Gottlieb Frege Commentaries

Today I will resurrect some poignant quotes from Frege and others who have studied him. The most important aim to keep in mind with this is that Frege was on the verge of understanding how to resolve the ontology of the nominal referent which is IMHO, THE, if not one of the pinnacles of philosophy, critical thinking and all those good healthy practices expected from a tried and true intellectual. He didn't quite figure it out, but later another would come up with the way.

Frege Quotes

This is taken from Frege's article titled ‘On Sense and Reference’

Now languages have the fault of containing certain expressions which fail to designate an object (although grammatical form seems to qualify them for that purpose) . . .

Comment: Some words refer to a concept, conceived by a human, however they are surreptitiously used in a syntactical grammar AS IF they refer to objects. Understanding HOW to resolve this distinction is of the utmost important when processing communication ESPECIALLY in a study of fundamental physics. Understanding this distinction will also help lead to an ultimate appreciation of objects and their essential role in brain works.

Continuing Frege says:

So language brands a concept as an object, since the only way it can fit the designation for a concept into its grammatical structure is as a proper name. But in so doing, strictly speaking it falsifies matters. (Gottlob Frege, 1892a, 168-69)

Comment: I would not say it falsifies matters, since validation/verification of statements is another matter that is subjectively performed by humans. I would say in doing so renders that expression irrational, contradictory or at best figurative. Now we treat concepts as if they were objects all the time. This uncanny ability is proper to humans. And yet in a rigorous intellectual setting such as physics, these matters must be clarified for the sake of communication, sanity, consistency, honesty, and helping to produce brilliant, rational assumptions, theories, conclusions, etc.

Quotes from Studies on Frege

From Philosophy of Language and Logical Theory by Khatchadourian (p.309-11)

A concept-word, according to Frege, is predicative; it is a possible grammatical predicate of a range of otherwise different sentences. To predicate a concept-word of a grammatical subject is to relate a concept to a logical subject, i.e. to an object. Another way of saying this is that to predicate a concept of an object is to state that the object falls under the concept. The predicative character of concepts is what Frege calls “incompleteness” of concepts. In terms of this the difference between a concept and an object is that an object falls under a concept but that the converse is impossible. “An equation is reversible; an object’s falling under a concept is irreversible

Comment: So concepts are based in objects. Frege never figured out why: objects have form, concepts lack form.  Concepts refer to relations between two or more objects worked out by the brain. Concepts are based on objects, but objects are not based on concepts. An object has the referent of Form independent of our conception or perception. The referent of Form is inseparable from an object. So for example the form of that object across the street named woman does not rely on our seeing it or on our naming it ‘woman’. Now this might sound trite or petty semantics but I assure everyone that understanding how to resolve the ontology of word referent in all contexts can help enable one to accomplish immense intellectual tasks for example:

1. Ability to discern and interpret figures of speech, and perhaps learning how to conceive of one’s own figures
2. Ability to interpret obscure and difficult texts, etc.
3. Ability to understand the roots of all languages. All languages have their roots in objects.
4. Identifying intellectual charlatans who make millions even billions off of concepts that refer to nothing in reality
5. Enabling one to see through intellectual hogwash and acquire a sort of natural wisdom.
6. Initiating intellectual revolutions in self and others
7. Appreciating the great value of existing objects and understanding that a dynamic concept such as love will never happen or even be conceived without that object named woman who grew up down the road from you. Thus one would imagine that this woman is very valuable and should be treated with great care and dignity. Understanding that without the two objects named man and woman and what they have the ability to do continues the human family. Understanding that objects such as food, clothes, water, house are more valuable than concepts such as money.
8. Understanding the great darkness and devolution of Western Civilization as it currently operates. Many are enslaved to, burdened and lost in the concepts conceived by themselves or others.
9. Understand how people manipulate each other via use of concepts.
10. Tracing back to the fundamental object that underlies and connects all existing atoms of the Universe and understanding that this fundamental object cannot possibly rely on a concept called space for its form.
11. Figuring out devishly difficult problems in physics such as what object may mediate gravity and light between stars and planet, how atoms work, what electron, proton, and neutron refer to, what sort of assumptions can we make about the fundamental entity, explaining fundamental interactions, exposing the wave-particle duality, balancing the continuity of all objects with their discontinuity, and so on.
12. Enable one to attain freedom of thought.

