Perfection

[Kevin Solway]

If there were no invariants then identity could not be defined.

Without identity nothing can be "invariant".

All symmetries need not be absolute.

What is an example of a symmetry that is not absolute? An appearing symmetry?

[Leyla Shen]

I reckon I should leave this to the pros but what the hell, I'm confused.

So the absolute "All symmetries need not be absolute" is a symmetry or an absolute?

[sevens]

The mind, and in partcular, higher perceptual states, must be comparable to the process of invariant symmetry. As knowledge increases, so too does the ability to apply more and more 'layers' to the original pattern -- resulting in a true kaleidoscope.

The manifestations of spontaneous mandalas in the psyche, must signify the ideal - a true microcosm.

Microscopes and telescopes are cool, but we've got the essentials within our DNA.

[analog57]

What is an example of a symmetry that is not absolute? An appearing symmetry?

Symmetry breaking.

[sevens]

Symmetry breaking would signify a higher symmetry -- and an absolute.

[Leyla Shen]

Actually, I take that back. I'm not confused. I'm asymmetrical.

[sevens]

Asymmetrical thinking is only a part of a much larger symmetry.

[analog57]

Symmetry breaking would signify a higher symmetry -- and an absolute.

True but the broken symmetry itself is not an absolute in the strictest sense of the term.

Spontaneous events like symmetry breaking, entail uncertainty.

An absolute is necessarily a symmetry invariant

Not all symmetry invariants are absolute.

Conclusion:

Symmetry subsumes absolutism, not the other way around.

[David Quinn]

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

Why not bring this back into the real world and provide some concrete examples.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Symmetry subsumes absolutism, not the other way around.

If this "symmetry" is not absolute, then it is of no real consequence.

If it is absolute, then it is falls within the category of things which are absolute.

Yes, as David Quinn suggests, provide some real-world examples to show us how you are using your words.

[Beingof1]

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

Why not bring this back into the real world and provide some concrete examples.

-

I have two
1- I exist and it is an unchanging reality that I am experience.
2- My experience is in a constant state of flux.

All other truth is derived from these inherent truths.

Diebert van Rhijn

Actually none of the actual writers of the NT or other writings of that age that mention Jesus seem to have been eyewitnesses or even contemporaries.

1 Corinthians 15:
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

1 John 1:
1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2. (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Certainly the authors claim to have eyewitness accounts and are contemporary.

Too many errors and borrowing of fragments from clearly older records have been found.

Can you give me a credible reference for that?
We are in the realm of fact; especially in consideration of recent releases and finds. Translations of Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi texts are verbatim with the standard text.

"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
- William Albright, archaeologist

If anything the entire New Testament has not yet been found and/or translated. They are right now as we speak translating new segments and none have overturned the historical account. All are word for word when reading the same text.
To say nothing of non- Christian contemporary accounts that validate the text. I could go on but it would be redundent.

I embrace reality as it is, I choose not to live in denial.

Quote:
"The conversion of substantial regions of the Roman Empire before 100AD."


A pattern that repeated several times in the history of religions. What does it mean?

It means Jesus was a real person, how could you pull the wool over thousands of peoples eyes?
It is like saying Gautama was a figment of imagination even if thousands of people heard him preach.





mookestink,

You mentioned elsewhere that you are not the only person using this definition. Do you know any others in particular who can elaborate this view?

Here are some authors: Ralph Waldo Trine(In Tune With The Infinite), Joel S. Goldsmith(The infinite Way), and a really good book called Christ In You- by anonymous

Also, you seem to have the character of someone trying to save Christianity from Christians: have you found this enterprise to be fruitful?

What a superb question Mook. It is the fault of religious dogma that keep most from seeing the inherent great value of the brightest light that has yet to grace this planet.

When he returns do you know where he will show up?
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

"For now we see in a mirror, darkly(ENIGMA); but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known."

He will show up in you as you, how is that for a twist in Christianity?





