The God Hypothesis

Are you serious......?According to this guy the divine number is 7 LinkWhy is your nonsense any more worthy of any credence than his nonsense?Anyway I would have thought God's number would be 333......

Seven is the favorite number of God, they say.
I assume this is because "he' used it so much in the Bible,... alongwith twelve and three of course.But the people who "say' these numbers represent God or Christ are referring to the Gematria.As you probably do knot know, the Hebrew and Greek languages use letters in their alphabets which are also the same exact symbols they appropriated for their numbers.
Hence, every name or word COULD be understood not as a word, but number.The use of this duality served as an effective and easy check on passages copied by scribes from an original as they duplicated a new hand written Bible generation after generation, in order to replace those bibles that were worn out.Rather than check each word, however, the scribes were taught to use what is called the Gematria, or the process of adding each letter/number in a verse and noting only the sum.
You are probably familiar with the requset in Revelation 13 that Christians revert to this gematria and search out the name with the number 666, i.e, 9.Hence the Great Monogram, YHVH, for god would ultimately sum to 8.

So one of the 4 physical forces (i.e. the strong force) has exchange particles (i.e. gluons) that come in 8 varieties (i.e. the colour octet). And if you add up the Hebrew letters YHVH these sum up to 8.And this you think is indicative of some deep metaphysical relationship between quantum theory and Judaism?

That's what I keep saying but you seem to think there's something beyond the reality that we can observe.

There is no "Great Monogram" for YHWHYHWH is a tetragram, not a monogram.YHWH cannot be reduced or diminished, so YHWH cannot be reduced to a monogram.The triangulation is an expounding on the word, in which one could derive different words, but there is no reduction down to the number 8 or a single letter.The gematria of YHWH is 26. You don't reduce gematric translations down to their furthest reduction. That would mean that every Hebrew word ultimately has one of nine meanings and makes almost every word on equal footing with every other word and impossible to find hidden relationships.You really only take about 2 paragraphs from every discipline and make up the rest. You don't know this subject.YHWH is not 8. Drawing triangles around letters does not make it 8 or relate to Buckminster Fuller.The people "who say" that 7 relates to the name YHWH are not referring to gematria, because THOSE people know that 7 is not a gematric derivation of YHWH.Appealling to the vague does not make your false claims any more relevant to buddhism or physics than they were when you first posted in this thread.You simply don't know what you are talking about.

No I don't...No.
I don't.Reality is by definition what actually exists, and its image is found in the ideal concept we call Truth:God is all there is, ie; Reality itself... the whole external existence beyond our mind is the almighty God to which all life must bow: ...Truth inside our head, is the Holy Spirit, the image of God, almighty Reality, and is present inside our mind when our thinking correctly images the TRUTH, or the picture of Reality inside our mind.

I believe there is a deep (actual) relationship between our Group Theory, concerning QM, and the subtle description in Judaism, of a pattern to the way we think, in general.I believe that our efforts to understand QM is empirically supporting this hypothesis.
The idea that a fixed repetitious pattern exists, concerning the way we figure things out, is as important if not more so that the Quantum Theories that are demonstrating this pattern.Look at how the work in Chemistry created a certain pattern of relationships among the Elements as the basis for this Hypothesis, that we as humans, can, actually do, and ought organize and arrange information in accord to this pattern.It means we already know what we are looking for in every case.The history of our gradual collection of insights into QM repeat the same initial steps, wherein we first discover four forces and gradually expand our insights to the larger pattern to which i introduced you earlier. ... compared with:

Of course one of us MUST not know what he is talking about here, since we disagree.
As I offer you more and more information in what I consider a process of educating you, you respond with the same doubts, unsubstantiated criticisms, and repeated acusations.You pretend that such a posture assumes that you know more that the teacher here, pulling you along, deeper and deeper in the Kabbalah which you have merely heard about from your Jewish roots.But of course, you also know that there is no authority in that discipline, and what I tell you must be rationally and much much more thoroughly digested than you give evidence to having done so. The Tetragramaton is a four letter monogram.
It is NOT a word, but a set of letters which are the Key to the meaning of "god." These four letters can be arranged in accord with what mathematicians call "permutations."
What I am telling the careful intelligence and unbiased readers here, is that once we see the limitations of these permutations,... once we recall that the ancient Kabbalahists understood from the mystics who preceded them,... that there is some relationship between the idea of Doubles, Simple, and Mother,... the Name of God has mathematical Group Theory meaning:

And then you say: How is the "Holy Spirit" not "something beyond the reality that we can observe"? How do you observe God?

We can not directly experience Reality.Between our mind and that external thing that is Reality, our senses bring us information about it.
Using that information, we construct various truths about Reality, and form an image of it.
It to that image that we react and interact, as if it were the Reality itself.As Kant explained this two centuries ago:Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), in the Critique of Pure Reason, distinguished between objects as phenomena, (immaterial thoughts we conjure to represent them, purely ideas, or spirits), which are objects grasped by human sensibility and understanding, (we think and image them in our mind),...... and (Kant distinguished between) objects as a thing, as it is in itself, (Reality), or noumena, (distinct from a thing conceived, imaged, as the mental representation),..The phenomena is what we call Truth which must by definition be congruent to the noumena, or the real thing if we are properly understanding what our senses tell us.

Kant was a philosopher. If I find another philosopher with a different idea, do I win.Besides, Imannuel Kant was a real pissant and very rarely stable.

You aren't offering information, nor are you educating.I am not responding with doubts about your claims. I am reponding with certainty that you are wrong based on substanbtial knowledge of the subject. You are not conforming to or creating any "image" of the reality of this subject. ie: you are not invoking "Truth" in regard to your claims.You are not a teacher. You have no depth in your experience to tell anyone about any kaballah. Your "depth" of knowledge about kaballah is superficial. Any high school freshman wiccan knows as much about permutations of YHWH as you.You think you are revealing something?You're not. This is kindergardner shit and you are still only getting only about 30% of it right.Everything else you just make up, including what you wrote in the caption of your picture.Lame.

All I said about Kant was that he very clearly explained the idea under discussion, which concerned the vision we form in our mind that we believe to correspond with the object, thing, or fact out htere, beyond our mind, in the real world.I had already tried to say the same thing in my own words.
But you people seem to be trying to avoid a clear statement that says between us, our mind, inside this head of ours, we imagine everything to be what we mentally decided really exists "out there."If you have another philosopher, or you, yourself, who disputes that, no,... it would make you both wrong.

Empirically.God can be observed empiricially, through the use of our senses by which we make mental images called "thoughts" about "him."

You haven't made it clear because you aaren't representing Kant or Plato's cave. Your deviation comes from mislabeling perception as "truth." Furthermore, you capitalize "truth" which for all intents and purposes denotes absolute truth.So the result is that you are muddying what you are saying by referring to subjective perception and not only wrongfully calling a point of view "truth", but "Truth" (absolute reality).No one is avoiding your statement. Your statement as you present it is conflicting to the point of nonsensibleness.And since you imply that individual thoughts dictate what actually exists, your point of view does not conform to Kant.