Continuing with Frege Study:

It seems to follow from this that “completing” a concept can be regarded as stating that a given object falls or does not fall under the concept. We “complete” ‘() conquered Gaul’ by ‘Julius Caesar’, when we state that Julius Caesar falls under the concept conquered Gaul, i.e. when we make the statement ‘Julius Caesar conquered Gaul’.

Comment. We base the concept ‘conquered Gaul’ on Julius Caesar. Without the referent of Julius Caesar the conquering of Gaul would have never happened. Frege took a sort of . . . how do I want to say this . . . backwards approach to solving these problems.
. . .

Concepts are attributes. Hence what we have said about the “incompleteness” of concepts, put in terms of this notion, is that attributes are “incomplete” in isolation from objects. Another way of saying this is that attributes, in order to be attributes at all, have to be attributes of objects. An attribute is “completed” when it is related to an object, is thought of as attributed to the object [objects precede concepts]. Relations [also concepts], which are in a similar position, are functions with two arguments, i.e. are doubly “incomplete”, and so require two objects to be “completed”. Speaking about concepts Frege says:"It is clear that a concept cannot be represented independently as an object can but that it can occur only in combination. One can say that a concept can be distinguished out of it. All apparent contradictions which one can come upon here result from treating a concept as an object, contrary to its incomplete nature. (Uber die Grundlagen der Geometrie)"

Black says that this suggests that Frege’s contention that functions (and so concepts) are “incomplete” is that “it is logically impossible to make a function the subject of an assertion” (p. 246).

Comment: Obviously attributes and relations lack form and cannot possibly exist. Attributes and relations refer to our thoughts about objects. Attribute refers to a comparison of objects. What does this thing have or not have in comparison to that thing. What can this thing do that another cannot do. Attribute is a subcategory of concept. Once we establish a category Concept by resolving the ontology of the word-referent i.e. asking whether or not the referent has form, we see that one can modify the Concept category into many subcategories.

So, concepts refer to a relation between two or more objects worked out by the brain. A concept is 'incomplete' without a minimum of at least two objects since one of those objects is the man conceiving the relation or at least two neurons consummating the relation in the brain of the man.

Frege began to understand the hierarchical relation between objects and concepts. Objects precede concepts. Without objects there would be no events (moving relations, syn: phenomena, happening, etc), no perceptions completed by sense organs of humans, animals and possibly plant, no conceptions completed by the brain, no verbs, etc. Verbs refer to what we think objects do. The woman sings . . . stars illuminate and gravitate. How they do this is a matter of explanation and we may have to suppose an un-perceivable object such as air or invisible mediators so as to explain the action. But it is contradictory to make a verb or a grammatical function the subject of a sentence because then it is treated as an object. Verbs, attributes, or relations CANNOT perform actions or reactions. Objects perform causal relations and undergo change effects via objects and this makes our conception of verbs possible and it is rational to acknowledge this order.

With objects all we can possibly do is name them, assume them, draw them and explain how they work in relation to other objects. Naming refers to a dynamic concept completed by a human and can be traced directly to the object that is named (to that which has Form). We also have the tricky ability to perform the work of naming our conceptions, our brainworks. We name our brain works, to organize, develop and stimulate our brains and also so as to communicate directly with other objects such as humans and animals. Naming concepts modifies objects, describes them, etc. This name can indirectly trace back to the objects of our brains (atoms, electrons, neurons, connectors, etc.) performing causal relations and undergoing change effects in the referred concept or to objects of our environment remembered and used in the conception. The name of our conception serves as a placeholder for the objects of our environment we conceived in a relation via our sensory organ or the objects of our brain performing the work called conception and serves to modify, describe, explain the objects. So we perceive water molecules, remember their locations, think and name that thought wave. Wave is what an object does. Wave does not refer to an object. We can trace back wave to objects even if these objects are no longer perceivable or even imperceivable.