DHodges,

Well, if you just want to say there was some preacher guy who lived 2000 years ago... I'm willing to grant that there were many.

Show me one other Jewish preacher/prophet that was crucified and claimed to be the messiah. This is specific in its readings of Dead Sea translations. The evidence is overwhelming - it is just suppressed. It was nearly fifty years before Christian experts could study these texts.

A couple of Dead Sea scroll stories from Biblical Archaeology

The Crucified Messiah Scroll

In 1991 the world was astonished to hear that one of the unpublished scrolls included incredible references to a "Messiah" who suffered crucifixion for the sins of men. The scroll was translated by Dr. Robert Eisenman, Professor of Middle East Religions of California State University. He declared, "The text is of the most far-reaching significance because it shows that whatever group was responsible for these writings was operating in the same general scriptural and Messianic framework of early Christianity." Although the original scroll team still claimed that there was no evidence about early Christianity in the unpublished scrolls, this new scroll totally contradicted their statements. This single scroll is earth-shaking in its importance. As Dr. Norman Golb, Professor of Jewish History at the University of Chicago said, "It shows that contrary to what some of the editors said, there are lots of surprises in the scrolls, and this is one of them."


"Nine New Testament fragments dated A.D. 50 to A.D. 100 have been discovered in a Dead Sea Cave." - Los Angeles Times

Part of the story
Dr. Jose O'Callaghan ultimately identified eight different scroll fragments from Cave Seven that appear to be quotes from New Testament passages. The scholarly magazine Bible Review ran a fascinating article on Dr. O'Callaghan, these scrolls, and their possible connection with the New Testament in an article in December, 1995.

The fragments appeared to O'Callaghan to be portions of the following verses from the Gospels and Paul's Epistles:
"For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself. . ." (Mark 4:28).
"And he saw them toiling in rowing; . . ." (Mark 6:48).
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar. . ." (Mark 12:17)
"And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship. . ." (Acts 27:38).
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. . ." (Romans 5:11-12).
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. . ." (1 Timothy 3:16).
"For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer. . ." (James 1:23-24).

Many more fragments are being translated right now.

Well, for instance, when you have two different accounts in the Bible that contradict each other, then obviously they are not both true. There are a variety of such. There are also stories which, if true, would be verifiable from sources outside the Bible.

There are no blatant contradictions in the New Testament, unless one is engaged in picking fly droppings out of pepper. In all fairness I have read all the atheistic criticisms of scripture. It is all trivialities and misses the heart of the story and message. It is apples and oranges to say that the New Testament is a 'book' as it is a collection of 'books'. There are 10 copies of Julias Caeser and thousands for Jesus.

Non Christian verification
Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Lucian, Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Mara-Serapion, The Talmud.

"There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias."
-Clark Pinnock: Mcmaster University

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."
-A. N. Sherwin-White: Classical Roman Historian









MK Faizi,

I do not believe in either sin or salvation

Those words have only the meaning one attributes to them. I was speaking in the Biblical sense or what is commonly meant by these terms.

Why, since you have asserted yourself as someone rather special -- because you have special understanding of sin and salvation -- do you refrain from condemning me?

That is for someone else, I do not condemn you. It is not a special meaning of words that gives meaning to anything unless in context.
Words are mere symbols of thought.

Because I can define neither, I am plainly condemned by your standards.

You are engaged with an imaginary foe.

what is it that causes you to refrain from condemnation?

You do not want to talk about salvation but you believe in condemnation?

My guess is that you are very slick. You posit yourself as a thinking individual when you are not different from Jerry Falwell.

You are not different from a Roman soldier.

My guess is that I am getting larger than your box and pigeon hole.

Because I believe that Jesus was actually born, died, and resurrected, that makes me unsound?
Have you experienced everything that you will experience?
Do you know everything that you will know?





Leyla Shen,

2000 odd years later and I am yet to see someone walk on water, no matter my expectations.

Your expectations are that it cannot be done. Ever wonder why that people find whatever it is they are looking for? A cop goes looking for what is wrong and wonder of wonders - he finds crime.
What a mystery.

