would conjecture that it may be like a force which mirrors the matter we are made of -- which is very similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of the spirit/body integration beleived to be involved in our lives "on earth as it is in heaven".
This is to say, for every spirit (which transmits an inspiration) there is a corresponding material (which makes up the very matter we are made of).
Supersymmetric partners to to currently known particles have not been observed in particle experiments, but theorists believe this is because supersymmetric particles are too massive to be detected at current accelerators. Particle accelerators could be on the verge of finding evidence for high energy supersymmetry in the next decade. Evidence for supersymmetry at high energy would be compelling evidence that string theory was a good mathematical model for Nature at the smallest distance scales.
In short, I would hypothesise that just as string theorists would conjecture that momentum in extra dimensions is "invisible", I suspect that God as pure Spirit is likewise so -- invisible within hidden dimensions.
Mammuthus writes:
With regards to Savants and autistics, though in the early stages of study, there is reason to believe the origin of their abilities and deficiencies have a genetic component...and the ability to count is present in other animals so I would not put too much weight on even remarkable abilities of such people.
This may be true. But the hard-wiring of their mind seems to be neurologically wound so that rapid mega-couplings of information can be perceived very quickly -- far more rapid (in discreet areas) than you or I could even conceive.
I'm simply suggesting that their rapid grasp of information may be similar to the prophets of old whose minds were extremely hard-wired to be attentive to God's patterns in the universe.
Remember: This is only a suggestion.
Mammuthus writes:
Your position should also mean you would be less inclined (or less threatened) by science including evolution if you view the natural world as an expression of god. Though perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying.
No. You are exactly correct. On a scientific level I see no reason to doubt why evolutionary mechanisms couldn't have done it. Admittedly, I still think that we still have much to learn in this area. This is to say, I think the theory of evolution is the best purely materialistic explanation for our origins going to date.
It is only on a faith based level that I am reticent of some evolutionary thoughts -- and this comes specifically from my own understanding of the Scriptures. If evolution was indeed the cause of life on earth, then I would be searching for an excelent theistic evolutioanry explanation to accompany it -- which I haven't seen yet.
As is, based on my own understanding of the Scriptures, I believe that man was created nearly instantaniously and virtually ex nihilo from the dust of the earth.
™ Version 4.2