Replies

My own thought in the matter — which is purely speculative of course — is that the world takes its foundation in an algorithm from inception, which defines all possible infinite possibility spaces for anything that can come into existence in this universe. It is a kind of blueprint that specifies the kinds of outcomes that can be realized, in advance; but it does not need to precisely define each and every unique, particular entity that comes into existence. The “design” is so unimaginably perfect that it runs as if on automatic pilot, so to speak.

Careful, BB, you may be evolving into a deist. My cyber-passion for you never ebbs.

Careful, BB, you may be evolving into a deist.

Hardly, dear Patrick! For I believe that Isaac Newton's idea of God as "The Lord of Life with his creatures" is true. The algorithm from inception is "just" the "specs" for the Universe. It gets mediated into the Universe through the second part of Newton's observation, which has to do with what he terms Absolute Space -- which is empty space and therefore the field into which things coming into existence can be accommodated. His term for Absolute Space is sensorium Dei -- it can be thought of as a sort of interfacing field between spirit and matter, and therefore of a direct participation of God with His creation. And God being infinite, Absolute Space can start out at Planck length or less (as with the singularity), and expand virtually without limit -- it is "bounded," but potentially infinite from a beginning.

Thus the universe has its beginning in the timeless Logos, and its potential for expansion and development in time as mediated by a field-like construct.

Pretty striking ideas, especially coming from one of the greatest scientists who ever lived -- and all because Newton did worry about a purely mechanical structure for the Universe being understood as placing God entirely outside, rendering Him "unnecessary." Clearly, Newton thought God definitely is necessary.

I think it is a great mistake to understand what Newton was saying here as Leibniz did -- that the sensorium Dei is tantamount to declaring a pantheist God. Not at all! God is not "in" His creation -- but His Logos, and the means for its propagation in creation (i.e., the sensorium Dei) are: On my interpretation, the latter is the creative field in which the Logos ever works.

In short, I'm no more a deist than I am a pantheist. :^)

Thanks ever so much for writing, PH! It's always a pleasure to hear from you.