Why did God only send down one son when, being God, he may have sent an army of them to not only walk on water, but to telepathically enlighten all beings before their insanity caused them to revolt (it’s a numbers game, you see)? What sick kind of game was this, exactly, whereby he created the heavens and the earth, good and evil, and then could not clean up the mess he made by sending down his only son? In fact, what the hell was he needing a martyr for in the first place? Does God understand the notion of all possibility?

He keeps sending down child after child after child. He keeps getting the same response, after all you do not believe in Jesus, why would you believe another child of God if you didn`t believe that one?

Yup I do understand the notion of all possibility, that is why God is expanding in and through what seems to be limitation. It is not a numbers game as there exists only one identity in the universe.
That would be who I AM.
He needed a martyr to expand the awareness of agape through resurrection.
But how can you understand my words when you have your fingers in your ears?

The answer lies in metaphor, not literalism. Don’t you see?

I am not a metaphor, I am reality and I am here talking to you now, don`t you see?

1. Christianity is being proclaimed falsely by Christians and the world alike by way of the fact that Christianity is not representative of a group of peoples who understand the true definitions of sin and salvation.

You are so busy trying to catagorize me you cannot see what it is I am writing. I was answering a specific statement about sin and salvation.
I do not believe the misconception of two words will throw the world into a tailspin.

2. Christians, and the world, do not understand that they, too, can walk on water.

Argue for your own limitations and you win the debate everytime.
I would say you do not believe you can do many things and now you want to criticise me for believing in the realm of all possibilities.
Who stole your faith in yourself?

3. Christianity is not like Peter Pan because Jesus was real and really did walk on water; if this assumption is not made, the Bible means no more than the story of Peter Pan: men can no more walk on water than they can fly.

That was not my point and you know that.

4. The first reason we know that Jesus existed and that the Bible is infallible -- an accurate and literal testimony of his life -- is because there were (according to the Dead Sea Scrolls?) thousands of eye witnesses.

There are no written words that will take the place of life experience.
And yes; according to the now released Dead Sea scrolls Jesus was a real guy.

5. The second reason we know that Jesus existed and that the Bible is…et cetera…is because some dude came along and said that Jesus was the Son of God, and that Mary was impregnated by God Himself, and many people are witness to this by virtue of the fact that Christianity notably expanded pre-100AD. (Tell me this is not the way you are interpreting it, because any other way would be metaphor. If Jesus‘s act of walking on water is to be taken literally, what is your take on the immaculate conception?)

You are twisting the facts to make an argument. It was not "some dude" that wrote the New Testament. I believe that Jesus was unique in the fact that he was the first who realized who he was with crystal clarity. It was his hope that you will to. I can see that you do not believe that is in the realm of 'probability' or 'possibility'.
Before you can experience beyond the five senses you first must let in a little light to the possibility. Open your mind to possibility.
First comes a mental coprehension of the reality of Spirit.
Second comes validation of the truth by non- ordinary reality or synchronistic experience.
Then we surrender to that which is larger than ourselves and lose ourselves to that which is eternal. We cease to exist and merge or blend into that which is called God. Eternal consciousness as demonstrated in the manifestation of the infinite state of humility.

Quote:
The intended result of the denegration of the reality of Christ is to lower the requirement so one can live in apathy to pure potential.


After some consideration, I think Kierkgaard is closer to the truth in that one sentence you quoted above.

"When Christianity entered the world it presupposed want, distress, the suffering of the anguished conscience, the hunger that cries out only for food – and then Christianity was the food. Nowadays we think that we have to offer appetizers before we can get people to enter into faith. We have changed Christianity from a radical cure into a minor precaution, like something used to prevent colds, toothaches, and the like. And strangely enough, although every inventor of drops, pills, and so on, "which do neither good nor harm," trumpets his medicine as a miracle balm, Christianity is proclaimed in very muted tones."
- Kierkgaard

"How fearfully true are Christianity’s metaphors. To cast fire upon the earth. Yes, for what is a Christian? A Christian is a person who is caught on fire. Spirit is fire, Christianity is fire-setting. And by nature we shrink more from this fire than from any other. The fire Christianity wants to light is not intended to burn up a few houses but to burn up the human zest for life – burn it out into spirit."
- Kierkgaard



sevens,

Do you have an interest in first-hand experiences of the 'spirit'?

