Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[Gadianton]

As you imply, there are times when you might be driven to use your demolition tool to hammer a nail into something.

No no, not me, although somebody might. I'd use your heavy square tubing though. It's flat and I'm assuming broad enough that as I set the nail with my other hand, it shouldn't be much of a risk. This tool I have was designed to look like a hammer for sure -- I'm assuming the idea was that a person's coordination trained by a hammer would naturally extend to a tool of destruction. The head part is jagged and not very big such that all the momentum is concentrated into a small area. It shatters tile easily. So if you're setting a nail with the other hand -- wow -- better not slip.

[Gadianton]

the greatest being would be as violently opposed as possible to state-sanctioned torture

Violently opposed? Isn't that why we never get anywhere? Christianity would be more believable if it had God succumbing to the state's devices such that interpreters of the event couldn't be confused about how wrong such tools of social control are, and then leave it at that. But as it happens, the ultimate revenge will be the Lord's with the largest rollout of state sponsored torture the universe has ever seen -- the fires of hell.

[malkie]

As you imply, there are times when you might be driven to use your demolition tool to hammer a nail into something.

No no, not me, although somebody might. I'd use your heavy square tubing though. It's flat and I'm assuming broad enough that as I set the nail with my other hand, it shouldn't be much of a risk. This tool I have was designed to look like a hammer for sure -- I'm assuming the idea was that a person's coordination trained by a hammer would naturally extend to a tool of destruction. The head part is jagged and not very big such that all the momentum is concentrated into a small area. It shatters tile easily. So if you're setting a nail with the other hand -- wow -- better not slip.

Thanks for another bit of information that, according to Mormonism, I'll be able to carry with me to the post-resurrection life. Of course, there likely won't be demolition tools then, but at least I'll know how not to use one

[huckelberry]

the greatest being would be as violently opposed as possible to state-sanctioned torture

Violently opposed? Isn't that why we never get anywhere? Christianity would be more believable if it had God succumbing to the state's devices such that interpreters of the event couldn't be confused about how wrong such tools of social control are, and then leave it at that. But as it happens, the ultimate revenge will be the Lord's with the largest rollout of state sponsored torture the universe has ever seen -- the fires of hell.

Oh horse crap.

I should clarify, this is my feeling about the view of hell Gad is referring to, not any feeling about Gad himself. His statement above has a point.

[Marcus]

Violently opposed? Isn't that why we never get anywhere? Christianity would be more believable if it had God succumbing to the state's devices such that interpreters of the event couldn't be confused about how wrong such tools of social control are, and then leave it at that. But as it happens, the ultimate revenge will be the Lord's with the largest rollout of state sponsored torture the universe has ever seen -- the fires of hell.

Oh horse crap.

I should clarify, this is my feeling about the view of hell Gad is referring to, not any feeling about Gad himself. His statement above has a point.

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering...

[Gadianton]

Going by Malkie's definition of defining something into existence, consider the Dyson sphere.

Malthusian pressures will ultimately drive an intelligent species to adopt some such efficient exploitation of its available resources. Within a few thousand years of its entering the stage of industrial development, any intelligent species should be found occupying an artificial biosphere which completely surrounds it's parent star.

[malkie]

Going by Malkie's definition of defining something into existence, consider the Dyson sphere.

Malthusian pressures will ultimately drive an intelligent species to adopt some such efficient exploitation of its available resources. Within a few thousand years of its entering the stage of industrial development, any intelligent species should be found occupying an artificial biosphere which completely surrounds it's parent star.

Ringworld integrated over 0-180°?

[MG 2.0]

As a practical example of the problem of necessity revealed his very thread, take Shades' divine pronouncement as supreme board ruler that MG's quote was wrong because the forum participants don't want to read the same thing twice. Some forum participants such as myself and Marcus claimed that we didn't care about having to read it twice, his error was something else. Shades doubled down and repeated in red ink to MG that the problem was making forum participants read the same thing twice (God is unchanging, of course, and can never be wrong). As a necessitarian, what are Shades' options? Marcus and I could both be lying, we really do think that but won't admit it. If we continue to participate and if it happens again, we'll come to see that yes, posting the same thing twice really was the error, just as stated by the rule. It's also possible that we don't understand the ruling. It could be that everyone's reactions on the thread will one day be revealed as the very expression of having been burdened by reading the same thing twice. That would be like coming to realize Hesperus and Phosphorus refer to the same planet.

