If I’m at the magnetic moment, am I positive or negative?

That’s your take on it, and I’m fine with that.
But I don’t have a problem with simultaneously conflicting truths as a possibility because of uncertainties.

If I’m at the magnetic moment, am I positive or negative?

I’m neither. I’m both. I’m either.

Yes, I’m using a physics metaphor. But you see, I see the natural vs supernatural to be an artificial separation.

Let’s go with a concept of the “all pervasive God” concept.

Or better still: panentheism. I think that’s the one.

Returning to Newton: Is the impetus.. or rather inertia in Newton’s formulation an inner motivation or external motivation?

Well, we don’t know.

Do I choose internal? Well, what nature is that internal?

If I hold to a platonic realm, which believers in the Universe is mathematics do, I might consider the internal, intrinsic motivation to be mathematics.

Mathematics as inner motivation, working unseen.

How does this differ from God as inner motivation, working unseen?

Can you see the issue?

We get into this wonky territory here.

Let’s look at logic.

What makes logic so absolutely darned tootin’ good?

Is it a feature of the Universe that always holds as a completely accurate arbitrator of truth?

If so, then logic pervades the Universe?

Or is it a helpful sorting tool?

Mathematics: an all pervasive force or a helpful sorting tool?

Where do you draw a line?

You may set them up as mutually opposing : natural vs supernatural but that’s an artificial construct – a game of logic and wordplay and mutual exclusion.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 × = forty nine

Leave a Reply