Mormonism: technology, astronomy, and physics

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by hyrum

Exaclty, and when Brigham Young mentioned inhabitants of the moon and sun, he did so because it was a popular theory at the time (regarding the moon, at least) and not due to some revelation.

"We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. "

http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_13/JD13-268.html

Brigham Young is remembered for his administration, rather than his revelation.

I don't think you are on very firm ground to say that Mormonism is grounded in the popular theory of its time. In fact, its ideas were quite UNPOPULAR and remain so to this day.

Where do the gnostic ideas in Mormonism come from, for example? To say that Joseph Smith was nothing more than a retreader of other peoples' ideas is woefully ignorant, IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would like you to help me with the math on a six dimensional world and how to view a six dimensional hypercube. Or maybe you could just start with a fourth dimensional hypercube. Try as I might it remains very difficult for this simple mind. Any hints, maestro?

Well, four dimensions are easy. We already live in a 4D world: x, y, z, t.

In terms of the math, higher dimensions are simple. You just add more variables to your governing equation:

f(x,y,z,t) -> f(x,y,z,t,p,r)

However, interpreting what this means (if anything) in the real world is another matter entirely. I have no idea.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I kind quote some of his earlier writings to the contrary. He is a strange duck, but a magnificient physics mind. Here is a man who can barely move, but divorces his long time nurse. What does he hope to accomplish by this?

You can use bits and pieces of all minds to understand our physical world.

I remember reading a Hawking article/book where he stated that some physicists theorize that the universe will eventually stop expanding and then start contracting. And when it does, time may go in reverse. Meaning we will all live our lives again, but in rewind mode! But he added that this theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked at this point.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well, four dimensions are easy. We already live in a 4D world: x, y, z, t.

In terms of the math, higher dimensions are simple. You just add more variables to your governing equation:

f(x,y,z,t) -> f(x,y,z,t,p,r)

However, interpreting what this means (if anything) in the real world is another matter entirely. I have no idea.

You're using the Time aspect, as is typically used, but I'm specifically excluding it, in terms of the hypercube. I speaking in terms of physical dimensions, as in some respects, I consider time an aspect of the third linear and spacial dimension.

Visualizing hypercubes always slowed me down. Of course, I struggle visualizing wave phenomena and electron microscope technology, so it's no wonder.

It is theorized at some point in the dimensional shift that the time aspect actually disappears. I think Thom or one of his acolytes theorized about that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I remember reading a Hawking article/book where he stated that some physicists theorize that the universe will eventually stop expanding and then start contracting. And when it does, time may go in reverse. Meaning we will all live our lives again, but in rewind mode! But he added that this theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked at this point.

He did. What I like about Hawking is can speak to the nonscientist. He can visualize and convey complex subjects in real terms. Not many physicists have that ability.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Brigham Young is remembered for his administration, rather than his revelation.

I don't think you are on very firm ground to say that Mormonism is grounded in the popular theory of its time. In fact, its ideas were quite UNPOPULAR and remain so to this day.

Where do the gnostic ideas in Mormonism come from, for example? To say that Joseph Smith was nothing more than a retreader of other peoples' ideas is woefully ignorant, IMO.

You two are talking about two different things and you're both in as sense right.

Still, given the environment of the second Great Awakening and enthusiasm for antiquity, evident, for example, in the popularity of free masonry, Egyptology, etc. it's hardly out of the question that Joseph Smith could have learned about gnosticism at least third or so hand. As we've seen, Joseph was a magpie when it came to esoteric doctrines. Gibbon's decline and fall of the Roman Empire, for example, details all the old heresies. It was a popular best seller in Joseph Smith's time or shortly before it.

Even so, I think elements of gnosticism arise in a creed possiblty as a natural reaction to the more visible elements of more dominant and traditional Christianity in a time and place of cultural fragmentation and fluidity. If it happened once on the edge of the civilized world it certainly could happen again. Ideas such as God being subject to natural laws and an order that pre-existed God and there being multiple gods in the cosmos are for a Christian sect subversive, but not so far out there that different unassociated groups from different epochs wouldn't think up the same concepts--again, in reaction to the same dominant theology. BTW, gnosticism isn't the only long dead heresy resurrected by Mormonism. Its idea of the godhead resembles that of Arianism, and its formulation of Adam's original sin is close to the old Pelagian heresy. Perhaps Pelagius can enlighten us further on these issues. Mormonism is in a sense a pastiche of dead heresies from late antiquity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

He did. What I like about Hawking is can speak to the nonscientist. He can visualize and convey complex subjects in real terms. Not many physicists have that ability.

He is an excellent writer. Any the irony is that he can explain extremely difficult concepts without resorting to Todd Christiansen language!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're using the Time aspect, as is typically used, but I'm specifically excluding it, in terms of the hypercube. I speaking in terms of physical dimensions, as in some respects, I consider time an aspect of the third linear and spacial dimension.

Visualizing hypercubes always slowed me down. Of course, I struggle visualizing wave phenomena and electron microscope technology, so it's no wonder.

It is theorized at some point in the dimensional shift that the time aspect actually disappears. I think Thom or one of his acolytes theorized about that.

Fair enough. How is this:

f(x,y,z) -> f(x,y,z,p,q,r)

I can't visualize it either. Then again, I am not sure it exists.

[MikeWaters]

the 5th dimension is where "it" resides.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Fair enough. How is this:

f(x,y,z) -> f(x,y,z,p,q,r)

I can't visualize it either. Then again, I am not sure it exists.

What is the cause of your doubt? The fact that math can hypothesize it gives me comfort that it might exist, and it seems reasonable to me, to not so limit the physical world. I have also read about quarks which cause people to believe they might be four dimensional aspects.

I'm NOT certain they exist, but your doubt is interesting to me.

Here is an article on high dimensional spheres.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061014/fob4.asp