If we conceive an abstract concept such as Universe then we can trace back that abstraction to a nest of all existing objects and the static separation we conceived (space). If we do not at least make note of this, then we may begin to think that our conceptions literally have form and perform causal relations and undergo change effects when clearly this is impossible because our conceptions are already the objects of our brains performing causal relations and undergoing change effects. And bye the bye, we are always conceiving. So naming our conception is sort of a convenient illusion to stimulate our brains, understand and communicate. It is the goal of intellectual life to master this stimulation and not become a slave to this work or use this work to deceive others, lord it over others, or swindle others.

But the reverse is impossible. An object cannot possibly refer to or resolve to a concept.

Our intellectual activities better end on objects that have forms and hopefully exist. In a strict intellectual environment objects should never be used as a concept or vice versa: Concepts should not be treated as objects. When all is said and done, two or more objects induce concepts or make concepts possible. Frege took a sort of negative approach and never completely solved the problem because he failed to understand that Form resolves the ontology of the word referent (does the nominal referent have Form? Yes or No???) Form is the most important name in all philosophy. It is in a category all its own. The Sun, Moon, Stars, atoms, the fundamental object underlying all atoms and the woman or man across the street all had their unique Form and performed their actions before you saw them, remembered them or thought about them.

Frege also wrote an article "On Concept and Object" (1892a) where he struggles with the contradiction that "the concept horse is not a concept". Had he known how to resolve the ontology of the word referent he would have solved some of his own problems.

All names, first and foremost refer to conceptions, verbs, or brain-works performed by a human. Its what we do! These either directly refer to an Object (that which has Form) or indirectly to two or more objects embodied by the brain in a relation with the aim of understanding, communication, praxis, organization, etc, in other words Concept.

Syntax follows this rational order, however for whatever reason, because we are free, i.e. not bound by artificial laws of syntax or of logic, because we are creative, because we are freaks of Nature or children of God, we break these laws all the time and switch the order treating referred concepts AS IF they were objects. Thus we need to parse sentences and discern communication so as to make sense of what the author meant to convey. In other words we resolve the context. If the author is confused we should be able to figure this out rather quickly by using these conceptual tools at our disposal.

From object, form, and concept we can graduate to exist. Exist refers to an object that stands out. Exist implies three dimensions (length, width, height) however these are measurements and whether or not an object exists has nothing to do with our act of measuring. The Sun had Form and existed before any human came along to observe it and measure it. Another possible definition of exist is that which has Form and Location. With this enlightened understanding we can clearly see that 1D, 2D, 4D objects of geometry cannot possibly exist or be used in assumptions, explanations and conclusions in physics. Geometry is a nihilistic religion.

Concept lacks Form and so is automatically disqualified from existence. This does not entail that Concept does not HAPPEN, however these dynamic concepts must ALWAYS be performed or worked by objects that exist.

Inertial Mass & Res Omnes

...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies... ---(Einstein, Letter to Ernst Mach)

Modern inertial mass is a seminal concept in Newton's work. Inertial mass refers to a static concept. A picture. Inertial mass refers to an object's resistance to being pushed and pulled by other objects in the vicinity. In this context we could replace the word 'object' with 'atom' or 'proton'. Then we have to ask ourselves how is it that this object, this atom, resists being pushed or pulled by other objects in the vicinity? The reasonable explanation seems that an atom's resistance originates in all the atoms of the Universe gently nudging that atom from all directions . . . toward them. AS WELL as that sample atom gently nudging on all atoms of the Universe toward it. All the atoms of the Universe are in a constant tension with one another. When an atom assumes a succession of locations all atoms of the Universe gently nudge on it and it gently nudges on all atoms.

When a proton (or H atom) moves in a given direction by the proton's in the vicinity, for example in what we call gravity, the same is tugged in the opposite direction by all other atoms of the Universe. Inertial mass is always in the direction(s) opposite the net effect of gravity. It seems very reasonable to assume that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by some sort of fundamental object that is inherent to the atoms, to the very protons themselves . . . ALL OF THEM.