We need Buddhas with computers.

Imagine that.

;) - If only - could it be possible? Yeah, but very improbable LOL

[Blair]

What a load of drivel.

[Leyla Shen]

My goodness.

I would say you do not believe you can do many things and now you want to criticise me for believing in the realm of all possibilities.

You are not as omniscient as you think you are, then. How ungodly of you. Yes -- for this reason, and some others -- your belief is what I criticise precisely. What kind of a conversation is it that Jesus has with himself?

Who stole your faith in yourself?

Satan, obviously.

We cease to exist and merge or blend into that which is called God.

Rubbish. Merging and blending is for pureeing fruits and vegetables. It is nothing like merging and blending.

"How fearfully true are Christianity’s metaphors. To cast fire upon the earth. Yes, for what is a Christian? A Christian is a person who is caught on fire. Spirit is fire, Christianity is fire-setting. And by nature we shrink more from this fire than from any other. The fire Christianity wants to light is not intended to burn up a few houses but to burn up the human zest for life – burn it out into spirit."
- Kierkgaard

I reckon my position in this argument has been more in line with Kierkgaard (and what you have quoted is probably the most I have read of him) than yours. But then, I could be biased.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Actually none of the actual writers of the NT or other writings of that age that mention Jesus seem to have been eyewitnesses or even contemporaries.

1 Corinthians 15: 4-8
1 John 1:1-3

Certainly the authors claim to have eyewitness accounts and are contemporary

That's to be expected since the authors clearly wanted to be believed. It's irrelevant in historical analysis, so save me the bible quotes.

Too many errors and borrowing of fragments from clearly older records have been found.

Can you give me a credible reference for that?

Any relevant scholar knows the gospel of Marc and the 'Q document' are the basis of much of the other three gospels which means the author of those gospels are not writing from the claimed or suggested eyewitness perspective. I could write pages more with all the references you desire but I'm not on this BBS to discuss biblical theology. You have your own journey to make here and ultimately some historical proof will not convince you. Knowledge of the heart and mind of the human kind will lead the way here and reason will keep you on track.

We are in the realm of fact; especially in consideration of recent releases and finds. Translations of Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi texts are verbatim with the standard text.

More interesting is the precise dating here I guess. Also many fragments are found there that can be called 'gnostic' which counter the historical meaning of the NT gospels, and also fragments of Greek philosophy and Jewish mysticism that resonate a lot with many sayings of Jesus. Combined with what we know now about Greek and Egyptian mythology and wisdom tradition, to claim a historical death and resurection of Jesus seems an absurd attempt to hold on to delusion.

- William Albright, archaeologist

Archaelogists are considered lousy biblical scholars. As wel are the fundamentalist christians - as he is too - and have to be studied very carefully when they draw 'conclusions' and publish them. Have you actually studied the quality of his 'evidence'? And compared them to last decades of overwhelming evidence contrary of his statements?

I embrace reality as it is, I choose not to live in denial.

Your journey of inquiry has barely begun, it seems.

It means Jesus was a real person, how could you pull the wool over thousands of peoples eyes?

The whole message of Jesus (and Buddha) was about how billions of people are totally blinded from birth to death. Your reference to authority by sheer numbers is really a false argument, defeating even the message of the miracle workers you claim have existed.

It is like saying Gautama was a figment of imagination even if thousands of people heard him preach.

It doesn't matter. Those thousands of people were the figments, when seen from a larger perspective that was taught.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

Why not bring this back into the real world and provide some concrete examples.