I got lost in there somewhere. What I will say is that Shades has spoken. And spoken more than once. I admit that I have sinned against the forum, against Shades, and against the (now, new and improved) sacred Law of Non Duplicated Content. Or is it simply a transgression in which there should have been no punishment?

Clarifications become the New Law. Evolution results in a "new creature".

I will try my best to not repeat myself and/or say what I've said on one thread and then bring it over to another.

I repent.

I repent again.

And if that counts as repetition resulting in monotonous boredom for those that have to read things twice...

I repent for that too.

Regards,
MG 2.5 (upgrade/reboot)

[Gadianton]

Since Ostler's rejection of foreknowledge got brought up in the other threads, it's as good as time as any to talk about the time problem and the F-S chain.

In the OP I said, "It's said that we can become Gods, but the Father's world count will always exceed ours." My dad was big on this idea. We can become perfected and start creating worlds just like God, but he will always be ahead of us. It's a good model that gets you to the top while still respecting the hierarchy. But, this idea is incompatible with the other Mormon intuition that we enter "worlds without end" -- or the eternities where God's works are infinite, yet known to him, and all things are present before God in one eternal now.

Here's the basic problem: When we think about everyday life as it unfolds, we're living in an always-present with a past behind us and a future ahead. We imagine ourselves getting into heaven, we create one planet, then a second, and then a third. This description of our lives frames the world by the A-theory of time. In contrast, the B-theory (that I actually linked to) is the tenseless version of time, where nothing is unfolding, there is no "past, present, and future" but only "earlier than" and "later than". All events are "equally real" unlike in A-theory where only the present is real. B-theory is very intuitive when we think about the Mormon God living in one eternal now with all things before him, and A-theory is intuitive when we imagine ourselves entering into the CK and getting started with planet building.

If A-theory is true, then God's world count may always exceed ours, but he can't ever get to infinity. B-theory allows God to have an infinite number of worlds that are known to him. However, if B-theory is true, then it's true for us as well, and men who become Gods will also have an infinite world count. Anyone with a theory of God always progressing or being ahead of us in some way falls apart. Either accept it, or accept that God's worlds are finite. (As I've said with the F-S chain, only Father-Saviors are really considered Gods, independent of whether we build planets or not, and so this would be a moot point)

There may be a deeper connection here to the F-S chain. William Lane Craig and classical theologians model the world as a ray. God lives at t-naught, outside of time, creates the world, and then lives in A-time with humanity as it unfolds in one direction forever. A-time is really important for his argument because just as God can't create an infinite number of worlds in A-time, an infinite amount of "minutes" or "seconds" couldn't have passed from the infinite past in order to get to "now". In this way, Blake to me, seems to have aligned too quickly with sectarians and not given the restored truths their due -- the F-S chain is a natural fit for B-time. To be consistent with the "line" concept that allows all fathers to be sons, we ought just to accept B-time in course.

Back to "foreknowledge", I think that technically, libertarian free-will can work for either A or B time, however, my personal opinion is that the need for "free will" is tied to the intuition of A-time. With middle knowledge, God knows what we will freely do in all possible worlds, picks a world and brings it about. Imagine hypothetically that he transfers this knowledge to me, he puts in my mind everything I'm going to do a few seconds, a few minutes, two years, ten years and so on, that would make life seem pointless even if I'm technically free. So on the one hand, B-time ruins the fun of free agency, but on the other, agency, then, doesn't seem to add much to A-time. This means that agency may be a contrived issue. Middle knowledge really isn't compatible with the Mormon God anyway, as Mormon God isn't picking from logically possible worlds. Mormonism is much more aligned with an infinite material "brute fact" universe. But a physical reality requires causal closure, while free agency is contra-causal, by definition. Mormonism is through-and-through materialistic with the exception of agency, and so getting rid of agency (where Blake gets rid of foreknowledge) might wrap things up for the chain.

BUT -- the goal is not to create a theology here myself, but uncover what I think Mormons mythology implies as a theology. Agency is such a huge part of Mormonism that it may just be that no theology emerges (due to contradictions). There are a few other loose ends, but dealing with agency may be the worst of it.

[malkie]

B-time grammar seems like it would be a lot simpler:
No tenses means no need for all these pesky English rules about when auxiliary verbs are needed, with questions about why Shakespeare could say "Went you to the market?", whereas we need ask "Did you go to the market?" I expect that the subjunctive, absolutely required in languages like French & Spanish, and obsolescent/puzzling in English, is also gone. I'm sure there would be problems as well, but it seems we are off to a propitious start.

Oh, wait - do we need to keep talking about religion? I think that grammar is much more interesting