Newton came very close to this conclusion when he thought that the resistive forces were innate to the object. He uses the expression "innate force possessed by an object" or "innate resistive forces". What he failed to do is explain HOW or WHY these resistive forces are innate to all objects, and in our modern context all atoms. He did not understand the Form of an atom. An atom assumes and derives it's Form from the same object that performs the work of light, gravity and inertia to and from all atoms. We could call this a double helix EM Thread, and there is a grand scope of implications that such an assumption entails. The object that performs the work of light, gravity and inertia to and from all atoms has wholly unique properties (such as the ability to superpose, overlap, or intersect without disturbance up to some critical anomaly or density). These properties are assumed by the atom itself for the atom takes on its Form from the same object. This is one of the reason's why we have seemingly inexplicable anomalies at the quantum scale.

When two objects, say stars, like the Sun and the Earth come close, the number of these double helix thread connections INCREASES, exponentially in effectiveness. A decrease in distance, between the two sample objects in Newton's equation, say Earth and Sun, spontaneously generates a geometric increase in the number of effective thread like EM helices connecting all the atoms of these two objects. The M1 and M2 in Newton's equation represent the number of potential connections. When Earth and Sun are theoretically separated at great distances, beyond the inverse square regime, the nudging between the two is unidirectional and this would perhaps almost be the same between Earth and a star in Andromeda. Ineffective in terms of the concept of gravity, but effective in terms of inertia. When the two stars come close enough, many pairs of atoms are in a sideways tension with one another at various angles. The tension is multi-directional, a sideways tension from multiple locations. Effective. The 'innate resistive forces' are happening at various angles between the two objects considered in the equation and used for explanation. The net effect of local tension (gravity) is as if objects are being pulled straight down toward one another, but in statement in fact in assumption, an astronomical object like Earth or Sun would have effective EM ropes from multiple locations opposite the target object considered. Many pair of atoms between these two objects are in tension with one another at various angles. The closer they are the steeper the angles of many atoms nudging on one another.

We can use this assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an double helix EM thread to make manifest and define inertial mass so that this concept is crisp, clear and used consistently in all physical contexts. For example we could use this definition in context to Einstein's equation. That equation seems to tell us that inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light because we have c squared on the right side of the equation with m. Atoms constantly flickering light signals to and from all atoms via the fundamental physical mediator of light (which connects all atoms) maintains this bi-directional tension necessary to explain inertia. This bi-directional tension maintained by the atom's constant work of light (or radiation) obeys Newton's action-reaction principle. For every radiation the atom performs there is an equal and opposite reaction. From here we could get into Mach's principle.

E on the left side of Einstein's equation refers to an atom's capacity to do the work of light. All E does is calculate an object's capacity to do the work of light, specifically receive and send off light signals. What is interesting is that the more resistance an object has to being pushed or pulled is proportional to that object's capacity to do the work of light. An exponential increase in an object's 'Energy' or capacity to do the work of light seems to imply that that object has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe. So a Caesium atom has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe than a Hydrogen atom.

Matter is an ill-defined concept come out of Greece.

We could define it as the set of objects, or the set of existing objects.

The fundamental unit of matter is the atom, but there also seems to be an object that is more fundamental connecting all atoms and from which all atoms are derived. This is an EM Rope or double helix thread. This object is inseparable to all the base hydrogen atoms (or protons), or in other words the proton assumes its Form or derives its From from this fundamental object.

Object refers to that which has Form

Exist refers to that which has Form and location OR simply that which stands out. Atoms and the fundamental object connecting all atoms exists in spite of the fact that the features of the atom (e.g. proton, electron, neutron) as well as the fundamental object has unique properties, such as the ability to superpose, overlap or intersect to a critical density or critical anomaly which initiates fundamental interactions (such as light, push, pull, etc.).

Mass (Inertial) refers to an an object's resistance to being pushed or pulled by objects in its close vicinity.

Energy refers to an object's capacity to do work (in Einstein's equation the work referred to is distinctly the work of light or radiation)

Does God Have Form?

Does God Have Form?

Yes even God has Form. This would seem obvious but in a world ruled by concepts, it seems that more than ever the conceptual aspect of God is emphasized at the expense of his objecthood. St. Paul clearly teaches that God has Form:

[Christ Jesus] who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,

The word English word 'form' is translated from the Greek word 'morphe'. Morphe unequivocally means form. I do not care how many word games one plays you will never get around the fact that 'morphe' means form. Saint Paul was writing to the Philippians who spoke Greek. We can assume Saint Paul and God who inspired him intended to use the word morphe literally in this context.