To me it seems mostly a playing with words. Symmetry is a fancy way to talk about invariances (constants, absolutes) in physics. Or perhaps a way to talk about objectivity. But all from a materialistic point of view, deconstructive. Some caution here before thinking philosophers would be in need of it ( "fish are good at swimming, but poor at hydrodynamics" - Alan Musgrave).

The following article might help or not. I've quoted the parts I found relevant for this discussion.

From Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking

Galileo sought to neutralize the standard arguments purporting to show that, simply by looking around us at how things behave locally on Earth -- how stones fall, how birds fly -- we can conclude that the Earth is at rest rather than rotating, arguing instead that these observations do not enable us to determine the state of motion of the Earth. His approach was to use an analogy with a ship: he urges us to consider the behaviour of objects, both animate and inanimate, inside the cabin of a ship, and claims that no experiments carried out inside the cabin, without reference to anything outside the ship, would enable us to tell whether the ship is at rest or moving smoothly across the surface of the Earth. The assumption of a symmetry between rest and a certain kind of motion leads to the prediction of this result, without the need to know the details of the laws governing the experiments on the ship.

It is now natural for us to derive the laws of nature and to test their validity by means of the laws of invariance, rather than to derive the laws of invariance from what we believe to be the laws of nature (Wigner)

we might say that symmetries are associated with unavoidable redundancy in our descriptions of the world, while on the other hand we might maintain that symmetries indicate a limitation of our epistemic access -- there are certain properties of objects, such as their absolute positions, that are not observable.

It is widely agreed that there is a close connection between symmetry and objectivity, the starting point once again being provided by spacetime symmetries: the laws by means of which we describe the evolution of physical systems have an objective validity because they are the same for all observers. The old and natural idea that what is objective should not depend upon the particular perspective under which it is taken into consideration is thus reformulated in the following group-theoretical terms: what is objective is what is invariant with respect to the transformation group of reference frames, or, quoting Hermann Weyl: "objectivity means invariance with respect to the group of automorphisms of space-time".

[DHodges]

There are no blatant contradictions in the New Testament, unless one is engaged in picking fly droppings out of pepper.

So, it's okay for there to be contradictions, as long as you think they are unimportant?

It is all trivialities and misses the heart of the story and message.

Are these important, or trivialities?

Do the Old Testament laws still apply?

Is salvation by faith alone?

Is Jesus God?

In all fairness I have read all the atheistic criticisms of scripture.

That's amazing. You must have a lot more time for this than I do.

[David Quinn]

BeingofOne wrote:

DQ: Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

Why not bring this back into the real world and provide some concrete examples.

BO: I have two
1- I exist and it is an unchanging reality that I am experience.
2- My experience is in a constant state of flux.

What has this to do with symmetry? As far as I know, symmetry simply refers to mirror imaging. A face has "symmetry" when its left side resembles its right side.

All other truth is derived from these inherent truths.

Is your existence a part of the flux of experience or seperate from it?


-

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

To me it seems mostly a playing with words. Symmetry is a fancy way to talk about invariances (constants, absolutes) in physics. Or perhaps a way to talk about objectivity.

So when Analog states that "symmetry subsumes absolutism", he is really stating that "absolutism subsumes absolutism" ....?

The following article might help or not. I've quoted the parts I found relevant for this discussion.

From Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking

Galileo sought to neutralize the standard arguments purporting to show that, simply by looking around us at how things behave locally on Earth -- how stones fall, how birds fly -- we can conclude that the Earth is at rest rather than rotating, arguing instead that these observations do not enable us to determine the state of motion of the Earth. His approach was to use an analogy with a ship: he urges us to consider the behaviour of objects, both animate and inanimate, inside the cabin of a ship, and claims that no experiments carried out inside the cabin, without reference to anything outside the ship, would enable us to tell whether the ship is at rest or moving smoothly across the surface of the Earth. The assumption of a symmetry between rest and a certain kind of motion leads to the prediction of this result, without the need to know the details of the laws governing the experiments on the ship.

