George,

Thank you for your prayers and good wishes. The after-effects of the chemo. could last several months, yet I am hoping to start back into my own new research into the effects of culture antecedents on knowledge discovery by July. In about a year, I will be happy to discuss findings with colleagues. Thus far, treatments have worked.

I could see Schrödinger's Domain was not very different to my Realm, yet presumedly ES was effective in making his point/question understood; whereas I haven't been clear to our olo friends.

Thanks for the citation. I will try to find the article. I still have access to the University's databases. Also, I will contemplate your interesting and sophisticated comments.

Back in a day or two.

csteel, Ludwig and Vanilla,

Just in case you missed my reply, and a hint to the ultimate question, please look back a page.

Thanks.

O.

Pericles,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was not commenting on Oliver’s question but rather on the basic question of metaphysics (why there is something rather than nothing) and on the question of a possible independence of the four worlds (realms, domains). I agree that one should not “roll two concepts into one: God and the Universe“. Besides, that objection of yours was already addressed by Oliver.

By a “very sophisticated answer” I did not mean that “God and the Universe are in fact the same entity“. That is just the basic tenet of classical pantheism. What I meant by “sophisticated“ was the by now very rich literature on the relation of (natural) science and theology, preceded by an even richer centuries old “pre-scientific” literature (in the West) on the relation of philosophy (metaphysics) and theology. Not only “theists” see metaphysics as a legitimate discipline of philosophy, though they probably prevail among those who take metaphysics seriously.

Of the four worlds (realms, domains) I mentioned, the existence (in the intuitive meaning of the word) of only the second one (mental) and the third one (physical) are generally accepted, including their interrelation. The existence of the first (the “Platonic” world of mathematics) is accepted only by some mathematicians (and philosophers of mathematics). So your contention that the “concept of mathematics is intensely physical in nature“ meaning, if I understand you, that mathematics is just a part of science describing certain properties of the physical world, is understandable, though it is common mostly among non-mathematicians. The same, of course about the fourth (transcendent, supernatural, ultimate) world, not everybody accepts its existence, nowadays not even everybody who claims to be a Christian.

I should add that I do not regard these four worlds as four mutually disjoint “supersets“, in particular I do not subscribe to Stephen Jay Gould’s “non-overlaping magisteria” (of science and theology). The interrelation is, I think, much more intriguing: even if you leave out the fourth world (God) the mutual interaction between the mental, physical and mathematical worlds is complicated enough (see e.g. Roger Penrose mentioned also by Oliver).

...>>keeping-the-Universe-and God-separate, as-soft-constructs.<<....

as god-[logus]- is the-logic/law underpinning the-universe it-is-not possable to treat them sepperate [cause-affect]

[unsure_what soft-constructs may-be refering-to [organic_mortal-constructs? life?-nature?

>>to-apply the-discipline-of "internal-consistency" to-these constructs/scales.<<...

Clearly science is-based by-faith in-fact [filtered by logic] into a mathimatical-scientificlly accountable 'order'-called science.

It isnt-that math under pins reality
but that its logic can be defined by the mathimatical certainty of the observed logic/law
that the material logic that underpins that-being-observed at the material level [yet at the quantum-level we can-see the-observed particle reverse its spin when observed

[it seemsthat-the closer we-get to-the underlying logus, the less math certainty can-be relitive to 'test' its hypothesis or confirm its mathimatical 'certainties']

>>to-not-take this-action,<< ...
seems to be raising very significant questions about the [absolute] permeation of the faulse-God-of-math
[as its not meta-physically mathimatical as a predictor [nor refuitor] to-[of]-the math thesis].

THis logus-[logic]-permeation when-equated-or substituted-for the "Thought of God" logic does extend into the smallest observable logic ,on both the particle particular levels
as well as the wholesale organic material ,even astral and cyber levels of logic ,yet people fail to see the elephant in the room.

Some see things as they are and ask why ,some dream things that can never be , i see what is is and try to understand the why of why god is revealing it at this time [NOW] for me to see.

God lives in this live time living moment [now.