Notice how existence and form are two closely related concepts. Notice the wording of Philipians:

who, being in the form of God . . . (YLT) who, existing in the form of God (KJV) . . . who was in the form of God (NAB)

All objects have form and if they exist they certainly have a location. God meets these requirements. God has form. If he did not have this primal quality named form, He would be disqualified from existence.  And God is located in the discrete object known as Heaven. Heaven is detached or set apart from all objects of matter that is the atoms and the fundamental objects that mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms and which all atoms also derive their form from.

Form in this context refers to an intrinsic quality. It does not refer to an extrinsic quality such as appearance, color, etc. Form is a quality that is observer independent. Form is a quality that an object has of itself, independent of other objects or comparative relations. So God has a form independent of anyone in Heaven observing God. And God has a form prior to God creating all the objects in the set called matter.

God is bounded from His immediate surroundings [the definition of form]. He has some type of singular face delineating Him from all other objects. If this were not the case God would be a pantheistic God. When the just are assumed into Heaven they do not spill into God, and God does not spill into them. Rather they are initiated into an immediate relationship with God within a real object called Heaven. They see Him face to face with no go bet-weens. Still God is bound from the environment of Angels and Saints in Heaven. Otherwise how could a face to face relation be possible? The Angels and Saints do not morph into God, and God does not morph into the Angels and Saints or atoms, trees, stars, etc.

Even when the Holy Spirit is sent and resides within a human, he still retains his unique form. He relates intimately to that human form, more so that any two humans can possibly relate but he retains his own form. The Holy Spirit is superposed with the soul and body of a human in sanctifying grace and this is similar to how the fundamental subatomic object behaves. And yet again in spite of this mystical superposition, He, the Spirit still retains his singular form.

God is omnipresent.  He can be present wherever He desires.  However wherever he is located, he still retains his singular Form.  Our imaginations and thoughts are limited when we try to conceive this, yet with God, the impossible is not only possible but normal for Him.  And its not our place to necessarily question this.    

What is the form of God? I don't know. I've never seen Him. God is not of atoms or the fundamental subatomic objects. God has a supernatural form. He is not of the same stuff of Angels or human souls. But these are in his image and likeness. God's Form is a Trinity so it could be described as One Form yet Three Forms. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich described God like a sphere within a sphere within a sphere. So there are Three Divine Forms yet One Divine Form. It is sort of like how all the fundamental subatomic objects converge and superpose to form a single atom. They are many, and yet one.

Does God Refer to Concept?  

Above we explained God has Form.  This clearly written in Sacred Scripture in many places.  Now, how do we reconcile this with other more conceptual descriptions of God for example "God is Love . . . " from the first letter of John.   In a rational and normal world there are two categories which all words may be nested into. They are object and concept.   Object refers to that which has form (e.g. tree, star, atom).  Concept refers to a relation between two or more objects (e.g. love, gravity, mercy, light).  It is impossible for a word to refer to both object and concept.  And yet could God possibly destroy the two categories of language?  Could God refer to both Object and Concept???  Yes, because God is supernatural and suprarational and transcendent and all those wondrous words we us when we do not have an explanation.  

The reason seems that the Trinitarian relations are inherent to God's Form.  The Father, the Son, and the Spirit One Form, and this is linked to what we call Procession or Generation.  The Father is eternally generating the Son; the Father and the Son are eternally generating the Spirit in a single moving relation that is God.  There is a single Form yet each Person is wholly that Form.

Philosophers and theologians talk about these ideas such as God is pure act or in God "being is doing and doing is being."  Is God a noun ... or a verb?   He is both.   In God, Object is Concept and Concept is Object.  In God Form is Relation and Relation is Form.  This defies Mother Nature and all rational discourse.  And so be it.   

Prayer to Fight Temptations of Flesh

Lord, Father and ruler of my life,
May you not abandon me to their plans.
Rescue me from haughty eyes,
and avert all desires from me.
Take far away from me the desires of the body,
and do not allow sexual desires to take a hold of me.
And do not permit an irreverent or senseless mind within me.