How is there a symmetry between rest and motion? I thought they were opposites, not mirror images.

It is now natural for us to derive the laws of nature and to test their validity by means of the laws of invariance, rather than to derive the laws of invariance from what we believe to be the laws of nature (Wigner)

What's an example of a "law of invariance"?

we might say that symmetries are associated with unavoidable redundancy in our descriptions of the world, while on the other hand we might maintain that symmetries indicate a limitation of our epistemic access -- there are certain properties of objects, such as their absolute positions, that are not observable.

It's not that the absolute position of an object isn't observeable, it's more the fact that such a property doesn't have any meaning in the first place. The term "absolute position" is a contradiction in terms. We might as well say that our inability to observe square circles is also a "limitation of our epistemic access".

It is widely agreed that there is a close connection between symmetry and objectivity, the starting point once again being provided by spacetime symmetries: the laws by means of which we describe the evolution of physical systems have an objective validity because they are the same for all observers. The old and natural idea that what is objective should not depend upon the particular perspective under which it is taken into consideration is thus reformulated in the following group-theoretical terms: what is objective is what is invariant with respect to the transformation group of reference frames, or, quoting Hermann Weyl: "objectivity means invariance with respect to the group of automorphisms of space-time".

In other words, an objective truth is true in all possible worlds. This is an obvious point, but I still have no idea why the concept of symmetry is brought into the matter.

-

[MKFaizi]

Many things in nature are symmetrical. Many things in nature are asymmetrical.

So what?

A discussion of symmetry may have some merit somewhere but, to me, it is kind of like discussing the supposed shape of the universe. Much more to do with art and math than with any sort of concrete proof in science. Far less to do with philosophy which, by my definition, is the art of thinking; the art of deduction and interrogation.

The art of thinking has far less to do with art than it does with introspection. The art of thinking -- philosophy -- is art without a canvas; the physiology of acting without a stage -- it is art without ego.

My perception is that when one starts a discussion about something on the order of so called symmetry, the reality behind it is an ego as large as all outdoors. One pretends to be putting forth a so called abstract argument when the intended purpose is to draw attention not only to himself but to distract attention from philosophy -- the tearing down and piecing together of reality.

Ya'll enjoy yourselves but there is no merit in discussing symmetry.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Bean of One:

Those words have only the meaning one attributes to them. I was speaking in the Biblical sense or what is commonly meant by these terms.

I do not believe in the Bible. I do not care what the Bible says about sin and salvation. Originally, you stated that only a very few people understand the concepts of sin and salvation.

Here, you are saying that you refer to sin and salvation in only the most commonly meant terms.

Given that, then, you seem to be saying that I should go to the Baptist Church down Main Street and swallow everything hook, line, and sinker.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. You demand that in order to come up to your high standards, one must know exclusively what you mean by sin and salvation. Then, you say that you only mean what is commonly known as sin and salvation -- confessing and getting baptized or saved.

I am not interested in Christianity by any definition. I am not Christian. If I was religious, I would be Muslim. I have been Muslim. I do not believe in either sin or salvation. I have no reason to believe as you do and I will not believe as you do.

That is for someone else, I do not condemn you. It is not a special meaning of words that gives meaning to anything unless in context.
Words are mere symbols of thought.

But you have previously said that only a few people can understand sin and salvation. Since I cannot understand these things; since I cannot and will not surrender to Jesus Christ, then, by your religion, I am condemned by God.

Words are indeed symbols of thought but they are not mere symbols of thought. Words are quite meaningful. For instance, you said that only a few people can understand sin and salvation. Yet, you decline to define sin and salvation but defer to what you call the common meanings of sin and salvation. The common meanings of sin and salvation are condemning to anyone who does not believe in them.

By your definition -- the common definition of sin and salvation -- can a Muslim get into Heaven?

I don't think so. Therefore, because I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God and I do not believe that Jesus can save me -- that I need to surrender to Jeus -- whatever that means -- then, I am condemned by Christianity.