[ALL the time ,All through time ,live time in this ever now time]

when yesterday was then called NOW ,he was live time then, when tomorrow becomes the LIVE time NOW he will yet be providing the logus [logic that ever underpins EVERY live time [now ]

Every 'now' moment [just-as he all-ways has [and allways will] so know now

do the math [so to speak]
ask your own logic [now]

then you too will know 'E'=energy 'L'=logic = EL
[light , love , life , logic , energy] = Mass +EL 2

ie EL-vis lives

now

peace and love
cheers

One under God,

"as god-[logus]- is the-logic/law underpinning the-universe it-is-not possible to treat them sepperate [cause-affect]"

By Logos, I assume The Word, not logic in its everyday sense nor the School of Metaphysics. I assume you are saying that the Word and the Domain of Numbers should not be separated. That Mathematical formulae cannot "hold" [George] without the Logos of God.

I was not endeavour to treat Mathematics as an effect caused of God. Rather, would the Domain of Formulae, exist, transendentially, if God did not exist, say, God suicided, and, become non-existent.

Is 1+1=2, a truism, in the absence of God or the Universe.

Boazy, I realise 1 and 2 are symbols and represent deeper latent entities: The concepts of singualarity and plurality. One single plus another single is a duality.

Pericles,

Can a perfect circle exist in our universe, if not, what about as an abstract [Plato]. If not in our universe, would the abstract have a meta-reality in the Domain of Perfect Forms? If yes, to a Domain of Perfect Formd independent to the universe. Would said Perfect Forms exist without God [for the Atheeist] or God committed suicide [for the Thiests].

The posit is there is No God and no Universes. Do the Domains of Formulae and/or Perfect Forms exist, in any manner, way, shape or form, even is non-physicaally or conceptually, as unobserved.

Are there truths that are truly independent of the Thought of God: e.g., 1=1.

If the Thought of God did not exist and 1 did not equal 1, we still have a rule. Herein, would 1 not be 1, in the absence of the Thought of God Would 1 be 2, 3, 4, 5, n, null.

oliver you wrote>>By Logos, I assume The Word, not logic in its everyday sense <<

Thats not as i see it , logus allows us [created in his image ] to see the logic of the word [the 'thing' the word describes [or defines]

Are you not amased that of ALL of gods billions of creations WE alone

WE ALONE can write , invent and make sense of words

we EVEN can make sense of THE word

We alone need NEVER go to the moon [or see jesus , or be with mosus on the mount] ,but can
by simply reading words
know how the person who did felt

WE can read the words of LONG DEAD PEOPLE
[reading their own private thoughts ,that they put into word]

It has been reported by seers that god , angels and US alone can read and understand words
[because our material body is capable of recieving its logus direct from god [like the angels do]

>>I assume you are saying that the Word and the Domain of Numbers should not be separated.<<

JUst by knowing their [wordss/numbers /symbols] logic we ARE sepperated
from this the vast majority of the rest of incarnation , even from many of men incarnated

From this incarnation we can accend into the highest heavens ,think of a bacteria evolving spiritually
[think of the evolutionary chart as a spiritual evolutionary guide]

The steps to understanding that god evolved OUR SPIRIT to the stage where most in this mortal mankind type flesh are able to 'get' the meaning of words and numbers ,
ie to get the logus [god logic] that underpins them ,or is revealed by them

>>That Mathematical formulae cannot "hold" [the meaning of the symbols in the word]; George] without the Logos [logic] of God. <<

that allows us to make sense from mere shadowed shapes on a white background
[words/letters etc
yes
egsactly

Peracles,

Following on from post to your attention above I mention that in some computer languages 1=1, is a universal truth, used to start a condition set rolling:

If 1=1,
Then..,
If..,
Else..,
If..,
Else..,
End

Would 1=1 "hold" [George] as a universal trust without the universe?

One Under God,

You are saying only humans know the Word of God? That posit presuposes a natural and a superatural. If the Mind of Humankind, alone, can transcend the natural to contact the Ethereal,; how do we know the contact is with God and not another less worthy supernatutal being, with cognitions far superior to our own