Only your power and grace can do this, 

And may it happen.

For the sake of Jesus and of Mary:

Bath me in your purity and cloth me in your white robe of salvation.

Amen.

Critical Thinking and Rational Analysis Tools

* unambiguously define all key terms in your argument so that they can be used consistently in your dissertation. The term is limited and restricted for crisp, clear and consistent use throughout presentation. Adjectives are used to qualify nouns and adverbs to qualify verbs. This avoids the Fallacy of Equivocation. A does not equal A.

* avoid contradictions; avoid Law of Identity, A is A, is contradictory

* learn to identify and associate synonyms not only in definitions but while parsing discourse.

* continually ask yourself the question "who cares?" to avoid irrelevant issues

* avoid Authority Arguments, i.e. do not appeal to authority

* identify prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.

* avoid the Fallacy of Reification: explain why we cannot reify concepts into objects and why we cannot attempt to ascribe motion/actions to concepts.

* skillfully raise relevant questions so as to creatively solve problems.

* When parsing sentences resolve the ontological context of the referent. Which of the two fundamental categories does a word fall into: 1. object or 2. concept? If the referent has shape it is an object. If not it is a concept.

* avoid confusing nouns of syntax with nouns of reality. (Ordinary speech vs. Scientific language).

* do not perform verbs on concepts; do not use concepts to perform verbs

* kill the observer (an expression to be taken in context. It means make observer independent assumptions or be objective)

* avoid limiting your conceptual realm of reasoning by NOT using tautological systems (such as math and logic) that confine your premises by locking them into axioms and cripple your mind. Tautological systems such as math and logic are artificial, and only solve derivational type problems. God and Mother Nature do not care about formal logic, mathematics, physical laws or interpretive laws coming out of Mankind.

* Provide an “explanation” as to WHY an event occurred the way it did; it’s mechanism, who were its mediators, etc.....and not just a petty “description” of what happened. Logic is especially bankrupt in assisting with this formidable task.

*Objects and explanations must be conceivable if not a miracle.

* Rational explanations should be able to be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen as a movie without any missing frames. If it cannot be visualized, then it cannot be understood because it contradicts reality.

* DO NOT convert hypothesis and theory into a facts of the Universal Movie

* Intellectual honesty in a debate requires that you directly quote the statements that you are addressing in your arguments. (do not misrepresent another's position)

* avoid premises and assumptions derived from analogy. Do not infer from analogue assumptions. Rather use analogy to illustrate rational premises and assumptions.

* be critical about your own attempts at criticism. Refutations are rarely final, and more often a prelude to further refinements.

* recognize that assumptions and explanations stand or fall on their own merit.

* marshal sufficient data, observations and evidence for brainstorming before committing to hypothesis, theory and conclusion.

* discard irrational hypotheses and theories

* adapt oneself to reality

* Dispositions: realize human irrationale and error. Have an open-minded outlook. Refuse to think that your desires shape Mother Nature (God and Mother Nature doesn't care about your desires). Be tentative.

* resist the notion that some authority, a great philosopher, theologian or physicist has captured the whole truth.

* be willing and able to follow an explanation to the only conclusion to be had---possible, or not possible.

* think for oneself

* be detached emotionally

* avoid ad hoc hypothesis fallacy: do not add hypothesis to a theory in order to save it from being discarded

* avoid Rationalization: do not make excuses or bellyache

* use adjectives (static concepts) to describe nouns of reality. Adverbs (dynamic concepts) describe verbs (dynamic concepts) performed by nouns of reality. Physics is a study of nouns, adjectives and verbs. Math is a study of adverbs.

* apply Occam's Razor: 'shave away' unnecessary assumptions. The Medieval saying is "plurality should not be posited without necessity". Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

* Identify and associate the fact vs. statement of fact dichotomy:

Fact, true fact, truth: Every minute detail of what actually is, was, happens, or happened irrespective of witnesses or observers; A detailed film clip of an actual event that conceptually includes every frame for that interval of the Cosmic Movie.