How can you -- as a Christian -- deny the certainty of my condemnation and the condemnation of other nonbelievers? Does not the Bible say that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ will perish?

Why do you shrink from your God?

You are engaged with an imaginary foe.

You are engaged with your delusions.

You do not want to talk about salvation but you believe in condemnation?

I have attempted many times to talk with you about salvation. You said that only a few people can define salvation and sin. I asked you for those definitions and you refrained.

I do not believe in condemnation without reason.

You do. Tell me the definition of salvation and sin. Tell me how, if I or anyone else does not believe as you do, we will not be condemned by God.

Do you deny that those who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God and the savior of mankind cannot enter into Heaven?

My guess is that I am getting larger than your box and pigeon hole.

I guess not.

Because I believe that Jesus was actually born, died, and resurrected, that makes me unsound?

Yes.

Have you experienced everything that you will experience?
Do you know everything that you will know?

Pretty much. I have not yet experienced physical death. But I am sure that I am getting close. Other than that, I have run the gauntlet.

Faizi

[analog57]

As far as I know, symmetry simply refers to mirror imaging. A face has "symmetry" when its left side resembles its right side.

Mirror imaging is an example of bilateral symmetry. A more general definition of symmetry is: invariance under transformation; or even more generally, symmetry is a measure of indistinguishability.

[analog57]

My perception is that when one starts a discussion about something on the order of so called symmetry, the reality behind it is an ego as large as all outdoors. One pretends to be putting forth a so called abstract argument when the intended purpose is to draw attention not only to himself but to distract attention from philosophy -- the tearing down and piecing together of reality.

Yes, absolutes DO exist as starting points in a logical chain of reasoning. In that respect they are impossible to challenge without invalidating the chain of reasoning itself.

It is very very easy to form an airtight[tautological] argument that says reality is the absolute. But the REAL challenge is to learn something NEW about reality.

[Leyla Shen]

Alright, so -- again -- what is an example of a symmetry invariant that isn't an absolute?

An absolute truth must be invariant.

An invariance is a symmetry.

Symmetry forms the basis of truth.

All absolutes must be invariants, therefore symmetries.

All symmetries need not be absolute.

I'm still having a problem with that last -- assumption/conclusion. Do you just make things up in order to learn something new about "reality"?

[analog57]

Alright, so -- again -- what is an example of a symmetry invariant that isn't an absolute?

A circle is symmetric about an axis of rotation, where it appears to be invariant anywhere throughout an entire 360 degree rotation.
But transform the circle into a square via some process and the previous symmetry is broken. The lower degree of symmetry means that the square only remains invariant under multiples of 90 degree rotations.

circle--->square = change in symmetry

change is not an absolute


Time is a sequence of symmetry breaking

[analog57]

If I understand David Quinn and company correctly, they say that the law of identity is the most general of all logical principles. It is the all encompassing principle of principles.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/M ... ntity.html

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

Yet the infinity so near and dear to DQ's heart, appears to be incompatible with absolutist thinking, in that it is not subject to the finite quantification beholden to the law of identity.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To me it seems mostly a playing with words. Symmetry is a fancy way to talk about invariances (constants, absolutes) in physics. Or perhaps a way to talk about objectivity.

So when Analog states that "symmetry subsumes absolutism", he is really stating that "absolutism subsumes absolutism" ....?

It seems an attempt to merely further describe how absolutes are part of the 'fabric' of reality or its perceived physical laws. The unchanging behind the changing. Of course we could now start calling 'ultimate reality': 'symmetrical reality' just to remain fashionable.

Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking

How is there a symmetry between rest and motion? I thought they were opposites, not mirror images.

Even good old but firm Earth spins and dances all the time. The relativity of movement might be called the symmetry here.

It is now natural for us to derive the laws of nature and to test their validity by means of the laws of invariance, rather than to derive the laws of invariance from what we believe to be the laws of nature (Wigner)

What's an example of a "law of invariance"?

Laws of conservation of energy.