  |
|
Metamath
|
 They Do It With Mirrors The mirror analogy in the section introduction for this page is perhaps something we are all familiar with, but I'll restrict this section to the strange loop effects a person can achieve by turning their webcam onto their computer monitor. If you don't have a webcam, don't worry - you can see plenty of videos of this effect on youtube. In essence, the viewer sees an endless tunnel of windows inside windows inside windows, just like the effect of standing between two mirrors. So, how does this help understanding the model of the trinity? The concept of infinite regression in the extension of Anselm's argument is taken as read here - so I'll proceed forthwith. You will notice if you turn the camera by an angle, all subsequent windows are also rotated as we progress farther down the loop. It makes sense to think of a cyclic group as a regular division of 360 degrees by the required order. You will also have noticed the stream of windows stretching away.. If the webcam had a perfect lens without distortion, and produced an image of exactly the same aspect ratio and resolution as that of the window in the monitor, then positioning the webcam perfectly so that the recorded view matched the displayable video within its window, would produce just one frame. Furthermore, if we can assume the camera had a perfect focus on an object placed between it and the monitor, as well as the monitor screen behind, then there would be just the single image of the object in front of the background of the monitor which in truth could be almost anything - perturbed by a passing insect or some other transient state. Assuming no such effect we can assume the background of the video to be blank. This gives a fine idea of what God sees by infinite regression - If he sees perfectly then at least in the way we may understand it - he can see like us. Instead of a 2D screen and camera, We should think of reality (the whole of it) as "the screen" and perhaps any position within it as the eye of God, "the camera". Certainly if through infinite regression the universe is resolved dynamically around a moving God within it, it makes no sense to think of a position for God in the normal sense of the word since it is arbitrary. So, how does the Klein four group come in? If the object resolved between our perfect camera and screen is another camera pointing back - is there one camera? The arbitrary nature of defining God's own position in a situation of infinite regression would actually affirm that this statement is not discernible either way! Fantastic huh! The first stable situation where there can be a limited number of webcams greater than one is where we have three sets of webcams mapped amongst themselves with the fashion of our constructed model for the trinity. The ultrafilter takes care of the details.. And the constructions discussed previously with relation to identity are not just an abstraction. - They help to associate the webcams - they eyes that belong to one member or another within each set that correspond to the three separate individuals. So, we have one question at the end of all this. Isn't it possible that this system exists with only one God that has an even more complicated structure? Whilst our construction shows that the requirement of having more than one God results in this system with our simple assumptions, it does not show the converse, that this system is proof of a trinity. It at the least is evidence for a triune God with a threefold nature. A separation principle does not have to be alike to the emanations of Gnostic heresy - But if it can be shown that extending the super complex "Only One" system to three results in the same system, we would be justified freely in thinking either way. However, it would make no sense to question whether God exists because of this seeming ambiguity. After a recent conversation I enjoyed, the idea was raised that if two writers both author novels with each other as characters in each other's books, that situation would only make sense if it occurred in the prose of a third book. Whilst a counter-argument like that is almost meritable, it would require the characters to be fictional. (that they could be both biographies is not the correct sense) It more accurately stand its ground with logic like that of Gaunilo's fool. (see the metaphysics section.) What the question would require is, 'How many books would have to be written, whereupon once the final book is read, the final author and readers are purely in the book as characters also? I'm not pushing a never-ending story here, but the fundamental difference of opinion and objections to nearly all ontological arguments are over the matter of what "conceive" means (or requires) in Anselm's argument. Godel goes a step further and discusses possibility as equivalent with logical consistency, Hartshorne discusses the nature that perfection can not itself exist contingently when applied to existence, or "being" itself. In Godel's argument this has raised objections of modal collapse, (i.e. everything is true because it is true). So can this objection and requirement be cleared up? If the difference between faith in God as an acceptance of a consistent set of symmetries and equality, rather than a trick of the mind played "with mirrors" (that leads to an inconsistency that is only justifiable by stubborn disbelief, or a mere refusal of any faith itself.), then in the sense of the symmetries in this metamath section, I believe the matter leaves Anselm, Godel and Hartshorne justified. Modal collapse applies also to the argument that contingency is necessary also. Christianity is so perfect a faith that it answers these distinctions in this sense. That without discussing the merit or meaning of faith, the fundamental teachings of Christ and the new testament apostles (on faith and that justification comes by no other means) as to the true nature of God stands or falls on the outcome of such arguments. Faith becomes for God Himself the means to be able to demand such a requirement from us by understanding that faith through the Gospel perfects our acceptance of the true nature of God's character, person and truth; as it does for God himself through His son, Father and Spirit. If God could not know Himself as another could, And feel the loss of not having (a Son or the Father's forsaking of His Son on the cross) He could demand no faith from us if our objection was that He could not describe the crime of not having faith at all; other than in crimes that everyone, regardless of faith commit against him. If God exists necessarily and alone, would he ever be able to understand what not having faith is? If he didn't, does that not seem therefore to be a strange thing to demand of us? It is possible to be a theist and perhaps a polytheist, but not a theist and an outright rejector of established faith on the principle they can not make their own case. Since my own faith is Christian, and the welcome page of this site stated my bias, if you want discussion of other faiths, I would hope you try to search it out as diligently as you possibly could. We now move on to discussion of whether The trinity model here satisfies an ultrafilter argument as to containment of itself. Is there a simplistic logical representation that would justify the model? |
 |
|