Assumption, statement of the facts, scientific fact: A subjective statement from a witness concerning an event or an object. A statement of the facts is either a description of an object or a narrative, an objective listing (usually chronological) of a series of events. A particular interpretation of the evidence or of an observation. (synonyms: an opinion, a lie)

* Physics is the study of causes and objects. Philosophy is the study of reasons and concepts.

An Interpretation of "You are the salt of the Earth . . . "

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot." (Mathew 5:13)

Here is Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's interpretation of this passage:

I saw also that the Apostles were sent over the greater part of the Earth to crush the power of Satan and to scatter benedictions. It was just those regions into which they went that had been most thoroughly infected by the evil one. Jesus, by His perfect atonement, acquired that power against Satan for such as had received or such as would receive His Holy Spirit, and He secured it to them forever. I was given to understand that the power to withdraw various regions of the earth from Satan's dominion by means of a blessing, is signified by the words, "You are the salt of the Earth." For the same reason is salt one of the ingredients of holy water. (from the Complete Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, p. 12)

The Continuity of Mother Nature

Introduction

Below I share this growing list of quotes from the best thinkers of all generations so people can get accustomed to the concept that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a fundamental subatomic object, perhaps a double stranded thread like object or (EM Rope as Gaede calls it). Not only does this object interconnect all atoms, and yet also all atoms derive their form from this object. So this hypothesized object is not a discrete background object. This object has certain singular properties. It is inordinately long, and yet it has the tiniest height and width of all supposed real objects. It has the ability to superpose and intersect without disturbance up to a critical abundance which is met for example when protons and/or neutrons collide. Near the atom there are anomalies where basic interactions happen, and ideas like electron try to explain this.

Imagine a hydrogen atom as a convergence of gazillions of these double stranded threads supplied by all other hydrogen atoms of the Universe. The proton is an intersection of one set of threads of the converging double strands and perhaps the other set of threads emanate out in a double helical mode (electron threads of various lengths). The atom is a double star like pattern of Thread. This Thread underpins all things. An atom, especially a proton is a fullness of this Thread and so an atom is distinct and unequal to that which connects it to all others, and from which it derives its form. The atom constantly reforms itself, adjusts itself, shifts, and assumes two or more locations (i.e. moves) by this Thread. How a single proton retains its form is perhaps impossible to explain, but there is no empty space within the bounds of an atom. Space is just an idea we use to conceive form.

A light event consummates because electron threads superposes with the converging EM Rope. They take control of one another and switch between turning one another in a critically anomalous locations around the nucleus where converging EM Ropes and emanating electron threads superpose in different ratios. This could be basically how the atom signals through the thread to atoms and picks certain frequencies to torque the Thread. In electricity and chemical bonding electron threads could superpose and take control of electron threads from adjacent atoms and vice versa. Or perhaps they could confine each other's electron threads pursuant to the critical abundance of Thread overlapping through which no more thread may temporarily pass. There are also extraneous double stranded threads constantly passing through an atom. These begin and end on other atoms. So for example not only are all the atoms of the Earth connected to all the atoms of the Sun by EM Ropes, but Earth is always passing through EM Ropes connecting the Sun to all the stars. This is similar to a mainstream neutrino or dark matter concepts.

But the idea that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an EM Rope is a lofty fundamental assumption. It will never be able to be experimentally verified, or even logically validated, however it can be reasoned to and almost seems necessary to explain phenomena such as light and gravity, not to mention the form and patterns of the atom. And this basic idea can be used to clearly interpret certain famous equations and so called laws.

Throughout the centuries many physicists and philosophers have flirted with this assumption, but they cowered in figures of speech. Taking on this assumption is a gargantuan task. It forces one to rethink everything you may have thought you knew. Its a lot of fun. And you know what no one has to take it seriously. Who cares?

Quotes

"Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.'" --- (From Notes on Robert Grosseteste's De Luce)

"Bohr and Heisenberg were separated from Schrodinger by basic philosophical convictions and they were unable to reach common ground from which to consider the atom. Each of them accepted and used the same body of experimental evidence, but they could not agree on the conceptual means to embrace the evidence. Schrodinger looked at the natural world and saw continuity, so he was intellectually offended by energy states and quantum jumps." --- (From Hydrogen, the Essential Element)

"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." ---(From "Introductory" in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 10.)

"Nor is it divisible, since it all alike is. Nor is there any more of it here than there, to hinder it from holding together, nor any less of it, but it is all a plenum, full of what-is. Therefore, it is all continuous, for what-is touches what-is. . ." --- (Parmenides, Peri Physis)

"He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy." --- (Basil, Hexemeron, Homily II)

"The sun appears to be poured down, and in all directions indeed it is diffused, yet it is not effused. For this diffusion is extension: Accordingly its rays are called Extensions [aktines] because they are extended [apo tou ekteinesthai]. But one may judge what kind of a thing a ray is, if he looks at the sun's light passing through a narrow opening into a darkened room, for it is extended in a right line, and as it were is divided when it meets with any solid body which stands in the way and intercepts the air beyond; but there the light remains fixed and does not glide or fall off. Such then ought to be the out-pouring and diffusion of the understanding, and it should in no way be an effusion, but an extension, and it should make no violent or impetuous collision with the obstacles which are in its way; nor yet fall down, but be fixed and enlighten that which receives it. For a body will deprive itself of the illumination, if it does not admit it.” --- (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Eight)

“Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”---From Leonardo Da Vinci's notebook

"When we try to pick out anything by itself we find that it is bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe." --- (Jon Muir, 19th Century Naturalist)

"If light takes several years to reach us from a distant star, it is no longer on the star, nor is it on the earth. It must be somewhere, and supported . . . by some material agency." --- (Henri Poincare, Physicist, Engineer, Mathematician)

"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry." ---(Richard Feynaman, The Character of Physical Law)

“A chemical bond acts like a stiff spring connecting nuclei. As a result, the nuclei in a molecule vibrate rather than maintaining fixed positions relative to each other. ” --- (Darrell Ebbing, General Chemistry)

[The] investigator must feel the need of... knowledge of the immediate connections, say, of the masses of the universe. There will hover before him as an ideal insight into the principles of the whole matter, from which accelerated and inertial motions will result in the same way. --- (Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics)

...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies... ---(Einstein, Letter to Ernst Mach)

“ the electromagnetic theory is not based on action at a distance as was Newton’s. Space is thought of as being threaded throughout with electrical and magnetic tensions.” --- (Michael Disney, The Hidden Universe)

“ Somehow, Nature contrives to build a consistent world in which particles and field-oscillations are the same thing! Or, rather, her world consists of some more subtle ingredient, the words ‘particle’ and ‘wave’ conveying but partially appropriate pictures.” --- (Roger Penrose, The emperor’s new mind)

“Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

“most of us [physical scientists] are convinced in our innermost hearts that matter is ultimately of one kind, whatever ideas we may have formed as to the nature of the primordial substance. That opinion is not under discussion.” ---(Arthur Schuster On the Chemical Constitution of the Stars, 1897)

"It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation." (Pope Francis Laudato Si, 2015)

"I saw the interior, the organs of man as if in the flesh, in corporeal, corruptible images of creatures, as well as their relations with one another, from the stars down to the tiniest living thing. All exert an influence on man. He is connected with all of them; he [after the Fall] must act and struggle against them and from them suffer." ---(from the Complete Visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich 1800s)

Popular Expressions by Artists

"At this Mylo tour it is the first tour I have really looked at people in the eye while we’re playing. When we look at each other it’s a great feeling and you might never look at that person in the eyes again in either of your lives. So you have a little connection. I probably get to look at a thousand people a night. Not many people get to do that. I’ve never tried to explain it before . . . its sort of like every time you look at someone in the eyes you put a little thread between you . . ." ---Chris Martin

"All things by immortal power,
Near and far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star."
--- (Francis Thompson, Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913))

And finally Rumi's Poem of the Atoms!

O’ day, arise!
Shine your light, the atoms are dancing
Thanks to him heaven and earth is dancing
overcome with ecstasy,

Free from body and mind
I’ll whisper in your ear where their dance is leading them.
All the atoms in the air and in the desert are dancing,
puzzled and drunken to the ray of light,
they seem insane.

All these atoms are not so different than we are,
happy or miserable,
perplexed and bewildered,
we are all beings in the ray of light from the beloved,
nothing can be said.